Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Certainly.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then, Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Minnesota. He has a time problem.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask, of the remaining 14 minutes, that I have consent to have 5 minutes and the remaining time for my colleague from Minnesota, to be followed by me.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I call to the attention of the Senate a shocking Associated Press story that was filed yesterday afternoon. I have not had a chance to read the papers today, so I don't know in which papers it was printed. This is a headline: U.S. Official Says Cuba May Be Helping Rogue States With Biological Weapons. I am going to read the first two paragraphs of this AP story: The Bush administration said yesterday it believes Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare program and may be transferring its expertise to other countries hostile to the United States. We are concerned that such could support biological warfare programs in those States, said U.S. Under Secretary of State, John Boland. This is of grave concern to the Nation. If the Bush administration has hard evidence that Cuba is exporting biological weapons to our enemies, then the Bush administration should not just be making speeches about it. They ought to be planning an action in consultation with the Congress under the War Powers Act as to what to do about exporting biological agents to our enemies in this war on terrorism. This would be absolutely unacceptable. What will the action be? That is where the consultation ought to be going on with Congress as to what the administration is planning. Don't make a speech that the AP story says was made to the Heritage Foundation. But, instead, let us talk about what the means are of stopping the exports of biological weapons and biological agents that would be going from Cuba to other terrorist states which are clearly out to do ill will to the interests of the United States. Could it involve something more other than stopping the exports of biological weapons? Yes, it could. But that is what the planning ought to be about instead of just making speeches to think tank foundations. I think this is a matter of gravest concern. Certainly, we have suspected, since Cuba is on our list of terrorist states, that this kind of activity might be going on. But, if it is, under the Constitution there ought to be consultation with the appropriate committees about any plans to protect the interests of the United States and not the Assistant Secretary of State making a speech to the Heritage Foundation. I wanted to call this to the attention of the Senate. It has apparently not gotten much attention up to this point. I think it is of grave concern to the United States. It is clearly in the interest of the United States, if these weapons of mass destruction through biological agents are being produced or researched in Cuba, that it be stopped forthwith, and certainly any export to other countries that would do us harm should be stopped dead in its tracks. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Five minutes?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Nevada, our wonderful assistant majority leader. This is a very important case that I wanted to explain to the Senate. We were sitting there with the young President, with whom we have significant differences of opinion in the Middle Eastern crisis. We talked to him about Hezbollah and suggested he should pull off his support of that terrorist activity. We thanked him for his help with regard to our going after al-Qaida--and they have been helpful. We thanked him for his support, protecting our United States interests in Syria, particularly our Embassy that has no setback from the street in Damascus. At the time we were there, there was a 100,000-person demonstration. Of course, they had the riot police lined up shoulder to shoulder to protect our Ambassador's residence as well as the Embassy. But I saw the opening. I asked him, and he said he would. Later on, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, suddenly I found myself face to face, right over here in our Foreign Relations Committee room in the Capitol, with the Prime Minister of Lebanon. I told him the story. I told him the gripping story of a family; the children want to know, is their daddy alive? And the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafic Hariri, said he, too, would see through his good offices and his intelligence apparatus if they could find out any information. I have spoken to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, about asking. I have spoken to Secretary Rumsfeld, as recently as 35 minutes ago, about this case. Because it is Iraq, it puts someone such as Secretary Rumsfeld in a difficult situation because he naturally is concerned, as we all are, about wanting to take out Saddam Hussein who, if he has not built, he certainly will be trying to build, weapons of mass destruction. We are going to have to protect the position of the United States and the free world by not letting him do that. So it makes it difficult for us at this particular time, trying to get information. It is so important in this gripping human drama. In the late 1990s, the Department of Defense actually changed the status of Commander Speicher from ``killed in action'' to ``missing in action.'' At some point, with further evidence, it may well be that they will