Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Virginia. While I was in Florida this weekend, I had a number of people say they had been listening to the debate in which the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from West Virginia had both engaged. They found the quality of the debate to be excellent, and they were looking forward to the continuation of the debate. On grave matters of war and peace, as the Senate is considering this resolution, I add my comments. They are addressed to perhaps one of the gravest things we discuss in a constitutional body such as this. That is, authorizing the sending of Americans into harm's way--moms and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters--into combat. We must determine whether the situation in Iraq threatens the United States sufficiently enough to send Americans into harm's way, and put American lives at risk. I have spoken with many citizens across Florida. I understand the concerns and the reservations many of them have. We must use force only as a last resort. That is what this resolution is about; it is authorizing the use of force. I remain convinced that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq poses a clear and increasing danger to the national security interests of the United States. We must disarm its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. We must halt the development of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, one way or another, those weapons of mass destruction have to be taken out. If it means taking out Saddam Hussein along with them, then so be it. Our hope is that this threat can be dismantled by means less than the use of force, and discussions in the United Nations toward that goal are underway now. But if those efforts in the U.N. are not successful, we cannot sit and do nothing as the danger grows. On a regular basis, Saddam's troops fire on the United States and British aircraft seeking to enforce the no-fly zones created to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south. These no-fly zones exist to keep Saddam contained and to prevent him from acquiring technologies aimed at further enhancing his military capability. At the conclusion of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 set forth the conditions for peace. The cease- fire conditions required Iraq to disarm all weapons of mass destruction, fully declare and disclose all weapons of mass destruction, and not seek to further acquire weapons of mass destruction. That was in 1991--11 years ago. Those terms have been clearly violated by Saddam Hussein. When a country willfully violates cease-fire terms which end war, a state of conflict continues to exist. The regular hostilities endured by coalition pilots in the no-fly zones make that state of conflict even more acute. Saddam Hussein seeks regional hegemony. He seeks control of the oil supply of the Middle East. That is his end game. He wants to control all of those vast reserves so that he can have his fingers in a stranglehold around the industrialized world of planet Earth. He associates with known enemies of the United States. He has paid compensation to suicide bombers aimed at undermining the peace process in the Middle East. And Saddam seeks at every turn to flout international law and the will of the United Nations. His aggressiveness and thirst for war and blood are evident by his own actions and brutality, past and present, against his own people and against his neighbors. It is time now to complete the job that was left undone in 1991 when we failed to completely disarm and remove Saddam. The longer he remains in power, the longer he delays, obfuscates, and lies--all the while he strengthens his arsenal. Weapons of mass destruction must be removed from Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi people need to be liberated from his brutal grip. This is not a fight we can enter alone. We must pursue this cause with as much international support as is possible. The revised resolution makes this clear. Yesterday, I had the privilege of speaking to several hundred at Central Command Headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base along with the Commander in Chief, GEN Tommy Franks. I brought words of a grateful nation to those men and women in uniform, and to all of our coalition partners who are part of this effort in going after the terrorists. That international support is critical to our successful prosecution of the war against terrorism, and that international cooperation is critical as we now approach military hostilities in Iraq. Our European allies are starting to come around. It is very important that our Arab friends in the region do come around. The United States needs the world community to support us in eliminating these threats of weapons of mass destruction. As we consider engaging in a military conflict, we need this international support so as not to hurt our efforts in the war against terrorists in 30-some countries, nor hinder our efforts to try to strike a peace accord in the Middle East. Madam President, the President has asked the Congress to authorize the use of American troops in Iraq for these purposes. He presented his case to the American people last night. As it exists now, the Lieberman resolution clearly has been improved enormously from the draft resolution sent to us several weeks ago by the White House which, in essence, was nothing more than a blank check. Now it requires that the President must certify that diplomatic and other peaceful means will not adequately protect the national security interests of the United States, or that diplomatic and other peaceful means will not lead to the enforcement of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. The President must certify those conditions. It also has language regarding the United States' responsibility in planning for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq--an Iraq that the United States, after Saddam Hussein, had best not abandon, as we did after the Soviets got licked in Afghanistan and tucked their tail between their legs and left--and we left also. That created a vacuum in Afghanistan and allowed the terrorists to fill that vacuum. In the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, we don't want that same thing to occur. The United States must be there for the long run to give military, diplomatic, and economic security assistance to ensure that the Free World's interests are clearly protected in an Iraq after Saddam Hussein. It was good that President Bush addressed the United Nations on September 12, and sought broad-based support from the international community. Secretary Powell will and must continue efforts at getting strong language--strong language--in a United Nations Security Council resolution that clearly spells out the actions Iraq is required to take and the consequences if it fails to do so. Such a resolution would strengthen the U.S. position and help us gain support from our Arab friends in the region. We must keep the focus on Saddam Hussein and the resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction that he has ignored. The Lieberman resolution also requires the President to report regularly to the Congress on ongoing operations in Iraq and the administration's plans, specifically, as I mentioned, for the post- Saddam Hussein Iraq and ensuing reconstruction. All of the additions that have been included in the Lieberman resolution have clearly improved upon the blank check that was sent here early on as a draft from the White House. Having detailed plans in place will be crucial to ensuring that after Saddam Hussein, Iraq does not disintegrate into a permanent source of instability in the Middle East which would pose a serious threat to U.S. national security interests. The current resolution also is improved from earlier