Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wanted to ask this of my friend from Connecticut, who I think has variously served in so many different role models to the Senate, variously described as the Senator who is the conscience of the Senate, certainly as a former attorney general of his State, someone who understands the legal ramifications of arguments such as this. In my earlier comments today, I had said that I thought there was in law, and the development of law, and the development of the Constitution, which you and I both quoted from, the Declaration, a clear distinction, as the distinguished Senator has noted, of the freedom of religion. And that part of that body of law that would make up that freedom, that religious freedom, would be a freedom to worship as one would want, if at all, and that that is a right we jealously protect, just as we protect the other freedoms--freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and so forth--and that when you look at this freedom, there is a distinct difference, as the case law has developed, of the separation of church and state which would embody that idea that we don't cram religion down anybody's throat, that we leave it up to them individually to express their own beliefs, if they want to at all, and to believe as they want to, if at all. That is the concept of separation of church and state, as distinguished from there not being necessarily a separation of the state and of God. Quite to the contrary, on these historical documents, as I pointed out in that statement above the center door, in the fact that we elevate the Chaplain in the opening prayer, in the very formal and dignified opening ceremonies of the Senate, that the Chaplain is elevated on the top level and the Presiding Officer, while the Chaplain offers the prayer, is on a lower level, the fact that we have minted in our coins, ``In God we trust.'' I would ask the distinguished Senator from the great State of Connecticut if he would share with us his commentary about that separation of those two concepts.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator further yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would hope also, as he has accurately outlined the legal course of appeal, that there would be a rush to the judicial chambers to stay that ruling, as it applies to the Ninth Circuit, because under existing law that would mean people could not pledge allegiance anywhere in that circuit, which includes the great State of California, and others in the immediate vicinity. I would certainly hope there would be a stay of that ruling until it would come up to the U.S. Supreme Court so that they could render their decision. Then, as the Senator says, God forbid that they should rule that it were constitutional; then we could start our process here of adding to the Constitution that would allow that. I just want to associate my thoughts with those articulated so eloquently by the Senator from Connecticut, who comes from a different faith perspective than mine but with whom we are joined in the historical development of this Nation to which, as he pointed out, so many people fled from a country of established religion, and, indeed, even documented in the Mayflower Compact, and then memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, that there was something different about this country. It was not going to have a state-sponsored religion; rather, it was going to be an enclave, an oasis, a place to which people of all faiths could come, and those with no faith, and within the protection of the laws they could believe and express their beliefs as they so chose. As a result, we have this wonderful, and sometimes messy, experience of democracy. Sometimes we make mistakes, but we have the ability under this document to correct those mistakes, because of all the checks and balances that are inherent within this document. So I appreciate very much the Senator's comments. They will mean a lot to the rest of us.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Senator Roberts and I come to the floor to offer this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham of Florida be added as a cosponsor. I believe Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire is already a cosponsor. If he is not, I ask unanimous consent he be added as a cosponsor as well.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we walked away from a downed flier. There were a series of mistakes that occurred. Senator Roberts can give you the detail of that. But the fact is, CDR Scott Speicher, who, by the way, our Armed Services Committee and this Senate has now promoted to Captain, was the first U.S. serviceman shot down in the gulf war. Then there was a series of incredible mistakes. For example, his buddies flying with him gave the proper coordinates, but when the coordinates were transmitted for our surveillance assets to look, the numbers were transposed so they didn't look in the right place. Through one thing and another, suddenly a press conference is held in Washington with the then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, and the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Colin Powell. Out of that press conference came the statement that Commander Speicher was dead. In fact, we have since learned that through this series of mistakes we never looked in the right place. Testimony was convoluted. Then, lo and be hold, years later comes forth an eye witness account that someone actually drove him to a hospital. Through several corroborations, that testimony was determined to be true. So, what we want to do, as Senator Roberts has done so eloquently and so courageously over the years, is keep this matter alive and find out what happened and where is CDR Scott Speicher, and is he living? And, if he is not, then to have proof. Because what we have back in Jacksonville, FL, is a family wanting to know what is the fate of their loved one. That is the very least the U.S. Government can do. So the question now comes up about what we are going to do in Iraq. That is something that Senator Roberts and I do not know. But we do know that there is the question of a delegation going to Iraq. Should it be a low level delegation or a high level delegation? What we want are some answers. I have taken every opportunity--where I have been in a place that I sensed was the right place at the right time--to talk about Commander, now CAPT Scott Speicher and the need of us to press the issue, to find out from Iraq about his status. I talked to the young President of Syria in Damascus about him and asked him to use his intelligence apparatus to help us. I talked to the King of Jordan. I have talked to the Secretary of Defense and the Assistant Secretary of Defense. I have talked to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of State. When there was someone to talk to, I tried to bring the loss and possible abandonment of Navy fighter pilot CAPT Scott Speicher to their attention. With that introduction, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Roberts has finished his statement, I be allowed to conclude my statement. We would like for him to share with our colleagues what has transpired over the past several years. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to finish my statement after Senator Roberts.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks to Senator Roberts, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, for his perseverance and for his dedication. I am glad that Senator Smith has come to the Chamber so we can hear from him and his perspective, as he has been one of the leaders over the years in calling this matter to the attention of the American people. As I said earlier, I have spoken with a number of world leaders, including the Prime Minister of Lebanon, asking them to task their intelligence apparatus to see if they can get any kind of information about Scott Speicher. And while intelligence is central to the potential for our success in resolving his fate, it is not the only aspect of this situation that certainly merits the congressional attention that we are trying to give it right now. This amendment that is offered by me, Senator Roberts, Senator Smith, Senator Graham of Florida, as well as the majority leader, Senator Daschle--and his name should be on the amendment. If it is not, I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are going to wind up the debate on our amendment having to do with Scott Speicher, but since the distinguished Senator has told me of two events, I want to comment. First, the Senator from New Hampshire told me that certain bureaucrats label him a troublemaker. If that is the case, I like that kind of troublemaker. Second, the Senator from New Hampshire referred to a recent decision by a Federal district court of appeals, of which I was not aware, to take the words ``under God'' out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I have faith in our judicial system. Senator Byrd, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, reminds all of us to carry around a copy of the Constitution and a copy of the Declaration of Independence. I remind my colleagues the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence has these immortal words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Whether it be the judicial system that would correct a decision by a court of appeals which absolutely stuns me or whether it would be the checks and balances found in this Constitution of the United States, to which constitutional amendments can be initiated by this body, then I have the confidence to know that the constitutional system will work under this time-tested document. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing that to our attention. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the Scott Speicher amendment. I ask the Presiding Officer to put the question.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. This amendment sets in place a firm schedule of updates on actions taken by the Departments of Defense and State as well as the Central Intelligence Agency. It sets a firm schedule of reports to determine the fate of Captain Speicher; a schedule of accountability, if you will, that puts the department squarely and clearly within the view of Congress and America so that we can take the measure of their efforts and their progress. And they must make progress. In American military philosophy, no one is left behind on the battlefield. That is particularly the creed among pilots. If a pilot goes down, you know that there is a rescue team coming in to get you. Our effort today, through this amendment, is to encourage those whose responsibility it is in government to find our missing and to leave no effort unturned in the search for Captain Speicher. To that end, this amendment requires regular updates to the Congress on contacts with the Government of Iraq, on contacts with foreign governments and intelligence services, and on current leads in the case, and efforts to coordinate with groups such as the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We expect to see action and progress in these reports. We expect to shake loose any bureaucratic inaction that has slowed the search until now. I spoke as recently as 2 hours ago with the Deputy Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of Defense on this matter. As a nation, we have come a long way in living up to our philosophy over the years of not leaving anyone downed behind. There are nearly 79,000 Americans still missing from World War II. There are almost 8,000 missing from Korea. There are fewer than 2,000 still missing from Vietnam. Slowly but surely, we have reduced these numbers as the new information, the new evidence on the remains of those missing is recovered from around the world. Scott Speicher is the only American missing from the gulf war. Over 11 years after, his fate still remains unknown. The horrors of war and the frailty of the human body make it impossible to guarantee that we know with certainty the fate of every American who may be lost in battle. Nonetheless, Americans must have the confidence that the sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters, the fathers and mothers we send into harm's way will find their way home, even if it is only to their final honored resting place. We owe this to those who go and those they leave behind. I am confident some day we will know what happened to Scott Speicher. I hope it is soon. I pray that he will return to us safe and sound, alive. In the meantime, we must watch this effort closely and pray that resolution will bring peace to the shipmates and the Navy squadron and the family of CAPT Scott Speicher. I thank the Senate for what they will do in a few minutes, which is adopt this amendment. I look forward to the comments of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send to the desk, amendment No. 3952, and ask for its immediate consideration. My understanding is the clerk will give it another number, so I simply send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is a great privilege for me to serve on the Armed Services Committee with the distinguished Senator from Georgia, who, as head of the Personnel Subcommittee, has just laid out all of the strengths of this particular piece of legislation with regard to the personnel of our Armed Services. We all can be so proud of our men and women in uniform. I have been to Afghanistan twice since the first of the year--the first congressional delegation to go into Afghanistan after September 11. In fact, they would not even take us in in the daylight. We went in under cover of darkness, lights out, no runway lights, all landing with night vision equipment because of the security for nine Senators on that trip. What I encountered was not only the harsh reality of the climate-- that bitter cold--but our first