consider changing the status, if the evidence is there, from ``missing in action'' to ``prisoner of war.'' That, of course, would be welcome news because that would mean that he is alive. Then we would have to address the question of how to get him home to his loved ones. It is going to take the attention of a lot of people. I have written to the Embassies in that region of the world, asking our Ambassadors to ask their friends and their contacts, to see if we can get a little snippet of information. We owe this to the family. But we owe it to every military pilot, past, present, and future, who needs to have the confidence to know, if they are shot down, the rescue forces are coming to get them and we are not going to abandon them. There is now talk that Iraq will invite a delegation to come to investigate. If it is another charade, as were some of the investigations as to whether or not there are weapons of mass destruction, then that is not going to be profitable. It should be a high-level delegation so it will be accorded the respect of the receiving Iraqi Government in order that access will be given. For example, this eyewitness account that he was driven to the hospital from the crash site--what hospital? Let's see the records of the hospital. If he was released from the hospital, where was he sent? Was he sent to a prison? What prison? Let's see the records of that prison. Let's see tangible evidence so we can know the fate of CDR Scott Speicher. The Nation owes this to our military. The Nation owes it to Commander Speicher's family. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share this matter with the Senate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise to address a subject that is heavy on my heart. It goes back to 1991. The first American shot down and declared dead in the gulf war was Commander Scott Speicher of the U.S. Navy from Jacksonville, FL. He was pronounced by the Department of Defense, indeed, the then-Secretary of Defense, as having been killed in action. We have learned over the intervening 11 years, the evidence strongly suggests Commander Speicher survived being shot down. That credible intelligence report indicates that someone who drove him from the crash site to the hospital has stepped forward as an eyewitness. For 11 years, his family in Jacksonville have pondered the question, Is he alive? This is truly a gripping human drama. But it is just that more gripping because the U.S. military has a creed among pilots that when you have to punch out, you are going to have a rescue team that will come get you. Against all odds, they will come, try to find you, and get you out alive. This awful question hangs over the CDR Scott Speicher case that we abandoned him. So 11 years later, what we need to do is to use every avenue to try to find out, is he alive? Is he in Iraq? If he is, we need to get him out. If he is not, we need to find out the specific circumstances that led to his death after his apparent surviving being shot down in the Iraqi desert. A couple of our Senators have been involved in this case: Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas. There is a Kansas connection with Commander Speicher. I kind of backed into this situation recently when I saw an opening, and I took it. I was in Damascus, Syria, and spoke to some of our Embassy staff. Did they have any information? They had inquired of the Syrian Government a year ago and had no reply. So later that day, I found myself with Senator Shelby and Congressman Cramer in a 2-hour meeting with the Syrian President, President Assad, the son of the long-time Syrian President who had died a couple of years ago and has been succeeded by his son. I saw the opening, and I took it. I asked the Syrian President if he would use his good offices and task his intelligence apparatus to see what they could find out from Iraq and their contacts with Iraqi intelligence activities. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to continue until such time as the majority leader arrives.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business on the matter of this trade bill that is before us.

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, as we move more to a global economy, I would note that the United States, over the course of time, has been a driver of economic prosperity because of the ingenuity of our people, because of the technological prowess we have, and because of the edge we have over many other countries in our competitiveness with regard to computers. I think back to when we were in the great space race, after the Soviets had surprised us by launching the first satellite Sputnik--we finally got Explorer up--and that shook the Nation to its core. Then suddenly, the Soviets surprised us again by getting into orbit with a human, Yuri Gagarin, before we could ever get off the pad with Alan Shepard trying to go into suborbit because we did not have a rocket that was strong enough to get that Mercury capsule up into orbit. So we went into suborbit with two flights before, then 10 months after, Gagarin. We finally launched John Glenn--a former Member of this body--into orbit aboard an Atlas rocket, and the space race was on. That was when there was that very significant leadership decision made by President Kennedy who said: We are going to the Moon and back in the decade; and America put its efforts behind its will to succeed, and we developed the technology which led us to get there and back safely before the Soviets did. Finally, the