drafts because it also makes reference to Navy CAPT Scott Speicher of Jacksonville, FL, the American pilot still missing since the first night of the gulf war when he was shot down over Iraq. Through a series of mistakes, the United States walked away from a downed pilot. We have kept at this, over and over, in the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, and have been talking to world leaders asking them to task their intelligence apparatus for word on Captain Speicher. He is still considered Missing In Action. He was first declared Killed In Action. The Department of Defense changed that to Missing In Action. The Department of Defense is reportedly considering a change in status even from Missing In Action. He is the only American among the thousands who are still unaccounted for at the hands of Saddam Hussein--thousands, I might say, going back to the Iran-Iraq war. I appreciate the fact that the majority leader worked to ensure that the request of Senator Pat Roberts and myself to make reference to Captain Speicher was honored. It is honored in this resolution. It is my hope that our upcoming efforts and actions in Iraq will make progress towards resolving the fate of Captain Speicher. You can just imagine what it is like for that family back in Jacksonville--a family with children that has not heard the fate of their father for the last 11 years. This resolution, in my view, asserts the role of Congress granted by the Constitution and the War Powers Act. We have heard hours of testimony from senior administration officials and outside experts representing many different views on the subject. I have sat through hours of testimony in the two committees I have the privilege of serving on--the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee--that have delved in detail into this subject in preparation for our coming to this floor in this debate. We have heard those hours of testimony in both classified and unclassified form. My office, as well as all of our offices, has received thousands of calls, letters, and e-mails. I have heard those voices. I share those concerns. The threat posed by Iraq grows with each passing day. Since September 11 of a year ago, we can't wait to protect ourselves against the threats of weapons of mass destruction and regimes hostile to the United States with their links to terrorism. We must not leave ourselves exposed to an attack, which, after it comes, we will wish we had acted to prevent. That is why I come to this floor to announce my support of the Lieberman-Warner-McCain-Bayh resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. It is the right thing to do, and it is in the vital national security interests of the United States. I thank the Chair for allowing me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. He told us how he and Senator Nunn were leading our Armed Services Committee 11 years ago as the Nation was preparing for the gulf war and how important it was in Senator Warner's mind that the Record be laid out so a record would be there as to why the Congress should vote to give the President the authority to unleash the military might in Kuwait and going after Iraq. I thank Senator Warner and Senator Levin, the chairman, for how they have laid that predicate, and Senator Biden and Senator Helms, and, in his absence, Senator Lugar, in the Foreign Relations Committee. They laid that predicate with lengthy hearings, and provided access to classified information we have had in those two committees, which helped me to draw the conclusions I have drawn in support of this resolution. So I particularly thank the great Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia for his leadership.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, privacy concerns continues to grow not only in Florida, but throughout the Nation. This past August, the Administration finalized rules which will allow pharmacies and other health care entities to profit from their confidential patient databases by entering marketing agreements with giant health corporations. Under the new rules, a pharmacy can search its database for patients using a specific prescription drug and then turn around and send an unsolicited advertisement on behalf of a drug maker peddling a more expensive alternative drug, even if it's less effective. And to make matters worse, the consumer can't ask the company to stop. Instead of banning this anti-consumer practice, the Administration issued non-binding guidelines asking third parties not to provide financial incentives to doctors or pharmacies in exchange for suggesting certain drugs to patients. While the guidelines are well meaning, this terrible practice won't stop if the government doesn't do more than offer suggestions. We need to pass a law to prohibit this behavior. Today, I'm introducing a bill that allows consumers to decide if they want to receive health advertisements generated as a result of their personal health characteristics. Under my legislation, pharmacies, insurance companies and other health entities would be prohibited from using private, personally identifiable health information to provide marketing services to any entity without providing notice to the consumer about its disclosure practices and obtaining the consumer's express written consent. The legislation makes an exception for treatment communications unless the covered entity receives direct or indirect remuneration from a third party for making the communication. The free flow of information is important when sought by the consumer, but treatment communications tarnished by the marketing dollars of third parties create an inherent conflict of interest by encouraging patients, who don't know their pharmacist has been paid, to purchase high-cost alternative drugs that are not necessarily more effective than those prescribed by their doctor. Unnecessary spending driven by this practice, not only hurts individual consumers, but also the American taxpayer as Medicare and Medicaid costs skyrocket. My goal is to restore control to the consumer, so that they can make a decision to receive, or not receive, these advertisements once they have been informed that their personal information will be used for that purpose and once they understand that the covered entity is being paid to make a particular recommendation. I look forward to working with all interested parties to resolve this problem in a timely manner for consumers and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, privacy concerns continues to grow not only in Florida, but throughout the Nation. This past August, the Administration finalized rules which will allow pharmacies and other health care entities to profit from their confidential patient databases by entering marketing agreements with giant health corporations. Under the new rules, a pharmacy can search its database for patients using a specific prescription drug and then turn around and send an unsolicited advertisement on behalf of a drug maker peddling a more expensive alternative drug, even if it's less effective. And to make matters worse, the consumer can't ask the company to stop. Instead of banning this anti-consumer practice, the Administration issued non-binding guidelines asking third parties not to provide financial incentives to doctors or pharmacies in exchange for suggesting certain drugs to patients. While the guidelines are well meaning, this terrible practice won't stop if the government doesn't do more than offer suggestions. We need to pass a law to prohibit this behavior. Today, I'm introducing a bill that allows consumers to decide if they want to receive health advertisements generated as a result of their personal health characteristics. Under my legislation, pharmacies, insurance companies and other health entities would be prohibited from using private, personally identifiable