instructions were, when getting off the airplane: Don't dare step off the tarmac. The sergeant who escorted me through the darkness, in fact, explained that, having to traverse the trail over 30 times, his buddy was the unlucky one and had his foot blown off. Seeing the faces of those young men and women--then, that first week of January, and 2\1/2\ months later--I saw how resolute they were, how they had tasted military success, how they knew that their cause was just, and how they were absolutely resolved in winning because the stakes are so high for our country and for the rest of the free world. I have come to the floor to speak on this legislation because I am constantly inspired by my colleague from Georgia, the very life that he lives daily, which is an inspiration to this Senator, as are the sacrifices he made for his country as a young man, which has led him to a style of living that all of us cannot imagine and yet he accommodates and he overcomes every day. That is a great inspiration to all of us. So is it any wonder I am loving my time in the Senate, when I have colleagues I can look up to, such as the senior Senator from Georgia, joined by this wonderful committee that is quite bipartisan in its approach to these legislative matters. It is a great privilege for me to come and speak about him personally, and to come and speak and lend my name in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask permission to address the Senate.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I voted today for passage of the Dodd-Schumer terrorism insurance bill. While it is not perfect, it provides temporary backstop to allow the private insurance marketplace to adjust to the new threat of terrorist attacks. Because I had serious concerns about a lack of consumer protection in the original bill, I offered two amendments, one to guard against price gouging, the other requiring the industry to separately disclose to policyholders the amount of premium due to terrorism risk. The first amendment was rejected by the Senate June 13. But the disclosure provision was added to the bill today. This provision gives regulators an essential tool to safeguard against excessive price hikes, and consumers more information upon which to base purchasing decisions.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, it was discovered that many of the hijackers received flight training in the United States. In addition, Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged ``20th hijacker,'' was apprehended by investigators in Minnesota after accounts that he was only interested in learning to fly, not land, an airplane. Section 113 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act requires background checks of all foreign flight school applicants seeking training to operate aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or more. While this provision should help ensure that events like the September 11 attacks are not performed by U.S.-trained pilots using hijacked jets in the future, it does nothing to prevent different types of potential attacks against our domestic security. The FBI recently issued a terrorism warning indication that small planes might be used to carry out attacks. We need to ensure that we are not training terrorists to perform these activities. We can't allow critical warnings to go unheeded. Today I am introducing legislation that would close this dangerous loophole by requiring background checks on all foreign applicants to U.S. flight schools, regardless of the aircraft on which they plan to train. I am joined in this effort by Senators Thomas, Feinstein, and Bayh, and I look forward to the Senate's prompt consideration of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. So where are we? Why do we need a bill such as this? I think there is a legitimate question that the risk of terrorism is something that heretofore among insurance companies was not covered. Basically, we never anticipated what happened. Now we have this threat facing us. The Senator's bill, in fact, says that because terrorism is such, as we would say in the South, an odoriferous act or one that is so repugnant, akin to an act of war, that the Federal Government has a basis for stepping in and insuring part of the risk. Thus, the Senator's bill, through a process of either an 80/20 split or a 90/10 split with the higher figure of 80 or 90 percent being picked up by the Federal Government of the terrorism risk, thus that is then a protection for insurance companies or it is another means of insuring against the terrorism risk. I think that is reasonable. I think when we deal with this mass of losses it is very difficult to insure against in certain areas. But if we look at how this vast but strong economy, this free marketplace that provides insurance, and insurance against catastrophe, has responded, it has responded for most cases except the ones we have enumerated. Any responsible legislation should explicitly require assurances of reasonable premium rates, as we respond to this new kind of risk. That is lacking in this bill, and the evidence continues to mount that insurers are unjustifiably increasing the premium prices, and they are going to continue to do so even with a substantial Government backstop that is being provided in this bill. I, again, call attention to a story in this morning's Washington Post where it talks about how the insurance rates have gone up in downtown Washington. Again, it is not because of the chemical, biological, or nuclear threat. The article talks about the ``dirty'' nuclear bomb. That is not going to be covered under these insurance policies. These insurance policies have increased rates presumably to cover the terrorism risk only from the conventional kinds of explosives. I have received a note that Senator Corzine has to leave now, so I yield to the Senator so he can make his remarks. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Yes, I would like to make an opening statement and have 10, 15 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would the Senator like me to defer and let the Senator from New Jersey proceed? Once I get on a roll, I do not want to stop.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I assure the Senator, as he knows, I am going to be heard on this subject. I have not even started to talk about the amendment. I will hold that until I actually offer the amendment, but I do not want to hold up the Senator from New Jersey if he needs to go back to committee. Why don't I sit down and I will seek recognition right after he finishes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I do not want to hold up the Senator from New Jersey. Why don't I stop and I will come back after he finishes his statement.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am going to need to stop----

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Does that mean we will continue in session even while Governor Ridge is speaking?