Soviets abandoned their efforts to go to the Moon with a human because they did not have the sophistication we had in our computer technology, sophistication that could help direct a spacecraft on reentry so that its trajectory could be such that human life would not be completely eliminated because of the G forces on a spacecraft on reentry. I give that as one illustration of America's creativity and inventiveness when we set our minds to it. Thus, in the globalization of our markets on trade, whatever the products may be, America has had an advantage. We use our educationally developed workforce, we develop technology, and that is what we are very good at: exporting around the world. Thus, there is every reason for America to want to be engaged in international trade as long as it is free and fair trade. I am a free trader. That is how I usually will vote. That is how I usually voted as a Member of the House of Representatives over a 12-year period of public service. We are confronting an aspect of trade that concerns me because it is not free and fair. It is going to affect one of the major economic interests in my State of Florida. Many States have automobile license tags indicating something of particular interest to each State. So it is with the Florida automobile license tag. We have an image of an orange emblazoned on our license tag, which is reflective of the considerable pride we have as well as the economic dominance of our Florida citrus industry. That industry is threatened. Its very existence is threatened. Frozen concentrated Orange Juice production in Florida, is facing a life or death situation. I hope that as I continue to make speeches about the threat to this industry, that the White House is listening to a State that is very important to this White House. It was Florida, as we all know, that won the Presidency. There is a lot at stake in our State. It has to do with this trade bill. Free and fair trade could quickly turn into a monopoly of trade for Brazil on frozen orange juice concentrate. It could turn into a monopoly because Brazil produces approximately 50 percent of the world production of frozen orange juice concentrate. Florida produces 40 percent of the world production. That 40 percent supplies the domestic market for orange juice. Indeed, it has been the Florida Citrus Commission advertising over the last half century that now causes orange juice to be a staple on breakfast tables in America. We find growers in Brazil forming, in essence, a cartel, which can start dumping extra product on the market, undercutting the price for Florida, and running Florida out of the business if there isn't a tariff protecting our domestic market from the invasion of Brazilian frozen orange juice. That brings me to the trade bill. The trade bill puts that protective tariff at risk, unless we can attach an amendment to the bill offered by Senator Graham and myself, an amendment that would not apply just to orange juice but to other commodities, as well. The amendment says if there is an order in place by either the International Trade Commission or the Department of Commerce, an order in place indicating that there is anticompetitive behavior, then you cannot reduce the tariff until after that order is taken off. That is common sense. If there is anticompetitive behavior, in the form of dumping, and therefore trying to run down the price by dumping, that is not free and fair trade. Or if there is another type of order from the Department of Commerce in place, a countervailing duty order that says a foreign government is subsidizing that product of that foreign country in order to give them a competitive advantage, that, in essence, is anticompetitive market behavior. If that kind of order is in place, you cannot reduce the tariff until those two respective organizations--the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce--have removed their orders. It does not have to be orange juice. It could be steel. It could be honey in a State like Montana. It could be salmon production from the Pacific Northwest. It could be any of these products on which there are orders against foreign competitors that have been participating in anticompetitive activities. That is why we have the protection of these orders from either the International Trade Commission or the Department of Commerce. Until those orders are lifted because the anticompetitive behavior of the foreign companies disappears, we cannot reduce the tariff. It is my hope the good common sense of this type of approach will be recognized by the administration. They think they have the votes to pass the trade promotion authority bill in this body--they may--but I am going to keep raising this issue. Somebody needs to keep raising it. Then, again, maybe they don't have the votes. Or maybe they don't have the votes within the timeframe they think they have. It is a matter of ultimate fairness of free and fair competition in the global marketplace that we are trying to achieve at the end of the day, which is free and fair trade. Thus, I wanted to bring to the attention of the Senate and the White House my renewed plea on behalf of Senator Graham and myself, with regard to the interests of the Florida citrus industry, that the administration should be willing to work with Congress to accept this amendment for the protection of free and fair and truly competitive international trade. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Arkansas for her excellent statement about health care. As the Senator pointed out the need for a prescription drug benefit to modernize Medicare, it reminded me of an unbelievable story. I don't know that it is fact, but it sounded pretty solid. The White House is floating a plan that someone on home health care would have to have a copay through Medicare in order to get that service. Certainly in our part of the country, home health care is an alternative to the more expensive care of a nursing home, and clearly it is a lot more expensive being in a hospital. And home health care, despite the expense, is clearly a lot better quality of life for the senior citizen than being in a nursing home or in a hospital if they can be medically treated appropriately and successfully in home health care. The Senator talked so eloquently about medical care in the State of Arkansas. Would it not be devastating to senior citizens to have a copay on home health care that they now do not have under Medicare?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is amazing to me where they come up with the ideas from the administration to get savings out of Medicare, particularly when they start talking about making senior citizens pay copays on home health care, which is an activity that is desirable and saves money in the long run by giving seniors an alternative to the hospital and nursing homes that are so much more expensive.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wanted to echo the eloquent comments the Presiding Officer, speaking in her capacity as the Senator from Michigan, has spoken about, a problem that is so rampant today. Medicare was designed 37 years ago in 1965. Think of the condition of health care at that time. It was centered around acute care in hospitals. Thus, as we designed the system which would be a health insurance system for senior citizens to assist with medical expenses, what were most of the medical expenses? In 1965, they were expenses that were attendant to hospital care and physician services that often occurred in and around the hospital. Medicare Part B was set up for additional expenditures, primarily physician expenditures. That has served our senior citizens so very well, as a health insurance system at the time that they knew they needed health care, when, as we get older, things don't quite work as they did when we were 21. Over that 37 years we have had these wonderful, I call them, miracles of modern medicine that have occurred through technology, through research, through the ingenuity of American enterprise. And as a result, we now have a health care system that produces prescription drugs that can often cure our ailments when compared with the state of medical care 37 years ago. I talk about that little bit of history to follow the comments of the Senator from Michigan because it is instructive for us as to why we need to modernize the Medicare system 37 years later and now provide a prescription drug benefit. There is no question in the State of Florida, with our abundance of wonderful, vibrant senior citizens, that people want Medicare modernized with a prescription drug benefit. Clearly, in the election of 2000, I talked about it, and I know both of the candidates for President talked about it in the State of Florida--indeed, they had signed up to the idea that we were going to be spending--then the figure was $300 billion to $350 billion over a 10-year period. That is what was thought to be the expenditures to give a fairly substantial Federal Government investment for providing prescription drugs to those who were eligible as senior citizens under Medicare. And here we are, a year and a half after that election, and we still have not enacted it. The administration has come forth with a proposal for $190 billion over 10 years. That is not going to cut it because that is not what was promised. With the explosion of the cost of prescription drugs, the cost of that prescription drug benefit over the next decade might well be in excess of the $300 billion to $350 billion that we talked about during the campaign of 2000. So we ought to be addressing it here. In the meantime, the Senator from Michigan has pointed out other ways that we can start addressing the cost of prescription drugs. Why could we not address a system by which we could suddenly pool the various needs and start buying in bulk and, therefore, bring down the cost per unit? That is a common economic principle. So as we approach a discussion of whether we are talking about trade or whether we are talking about judicial appointments, we need to constantly remind people about the promises and the expectations in the election for President in the year 2000, and those statements were very clear in the State of Florida, which became so critical for the outcome of the election. Andean Trade Madam President, since we are on the trade bill, I want to make a few comments about a tremendous dilemma that I have with regard to this trade bill. I am a free trader. I am for free and fair trade. That has basically been the kind of voting record that I have had in the last year and a half. I believe that a State such as my State, Florida, which is so affected by being not only a microcosm of America but now so much of a microcosm of the Western Hemisphere, will benefit economically by free and fair trade. The dilemma in which I find myself, as does my colleague--my senior colleague, wonderful colleague, Senator Bob Graham--is that the very premier industry of Florida, the citrus industry, the very industry whose symbol graces