health information to provide marketing services to any entity without providing notice to the consumer about its disclosure practices and obtaining the consumer's express written consent. The legislation makes an exception for treatment communications unless the covered entity receives direct or indirect remuneration from a third party for making the communication. The free flow of information is important when sought by the consumer, but treatment communications tarnished by the marketing dollars of third parties create an inherent conflict of interest by encouraging patients, who don't know their pharmacist has been paid, to purchase high-cost alternative drugs that are not necessarily more effective than those prescribed by their doctor. Unnecessary spending driven by this practice, not only hurts individual consumers, but also the American taxpayer as Medicare and Medicaid costs skyrocket. My goal is to restore control to the consumer, so that they can make a decision to receive, or not receive, these advertisements once they have been informed that their personal information will be used for that purpose and once they understand that the covered entity is being paid to make a particular recommendation. I look forward to working with all interested parties to resolve this problem in a timely manner for consumers and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution recognizing the teams and players of the Negro Baseball Leagues for their contributions to baseball and the Nation. This important resolution also calls on Major League Baseball to compensate the Negro League players who were left out of the League's 1997 pension plan. For half a century, most of the Negro League players were excluded from the Majors. Even though Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947, it took another decade for Major League Baseball to really become integrated, when in July of 1959, the last Major League team fielded an African American player. During the intervening years, Baseball systemically discriminated against most Negro Leaguers. Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig sought to correct some of the failings of the past when he awarded an annual $10,000 pension benefit to some of the Negro Leaguers, but he left out those who played solely in the Negro Leagues from 1948 to 1960. Major League Baseball contends they were left out because the sport was integrated during that time. But history shows it took the big leagues many years to fully integrate following Jackie Robinson's historic entry into the Majors. The players, who were excluded, still seeking a small retirement, have been reaching out to Commissioner Selig for five long years now, without resolution. Meantime, these ex-players are getting old. Many have passed away. Time is running out to provide them with a small measure of compensation for their time in the Negro Leagues. I joined them last year in trying to find some resolution to this dispute. I hope this concurrent resolution will act as a catalyst to spur action by Major League Baseball to correct this injustice.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, yesterday I had occasion to begin some remarks, thinking I could make them within 10 minutes, with regard to the economy. There were others waiting in line at the end of my 10 minutes. I rise to continue those comments, pointing out that as we discuss these highly important, weighty decisions we have to make about war and peace and about homeland security, the Nation's military strength is undergirded by its moral strength and its economic strength. It is due to the lack of that economic strength, as evidenced in an economy that has been in the tank, as evidenced by so many different indicators--unemployment going up, the stock market going down, the weakness of retail sales, the laying off of people, the poor earnings reports of companies all over America--that it is incumbent upon the Senate to bring its attention not only to the highly important matters of war and peace but that if we are to continue this war against terrorism, and if we are to do something about the developing of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, for us as a Nation to be able to successfully prosecute these wars, we need to have a strengthened economy, a solid foundation in our economy. There are a number of things we can do. Yesterday, I pointed out that we were faced with, about a year and a half ago, the beneficence, the wonderment of a surplus that was projected over the next decade that not only was going to allow us to accommodate a huge tax cut and spending increases on such things as we anticipated then, such as increased defense spending--this was before September 11--there were other high-priority items such as modernizing Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, increased spending to recognize and honor the veterans, the protection of the environment, a much larger investment in education; that we could accommodate not only a major tax cut along with those spending increases, but then we would also be able to save a part of that surplus--particularly the surplus that was generated in the Social Security trust fund--and that the surplus, in effect, over the next decade, was going to be able to pay down the national debt, and thus save us the sum of $250 billion to $280 billion a year that we are paying in interest. But that did not occur. What occurred was that the projections for the surplus over the next 10 years were way too rosy. How many of us stood on this floor and said exactly that--not only this Senator from Florida but the Senator in the chair from New York said we ought to be conservative in our estimates of what this is going to be so we do not overobligate ourselves. We also said that when we enact a tax cut--and we want to--it ought to be a balanced approach so the tax cut doesn't absorb all of the surplus so that you can do these other things. The other things were increasing defense expenditures--and we said that before September 11. How true was that prophetic statement. But it didn't happen that way. Now we are running deficits in this year to the tune of about $150 billion. We have deficits that are projected over the next decade. When you take into consideration that we are now borrowing out of the Social Security trust fund surpluses--something every one of us in the election of 2000 said we were not going to do--we were going to fence off the Social Security trust fund and it wasn't going to be touched. As a result of that, the surpluses were going to pay down the national debt. Well, that did not occur because we were not wise and balanced in our approach to the Federal Government. It is a major contributor right now to the stock market being in the tank, and it doesn't make any difference that the stock market went up 350 points yesterday. The two previous days it went down that much. It is still sort of rocking along below 8,000. What is that? That is a reflection of the lack of American investor confidence in American corporations. Why? In part, it is because the Federal Government has returned to deficit financing on an annual basis--that is, borrowing money to pay expenditures; therefore, it is deficit financing--when we said we had the opportunity to get out of that. I had a little experience in this back in 1981 as a Member of the House of Representatives. I voted for a big tax cut and it took us not once, not twice, but three times to undo that tax cut in order to get the fiscal house in order. I said I was for a big tax cut. I voted for a version on this floor last year to the tune of $1.2 trillion over a decade. But that wasn't what we enacted. What we enacted was $1.35 trillion--which is what it was billed at--but it really wasn't because, when you consider the 10th year that the tax cut was suddenly reverted to