all of our license plates on our vehicles in Florida--the Florida orange--is threatened if we don't take action on an amendment in this bill. What I have said is that I support free and fair trade. What we find is that, with the concentrated, frozen orange juice production, the country of Brazil has 50 percent of the world consumption of concentrated orange juice. Florida has 40 percent of the world's production, and that is primarily servicing the needs of the domestic market in the United States, a large part of which has been created as a result of the advertising over the last five decades by the Florida Citrus Commission, so that now orange juice is a regular staple of the diet at the breakfast table in America each morning. So it is 50 percent Brazil, 40 percent Florida, and the remaining 10 percent is spread throughout the rest of the planet. The problem is that it is not free and fair trade if Brazil is allowed to undercut because of Brazil growers colluding into a cartel, undercutting the price of Florida, and dumping additional product on to the market. If there is not tariff protection for the Florida citrus industry, Brazil will be participating not in free and fair trade, but Brazil will have taken over the market and they will have a monopoly. A monopoly is exactly what we want to get away from in global economic markets. We want the crosscurrents of economic competition to bring the best product at the lowest price. That is not what is going to happen. So the dilemma that my senior colleague, Senator Graham, and I find ourselves in is wanting to support the administration on the trade promotion authority or, as some people call it, the fast track, where the administration can negotiate the agreement without every little detail having to be approved, except when the final agreement has to come back to the Congress, which I think is a step in the right direction, and facing the Hobson's choice that if we do so without an amendment that would protect this industry from a monopoly from foreign shores, our major citrus industry would be facing a life or death choice. Now, that is not an easy choice for this Senator. So I call to the attention of the Senate the fact that Senator Graham and I will be offering an amendment that doesn't specifically just speak to Florida orange juice but says that if there is an order by the International Trade Commission against dumping by companies or by a country, or if there is a countervailing duty as a result of an order by the Department of Commerce because foreign competition is subsidized by a foreign government and therefore it is not free and fair trade--if there is an order from either one of those two, whatever the commodity is, the tariff cannot be reduced until 1 year after that order by the Department of Commerce, or that order by the International Trade Commission has been removed, because that noncompetitive practice has been eliminated by that foreign country or those foreign corporations. In other words, if we want to have free and fair trade and there is an order that another country is not being free and fair, we are not going to put the American industry at the disadvantage of having the tariff lowered so that anticompetitive action in that foreign country, against which there is already an order, is not able to protect that industry in America. I am not just talking about orange juice. I am talking about steel. I am talking about salmon production in the Northwest. I am talking about honey production in Montana. I am talking about any commodity where organizations such as the Department of Commerce or the International Trade Commission say there is anticompetitive behavior, and therefore there is an order against that anticompetitive behavior; if that order is in place, then you cannot reduce the tariff. That seems to me common sense. Therefore, there is no reason the administration should not accept Senator Graham's and my amendment. Yet they will not. Just today Senator Graham and I talked to the Secretary of Commerce: Well, we will look at it. I understand. That is a polite way of saying: No, we do not agree. I have talked to people about this amendment until I was blue in the face. I have talked to the chief lobbyist for the White House as to why this is so important to Florida, which happens to be important to this administration. I have talked to members of the Finance Committee to get them to understand why this is so important, not only to Florida but to other States with regard to steel, salmon, and beekeepers in their honey production. The fact is, the administration thinks it has the votes. In fact, it thinks it is filibuster proof; that it has more than 60 votes for this trade bill. Therefore, there is no willingness to engage in a discussion with Senator Graham, me, and others about adding this amendment, as they did so vigorously in the House when, several months ago, they passed the trade promotion authority bill by the razor thin margin of one vote. I can tell you, Madam President, it will not only be tonight, but I will continue to speak until my face, to use an old southern expression, turns blue. I will continue to speak every opportunity I have as we go about considering this trade bill over the course of the next 2 to 3 weeks. I hope there are folks in the White House who are listening. The State of Florida has a great deal at stake in this debate. It is not that we are asking for any special protection; we are asking for free and fair trade. We do not want another country