the present tax law, it was, in effect, a $2 trillion tax cut, which has usurped all of the available surplus. In my speech yesterday, I pointed out the percentages; the biggest part was taken up by the tax cut. The recession, certainly, was a part of that. The projections were another major factor; they ended up being way too rosy. Our economy at this time is still continuing to be sluggish, and although most analysts remain optimistic that we will pull out of this recession eventually, the path is not rising very fast. I think we ought to be conservative in how we approach this fiscal house to see if we can get it in order. The economic indicators are disturbing. Last week those economic indicators dropped for a third month in a row and Nasdaq hit a 6-year low. Of course, most people know about the Dow Jones--it is really in the tank. Since the beginning of 2001, 2 million jobs have been lost-- the first decline in the number of private sector jobs in half a century. The U.S. poverty rate rose last year for the first time in 8 years. Last year's administration's spending and tax cut plan is part of the reason it has resulted in today's collision course of more deficits, more debt, higher economic insecurity, higher interest rates, lower economic growth, and lower employment. I come back to the floor of the Senate to again say to my colleagues what some of us in the moderate sphere of politics were trying to say last year as we were going through these budgetary discussions--that we ought to use moderation and we ought to use balance and take an approach that ultimately would get the fiscal house in order of stopping the annual deficit spending and fulfilling the promise that we made that the Social Security trust fund surpluses would not be used for other spending but, rather, would be fenced off and left so their surpluses could start paying down the national debt. I appreciate the ongoing dialog about this impending war, but we also need to pay attention to the battles that we are already waging in order to keep a strengthened national economy, to help support the necessary battles that we are fighting in terrorism around the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. May I inquire, since the Senator from Vermont has finished his major address on the economy, is it appropriate and do we have the time at this point to continue the comments from this side of the aisle?

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have already cleared this with the Senator from Wyoming. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes and it be charged against the Democrat's time.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, during the last few weeks, there has been much discussion about whether or not we should expand our war against terrorism to a specific war in Iraq. A lot of us have been on the talk shows and on the news programs. This morning Senator Brownback of Kansas and I were on CNN talking about this very subject. It is expected that we will take up a resolution with regard to a war with Iraq probably later this week. In the midst of this very public discussion, largely neglected have been conversations about a battle we are in the midst of fighting on our own soil--an economic battle against the long-term fiscal stability of our country, an economic battle involving the condition of our budget and our national economy. As we talk about protecting against terrorism and protecting against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, clearly, we have to talk about military strength. But there is also a major component to being militarily strong; that is, to be economically strong. Let's look at our condition. Last year the administration told us we could expect over $5 trillion of surpluses over the next decade. As a member of the Budget Committee, having gone through a similar situation way back in the early 1980s, I warned that that was a risky gamble. I cited the experiences of 1981 when we voted for a huge tax cut. I recalled, as we had this debate over a year ago about the projected surpluses over time, that those surpluses may not materialize. If you give a tax cut that is too large, it is going to throw you back into deficit financing. Indeed, that is what happened in 1981. We had a tax cut that was so huge, we had to undo it--not once, not twice, but three times in the decade of the 1980s. Last year when we were having this debate, I suggested that you just couldn't count on a 10-year forecast, that there was too much risk associated with planning that far in advance. At the time I supported a huge tax cut. I supported one version on an amendment that was up to $1.2 trillion over a decade and one that would give back to our citizens and assist those who were struggling to make ends meet but one that wouldn't break the back of the Federal Government should things not appear quite as rosy as we thought they were going to be, which has been the case. Things didn't turn out anywhere close to the rosy picture that was painted for us a year ago. After passing last year's tax cut, which goes upwards of $2 trillion over a decade, we find that if we adopt over the next decade the administration's, the President's spending and tax policies, we will not see the $5.6 trillion of surpluses, but we will see instead $400 billion of deficits. Some point to congressional spending as the root of this problem. That is simply not accurate. We will experience these deficits using the administration's, the President's, the White House's own proposals for spending and additional tax cuts. This doesn't even take into account the trillions of dollars of Social Security funds that are also going to be spent. The true deficit, not counting Social Security surpluses, is not $400 billion. Over that decade, it is going to be $2.7 trillion. Remember, in the election of 2000 we all said we were not going to touch the surpluses in Social Security; that we were going to leave those alone; that there was going to be a fence off of Social Security surpluses. Then those surpluses would pay off the national debt over a 12-year period. That didn't happen. The Congressional Budget Office tells us nearly $6 trillion of last year's projected surplus is gone. There is nothing left. Now, let's recap where it went. According to CBO, 34 percent of the lost surplus went to last year's tax cuts. Twenty-nine percent of it was lost due to the overestimations of revenue by the administration; that was the rosy picture of what the surpluses were going to be, projecting over 10 years. In other words, lost revenue accounts for 63 percent of the disappearance of last year's surplus. The remainder of the lost surplus went to the war on terrorism-- something we obviously have to finance--or was directly related to the recession. Twenty-two percent of that went to increased spending on national defense, and only 15 percent of the disappearance of the surplus is as a result of the economic downturn. For all of those folks asserting the overspending has eaten through our surplus projects, that is simply not accurate. The two largest reasons for the disappearance of the surplus are tax cuts and the administration's rosy estimates of the revenue. The third biggest reason is what you would expect: Spending on defense. The smallest cause of the disappearance is the economic downturn. The fact is, the surplus is gone. We are back up to our eyeballs in national debt. Last year, the administration said the debt held by the public would be virtually eliminated. Last year, the administration said the debt would be eliminated by 2008. It didn't happen that way. Now we are in the middle of deficit financing. Instead of having no debt, we are going to be stuck over that decade with $3.8 trillion of debt, and the consequences of this enormously increased debt are that the interest cost to the