to have a monopoly of a single product that is so very important to our State of Florida. Madam President, neither you nor I expected to be here at this late hour, but it was an opportunity for us to say something that is very important to this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the hour is late, and I am not going to speak but a couple of minutes, just to lay the predicate for the subject that the distinguished Senator from Nevada has just raised, to which the Republican minority has entered an objection--the bill on providing Federal backup for the terrorism risk the insurance industry would assume. I am assuming that eventually we will get some agreement to bring this legislation to the floor. I want the record to reflect that it is the considered judgment of this Senator, with the experience I have had in my former public service as insurance commissioner of Florida, that there needs to be some considerable tightening of this legislation, and the majority leader and the assistant majority leader have been kind enough to indicate that I will be protected in order to offer one of the amendments. That amendment would simply be to make sure the rates are frozen on any further rate hike until the actuarial soundness can be determined of what should be the rate with regard to the terrorism risk. The problem for determining that is the fact that there is no data--very little, except for the data we now have from September 11, and that is the only experience we have, save the earlier decade of the nineties and the attempt at bombing the World Trade Center. Therefore, it is very difficult to determine what is an adequate rate. Because it is difficult, it is also easy to jack the rates up sky high. So that is the burden I will come to the floor to try to address. If the Republican minority ever releases their objection to this legislation, then we need to perfect this legislation so that the ratepayers, the consumers, are not paying a much higher rate for the terrorism risk than is justified by actuarial soundness. I thank the assistant majority leader for presiding so I could come down to make this statement. I look forward to working with the leadership on this issue. I yield the floor. (Mr. NELSON of Florida assumed the chair).

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, it is a privilege for me to call to the attention of the Senate that our guest Chaplain today is from Orlando, FL. He is quite a noteworthy individual, and that is why I had particularly requested of our leadership the opportunity that he might come and be our guest Chaplain. Not only has Jim Henry been the pastor of the largest church in the central Florida area since 1977, but he rose to the rank of the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The reason I make note of that is that a schism among church leadership had occurred and they needed a leader of that convention, someone who could be a reconciler, a healer, who could bring people together in the midst of their differences. We deal with that every day here, but we are dealing in the political world where, as the Good Book says, we should come and reason together, work out our differences, achieve consensus, and try to help govern the Nation in a way that the people would want the Nation governed. So, too, as many other things, including in the faith-based arena, we find deep schisms and we find a difficulty in people coming together. We have seen that, unfortunately, throughout the history of man. So often religion has been the dividing factor that has called people to war, to hate, and to kill. We see that among a faith that ought to be a unifying case in Northern Ireland. Yet because one group calls themselves Protestant and another Catholic, they have chosen the path of war. We see that now where the United States has so much interest in central Asia as a result of one religion playing off against another, people attacking us because of religion. In the Scriptures, from the ancient Scriptures in the Old Testament through to the New Testament, we find the true word of the Lord was that He wanted people to love one another, to bring people together, to be reconcilers instead of dividers. I share that little glimpse into history which was taught in the Old Testament. Clearly, the message of Jesus of Nazareth was: Love God, and love others as yourself. That was the sum of all the law that had been handed down. I share this little religious history lesson as I proudly introduce my friend, Jim Henry. He found himself in a position where he had to be a reconciler, a healer, someone who brought people together in the midst of a storm. I am very honored that our guest Chaplain today has been the Reverend Jim Henry from the First Baptist Church of Orlando. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, may I be recognized as in morning business?