Federal Government will have tripled from $620 billion over the decade to $1.9 trillion. That is going to have real consequences in our national economy. Why do you think the stock market is going in the tank, it is right now? Every day it is losing. It is down in the 7,000 range on the Dow Jones. It is not just because of the threatened war on Iraq. That is one element of it. But it is a fact that the Federal Government has now gone back into its old ways of deficit financing; that is, borrowing money to pay present bills every year, projected over this decade to the point that we said we were not going to do it. We must pay attention to our bottom line and to the economic security and the fundamental financial strength of America. That is what gives texture and vibrancy for us as a Nation that needs to be militarily strong, as well as morally strong. We need that undergirding of economic strength. With deficits projected the rest of the decade, we are going to be digging a deeper national debt hole. And when is that going to occur? Lo and behold, it is going to occur just at the time that all of the baby boomers are going to retire and our cashflow situation is going to get worse. We are living right now on the positive cashflow out of the Medicare and the Social Security trust funds. But by the year 2016, those trust funds go from cash positive to cash negative, and they do it in a very big way. We cannot afford to continue to cut receipts in the hope that doing so will somehow miraculously turn into more revenues. We have to begin to think more realistically before our overly rosy optimism financially paralyzes our Federal Government. At the same time, our economy is continuing to be sluggish. Although most analysts remain optimistic that we will pull out of this recession eventually, the path is not rising very fast, if it is rising at all. The economic indicators are disturbing: Last week, leading economic indicators dropped for the third month in a row, and Nasdaq hit a 6-year low. The Dow Jones is down 1,200 points since August 22. Oil prices just recently spiked to a 19-month high, and consumer confidence is at its lowest since November 2001. Since the beginning of 2001, 2 million jobs have been lost, the first decline in the number of private sector jobs in 50 years. The U.S. poverty rate rose last year for the first time in 8 years. 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. All of this is occurring right under our noses. Yet I do not believe that the administration is paying attention. I appreciate the ongoing dialog about a potentially impending war in the Middle East--but we also need to pay attention to the battles that we are already waging. We must do something to reinvigorate the economy. We must pay attention to our Government bottom line. We must not continue to raise the debt for our grandchildren to later pay off.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the passing of a truly exceptional friend and athlete, Mr. Bob Hayes. On September 18, 2002, the State of Florida and the world lost a trailblazing athlete who broke records on the track field and set the standard for speed and agility in the National Football League. Bob was a native of Jacksonville, where he attended Gilbert High School. While at Gilbert High, Bob displayed his athletic talents on the football and baseball fields, and on the basketball court. The honors he won in these athletic pursuits afforded him the opportunity to attend Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University on scholarship, where he played half-back and returned kicks for legendary coach Jake Gaither. In his illustrious career as a FAMU Rattler, he led the team in kick-off returns, held the team's touchdown record in 1963, and averaged over 26 yards per punt return in 1962 and 1963. In his senior season, Bob became the first African-American to play in the Senior, North-South, Bowl, a game in which he caught a touchdown pass from former NFL-great Joe Namath and was also named the South's Most Valuable Player. Bob was also a premier track star. In his junior year at Florida A&M, Bob competed in the Tokyo Olympic Games. He earned the title ``World's Fastest Human'' for record-breaking performances in which he won the 100 meters in a world-record time of 10.5 seconds and anchored the 400- meter relay, finishing in 39.0 seconds. Both performances earned him Olympic Gold medals. His performance in the 400-meter is widely regarded as the greatest relay leg in track history. In 1963, the Dallas Cowboys drafted Bob in the seventh round as a receiver. As a rookie, Bob had 46 catches for 1,003 yards and 12 touchdowns. Several past NFL players, including Roger Staubach and Calvin Hill, have commented on how Bob's speed and agility forced the NFL to begin to design defenses to counter his phenomenal plays. Indeed, Bob established the standard, in terms of speed and quickness, which present players now emulate. Bob spent 10 years in Dallas, where he was part of two Super Bowl teams. At the end of his career, Bob had 371 catches for 7,414 yards and 71 touchdowns, still a Cowboys receiving record. At his death, Bob remains the only athlete to have won a Super Bowl ring and Olympic Gold Medals. His amazing achievements on both the football and track field truly give meaning to his nickname-"The Bullet''. He is enshrined in the USA Track and Field Hall of Fame and similar Halls of Fame in Florida, Texas and at Florida A&M. In September 2001, Bob was inducted as the 11th member of the Cowboys' Ring of Honor at Texas Stadium. Bob's achievements stand as a testament to hard work, dedication and perseverance. In his later years, he sought to pass these ideals on to aspiring high school track stars through the Bob Hayes Invitational Track and Field Meet. Truly, it can be said that he touched many lives and inspired future generations of athletes. While it is with great sadness that I mark his passing, I am happy to recognize Bob's legacy for the great State of Florida and the entire world.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have had the pleasure of describing some of my concerns with regard to the possible invasion of Iraq and also the knitting together of the most massive reorganization of the Federal Government over the last half century and the creation of a new Department of Homeland Defense. This is a massive undertaking. It involves some 170,000 people. It involves scores of agencies, with an annual $38 billion budget. Implied in my remarks is the urging of caution as we approach the creation of this agency. One of the items to be discussed in the Senate at a future time will be an amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia to take a cautious and deliberative approach in knitting together this massive agency. The directorates would be set up under the legislation right away, but their implementation would occur over the course of 13 months. It would be done on a phased-in basis, in which the Congress would be consulted as it is phased in, where there would be time to make sure in the example that I have given earlier about the Coast Guard functions other than the homeland security function that, in fact, the Coast Guard would not be deterred from its multiple service roles. It is a wise approach the Senator from West Virginia has brought to the table in slowing down the process. I hope our colleagues will see the wisdom of protecting the separation of powers as provided in the Constitution, and the wisdom of us being sure that instead of their being such a mass of confusion in a reorganization all at once, that it would be done in a deliberative and phased-in approach.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the President pro tempore for the recognition, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia, who just delivered a very insightful statement of why the Constitution must be protected and not shredded, why the Constitution must be adhered to in a protection of the carefully constructed separation of powers which gives us the checks and balances that have allowed this Government to endure for well over two centuries, to be the strong Government it is because, as a great British statesman once said: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the 1780s, when those political geniuses gathered to construct a document upon which this new Nation could be based and the delicate checks and balances were entered, as well as the spirit of compromise in that Constitutional Convention, they set off one branch of Government from the other. Thus, as we come to this very serious determination of what to do in Iraq, we have to be mindful of the Constitution and its separation of powers. Clearly, the Constitution gives that awesome and very weighty responsibility of declaring war to the legislative branch of Government. There was a reason for that: So that no Executive would go off on a whim or on ill advice and start war but, rather, that the representatives of the people in this body and the body at the other end of the U.S. Capitol would be involved in that decisionmaking and, in fact, would make that decision and then reflect the will of the people. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for a very cogent and timely statement. There is trouble in the Middle East and central Asia. I have been to Afghanistan twice since the first of the year. I have been to Pakistan twice. I have been to India. I have been in the middle of that situation, urging the leaders of India and Pakistan to reduce the tensions on the Kashmir border because the last thing the world needs is an exchange of nuclear weapons. Particularly, that would hurt us because both of those countries are helping us in our war against terrorism. I have been to the Middle East, and that is a troubled part of the world. As we approach this most momentous and solemn occasion about whether or not, in effect, to declare war by giving the President of the United States the authority for the expenditure of funds to conduct such a war, we must be mindful, and the questions must be answered: What will a war in Iraq do to our war against terrorism? Will it be hurt? Will it be helped? Will our war against terrorism be set aside? Will our attempt to cut off the head of the snake that operates the al- Qaida machine be deterred in any way? What will happen to the flow of oil out of that region of the world to the industrialized world? What is the number of troops that is going to be required? How likely are the casualties, and how many American lives can we expect to lose. How many troops are we going to have to hold in reserve? Fighting door to door in downtown Baghdad is going to be a different kind of war, and I do not think we can go into Iraq assuming that the opposition is suddenly going to melt away and that the army is going to step forth and suddenly lay down its arms. I personally believe that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, and I personally think he is trying to develop nuclear weapons. If he, in fact, has chemical and biological weapons, will our troops be prepared if those weapons of mass destruction are utilized against our troops or utilized against any of the neighbors in the region? Are we going to be able to approach a war in Iraq with our allies solidly behind us? There is an election going on right now in Germany, and that certainly does not seem to be the political talk in Germany. Germany is one of our closest allies. There is also an election going on right now in Turkey, our very substantial ally. That election is in November. With the talk of war, with the imminent possibility of war, how much of a possibility is there that the election would throw to a religious party the opportunity to govern Turkey instead of the secular government that has given such stability, particularly military stability, in that part of the world? Then the question arises, which I had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of Defense yesterday in the Armed Services Committee, what about after there has been the regime change? Is it going to be a regime that would be friendly to the United States? Would Iraq be kept intact, or would it be ripped asunder?--I might say, to the chagrin of our ally Turkey. What is the plan for the United States to be involved for the long term in Iraq, militarily and economically? We saw that in the phenomenal military success we had in Afghanistan--mostly success; some not so successful, such as Tora Bora. We saw that in the midst of all of that success, in a much different situation, the hard reality, after the fact, that the United States is going to need to be a military and economic presence in Afghanistan for a very long time. Otherwise, if we leave, it will be like when we left in the late 1980s. After the Soviets got whipped, they tucked their tail between their legs and left, and we, assisting the victors, also left; it created a vacuum, and that vacuum was filled by the terrorists. So in any post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, it is going to take a lot of effort and time and resources by the United States, and I want to see the administration spell that out clearly, as the Secretary of Defense started to do yesterday in response to my question. There is a lot of detail to be filled in. It brings us to another question. We have in front of the Senate this question of homeland defense, and there is not one of us in this Chamber who does not want to have a reorganization of the Government so one hand knows better what the other hand is doing, so one hand knows better how we can coordinate, and a reorganization of the Government can achieve that. In the process, let's not overdo ourselves where we take away worker protections, where we strip apart agencies such as the Coast Guard, which is a necessary part of the homeland defense. The Coast Guard has a lot of other duties to perform. Particularly, if one comes from a State such as mine that has such tremendous coastline, the Coast Guard performs innumerable functions not only of search and rescue but of drug interdiction, and of course their duties have been heightened so much now on port security. So, as we approach homeland defense, we have a great number of decisions to make about which we had better be cautious. Otherwise, going back to my initial comments of commendation for the Senator from West Virginia and his comments about Iraq and concern about the Constitution being shredded with regard to an invasion of Iraq, so, too, we have concerns about the Constitution not being obeyed by the Congress performing its appropriate legislative role as a check and a balance, as an overseer, as an appropriator of the funds, for this new Department that is to be created. I offer these comments today, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his very insightful comments. It is always a pleasure to listen and to learn from the Senator from West Virginia. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Certainly.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, before the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee leaves the floor, I want to call to his attention, which I did a few minutes ago to his colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, that, lo and behold, there are problems with the voting equipment in Florida today during the primary elections. It underscores the fact there is a need for this Congress to enact an election reform package. In the Senate, we have passed a substantial bill which is a much different version than has been passed by the other body, the House of Representatives. And the conference committee has been unable to come to terms of agreement. If it can happen in Florida, almost 2 years after the awful experience that the Nation went through in disputed ballots in the general election of November 2000, it can happen anywhere. It was a circumstance which riveted the attention of not only the Nation but the world with ballots that were confusing--ballots that were miscounted because it was difficult to determine the intent of the voter. In fact, the Florida legislature had responded by providing appropriations so that the various counties, through their supervisors of elections, could modernize and update voting equipment, as well as procedures and providing voter education. All of that has been in place in the State of Florida, where all of our citizens are so highly sensitive to the fact that their vote might not be counted, as happened in the experience 2 years ago. If it can happen in Florida today, as it literally has on primary election night, then how much more likely will it happen in other States? And how much more do we have to make the case that it is so important for us to get resolution of the differences and come to agreement in an election reform bill for the country as a whole? That clearly is a matter that is relevant to the moment. As a result of the discrepancies that have happened earlier today in Florida, the Governor has extended the deadline for voting in Florida from 8 o'clock Eastern time to 10 o'clock this evening. So the results of the primary elections will be coming in quite late. Yet it bears to be underscored this is another reason we need to pass the election reform bill.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while our troops have had enormous success abroad, the war on terror, obviously, is not over. We are just beginning. We must do everything we can to prevent future attacks on the homeland. Tomorrow is going to commemorate that awful experience. My attention over the weekend was riveted to an article in one of the country's major newspapers that reported on a debriefing of one of the al-Qaeda detainees who had indicated that the fourth airplane, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, had as its target the U.S. Capitol. How many of us on that day were working in the U.S. Capitol? I was in a meeting on the west front of the Capitol, only 30 paces from where I am now standing in the Chamber of the Senate. It was a meeting attended by about 15, chaired by the majority leader. We had already seen the television images of the World Trade Center, but we continued our meeting. Someone burst in the door and said: ``The Pentagon has been hit.'' We leapt to the windows overlooking the west front of the Capitol, overlooking the mall in the direction of the Pentagon, and saw the black smoke rising on the other side of the Potomac. Interestingly, my immediate reaction was to leap to a telephone to try to get word to my wife, Grace. Only 5 days earlier, we had moved into an apartment overlooking the southwest corner of the Pentagon. My message to her was--and we didn't even have a telephone in the apartment, since we had just moved in--to get into the basement garage because, of course, I didn't know what was happening on that side of the Potomac. In the meantime, Grace Nelson is getting dressed in the apartment. She hears the airplane. She said it sounded so loud, as if it was going to hit the apartment. And the line of flight was very close to the apartment. She heard the impact. She ran to the window and saw the whole thing. When she saw the people streaming out of the Pentagon, her immediate response, which is the great patriotic instinct of my wife, was: What can I do to go down and help those people? That, of course, was a riveting experience, like any that you have had in your adult life. I was in college at the time of the assassination of President Kennedy. I can tell you exactly where I was when we received the word. So, too, on any other tragic event, such as the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger. And so, too, Americans will remember exactly what they were doing and where they were at the time of receiving the news that the Nation was under attack a year ago. This war is going to be a long one, and it is going to be very difficult because it is a new kind of war. We don't have the luxury we have had for two centuries of two big oceans protecting us from our enemies, for now the enemies have figured out a way to infiltrate within. Of course, all of the U.S. interests and assets around the world, including our ambassadors, are targets we have to protect. It is appropriate that this legislation is being considered at this time. What do we have to do to help protect future attacks on U.S. soil? Clearly, there was a colossal intelligence failure on September 11. That is primarily what we need to address. The inexcusable bureaucratic inefficiencies and inability of one hand of the bureaucracy to know what the other hand was doing, all of that has to be ironed out. In the briefings that we have had, I have some degree of confidence that it is being ironed out. It better be. We have no choice. For the only way to thwart the terrorists is to find out what they are going to do before they do it and stop them. Combining this new threat also requires a more agile government. What we are about to do is undertake the largest governmental reorganization in the last five decades. This new department will combine 22 agencies, 170,000 people, with an annual budget of $38 billion. But considering the seriousness of the threat and the scope of the restructuring, I must say that I am surprised by the administration's demands that this new Department of Homeland Security be run with minimal accountability to the American people, which includes accountability to this Congress. There is something that we all swore to uphold when we took office: the Constitution of the United States. The political geniuses who gathered over 225 years ago fashioned a document that had checks and balances so that power could not be concentrated in any one branch of the Government. So as we start to create this new, vast reorganization of the executive branch, we have to make it accountable to the American people by having it accountable to the Congress, with our oversight functions, with our appropriations functions, with our authorization functions, with all that has served this Nation so well since the beginning of our constitutional government in 1789. I am concerned and a little bit surprised that the administration demands that they have it their way without the accountability, which is the checks and balances of the Constitution, necessary to the functioning of our constitutional government. Many of us on both sides of the aisle believe this is an issue of great importance, involving such a massive reorganization of the Government that we must ensure that there are checks and balances. The American people deserve to know how this new department will be managed and how the resources allocated to the war on terror are going to be used. Transparency is essential to ensure that this new department is working. I am not sure that is the message that has come from the administration. It is going to be up to us, particularly those of us who feel so strongly about this. We have heard a number of people talk about the great leadership of Senator Lieberman, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and, clearly, the man who not only believes daily and recites daily the U.S. Constitution but carries that Constitution with him wherever he goes, a man who has been in Congress for over 50 years, Senator Byrd, who has expressed his concerns. And there will be more, including mine that I am registering today. I am afraid that the administration's bill--which, in essence, is the House of Representatives-passed bill--fails to adequately protect the nonhomeland mission of the Coast Guard. Think of that. The Coast Guard overseas a number of important maritime missions, which save countless lives each year, including search-and-rescue operations, Marine safety, and recreational boating safety initiatives. Am I sensitive to this? You bet. Look how much coastline Florida has. I have not actually measured it against the California coastline, but I suspect ours is greater if not equal to the California coastline. So is the search-and-rescue operation, Marine safety, recreational boating safety--a non-homeland-defense mission of the Coast Guard-- important? Of course, but so is the Coast Guard's mission on law enforcement, which includes drug interdiction, and alien migrant interdiction, and general maritime law enforcement. Would it not be nice if we in Florida were not sensitive, as we are, to drug interdiction and to alien migrant interdiction? Waves of people try to come to Florida's shores illegally--some with just cause, but of which the Coast Guard plays a very important role. As resources are transferred to the war on terror, we should not forget about protecting people from the nonterrorist threats that can be harmful to our communities. The final plan to transfer the Coast Guard to a new Department must ensure, in my judgment, that law enforcement safety and transportation missions are not unreasonably compromised. That is why I think we have to adopt the Senate language and protect it then in the conference committee--ironing out the differences between the Senate and House versions. In addition--and very importantly--the administration's language in the House bill completely undermines workers' rights. Guaranteeing the basic civil service rights of people hired to keep us safe does not and will not jeopardize national security. What are we trying to protect? We are trying to protect the civil service of this Federal Government from being politicized, which is the reason why the Hatch Act was passed years ago, decades ago, saying that there was going to be a barrier put up so that any administration, after the Hatch Act, was not going to be able to use the Federal bureaucracy for their political ends; thus, the Hatch Act was enacted. What the administration's language does is take away those worker rights, those basic civil service rights, and that is not healthy, because it has been healthy, as we have seen how the Federal bureaucracy operates under those protections in the Hatch Act. The House bill would grant the President a blank check to take away the civil service protections of nearly 170,000 employees of the new agency. I don't think that is in the interest of the country. That is not going to affect the national security. The vague authority granted to the President would exempt employees from traditional labor laws if he determined, without any explanation, that the workers' rights somehow adversely affect the Department's homeland security mission. That is not right for the workers of the new agency, and it is not right for the country. Finally, the administration bill hangs consumers out to dry by limiting the liability of firms providing new antiterrorism technologies and devices because damages caused by untested technologies that fail to work would be restricted even in cases of gross negligence in the manufacture of those new technologies and equipment and apparatuses. This limited liability provision gives carte blanche then to fly-by-night companies looking to profit from 9/11 by selling products that, at best, do nothing and, at worst, could cause direct harm. I don't think we want to hang those consumers out to dry-- indeed, much more than that, we don't want to harm those consumers. As the clock ticks, the time becomes increasingly somber as we reflect back on what we were doing 365 days ago, what happened to us personally, and how we have changed not only as a nation but individually. I think it is important for us to look at the big picture and that as we fashion a bureaucratic response that is more flexible to protect our homeland, we do so in a wise and cautious fashion. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if the Senator from Texas would be amenable, while we are waiting for Senators, I have remarks with regard to another matter. It is my understanding that we are in morning business. I can accommodate you all in whatever way you would like. Senators could insert their remarks in the Record after the fact.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator has said it very well, and Social Security is a social safety net. The retirees, the senior citizens of this country, should know that it is a defined benefit that is going to be there when they need it and it is not subject to the roulette wheel, as the Senator has suggested, in the case that the stock market is suddenly in a downward trend. So, too, the State retirement system of the State of Florida was a defined benefit in the past, when the two of us had the opportunity of being part of the governing body of the board of trustees, and it gave confidence because there was a defined benefit. So there is an exact parallel between what we have seen in the State of Florida and what we want to talk about tonight, which is President Bush wanting to privatize a part of Social Security and transfer a trillion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund over to private individual accounts that the individual would then invest in the stock market. That sounded like a good idea to a lot of people when the stock market was going up, but now that the stock market is going down, it is beyond me that the President is still insisting, as recently as last week, that he have Social Security privatized. That is what I wanted to talk about tonight, and I am so delighted I came to the Chamber before my colleague from Florida left so that he could engage in this colloquy and dialogue with me. I thank him for that.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It certainly is--the same system that has been in place in Florida for years, the system over which the senior Senator from Florida presided as Governor, and therefore the chairman of the State Board of Administration that oversaw the State retirement system, and when I had the pleasure years later, as the elected State treasurer, of being one of the three trustees of the State pension fund.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. With pleasure.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, tonight I want to discuss another subject which is near and dear to our hearts, particularly the two of us coming from Florida, on the attempts to privatize Social Security. In fact, it even comes down to the fact that in the State of Florida, the pension program for Florida retirees was changed within the last 2 years by the legislature of Florida to basically allow a privatized element, other than a defined benefit element for all Florida's 600,000 retirees. It sounded awfully good while the stock market was doing so well, but now in the last few months, the stock market has not been doing well. Lo and behold, would you believe that out of 600,000 retirees in Florida on the Florida retirement system, the State pension, only 3,000 retirees out of 600,000 have signed up for the privatized retirement plan. That should give us a clue as to why we should not be privatizing Social Security. I do not want to hold my colleague on the floor, but before he left the floor, I wanted to share that with him as I get into my comments on Social Security.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is exactly right. It was a defined benefit. Every retiree did not have to worry about the vicissitudes of the stock market and part of their retirement suddenly disappearing overnight.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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