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senate for the tremendous vote we had today on basically dispensing with the attempt to amend the bill of the Senator from New Mexico to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The vote ended up being a lot stronger than a lot of people expected. For us just to talk about the sensitive environment and the drilling is certainly a very important component of the question. But the question is so much more comprehensive. It is a question of when is America going to be energy reliant, and are we going to ween ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil, and how are we going to produce that energy? As the chairman of the Energy Committee has reminded us many times, the biggest part of our energy consumption is in the transportation sector. And if we don't ever address the enormous consumption of energy in the cars that we drive, then we will remain dependent on all that foreign oil. There is an easy way to do that, and that is to use this beneficence of American ingenuity called technology and apply it to the problem and increase the miles per gallon in our automobiles and SUVs and light trucks, which we can do so well. Already we have hybrid vehicles that, because of a computer, go back and forth between an electric generation and gasoline generation, and you cannot tell the difference as the driver and the passenger, with all the creature comforts that we enjoy in our automobiles. So I congratulate the Senate and I congratulate the chairman of the Energy Committee--who now graciously has offered to take the Chair so that I might make these few remarks--for an extraordinary effort. I hope that now he is able to proceed with the energy bill and finally get it passed out of this body. I also want to take a moment to state, with a sober and heavy heart, what we are facing in the Middle East. From the standpoint of the United States, it is very clear what is in our interest, and that is peace in the Middle East, a cessation of firing, a creation of an environment where the parties can come together. A week and a half ago I was in Damascus, Syria, and met with the new young President who took over after his father died, President Assad. We said: President Assad, now is the time for leaders outside of the Palestinians and the Israelis to emerge in the area and to realize that it is in your interest that there be peace in the Middle East. We thanked him for his help and his intelligence network with regard to our efforts in going after the al-Qaida terrorists. We said: President Assad, you have to go after the groups, such as Hezbollah, that you are offering facilities to, which are also fostering terrorism. Of course, he rejected that. His point of view was that they were freedom fighters. There is a lot of politics in it. It will take leaders such as Assad and the leader of Lebanon, with whom I met yesterday, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri, to emerge as leaders in the Arab world and say: We have to change the old ways; we have to do it differently, and violence and killing is not in our interest. Those Arab leaders are going to have to say vigorously to their colleagues that it is in their interest that they create an environment where they can solve this violent situation in the Middle East and bring the Palestinians and Israelis together. As the Good Book says, ``Come let us reason together.'' I am very grateful that the Senator took the Chair so I could come to my desk and make these remarks. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the minister who is our guest Chaplain is a personal friend of mine from Orlando. It is noteworthy that I make a couple of remarks concerning him. Reverend Sam Green of St. Mark AME Church in Orlando is a rather extraordinary minister of the gospel. He comes from a family that has four brothers who are all ministers, in Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, and Miami. Reverend Green's pastorate and his ministry are an outreach to the community of Orlando, for he has created businesses to fill the needs of the Orlando community that are all occupied by parishioners of his church. And so it is with a great deal of pleasure that we welcome Reverend Sam Green of Orlando to be our guest Chaplain this morning. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to speak about truth in politics. Some people would say that is an oxymoron, but it is very much needed in this town. Truth in this town often gets mixed up with the excessive political partisanship that starts to raise its head when the hot contest on an issue arises, and one such issue arose yesterday. The President took a swipe at the majority leader of the Senate over the fact that the majority leader was not bringing up legislation on terrorism insurance when, in fact, if my memory serves me correctly, in the closing hours before the Christmas recess, it was the majority leader who brought up the terrorism insurance bill, and it was objected to by the minority leadership, specifically the senior Senator from Kentucky. Then yesterday, the Senator from Nevada offered a unanimous consent request to bring up the terrorism insurance bill, and it was objected to by the minority leadership of the Senate. I wish we would get our facts correct about who is doing what to whom and who is trying to bring legislation out to the floor of the Senate. The fact is that the majority leader, as a number of Senators, thinks there is a legitimate problem as a result of September 11 with regard to being able to insure high-value structures in uncertain times of terrorism. Therefore, to keep the engines of commerce properly oiled and lubricated, the commodity that is often misunderstood, known as insurance, needs to be provided. If we are successful in getting the parties to come together and the legislative branch and the executive branch of Government to come together on a bill--this particular legislation that is being talked about has a gross omission; and that is, the consumer needs to be protected from the rates being jacked up so high using terrorism as an excuse. In fact, that is what we are already beginning to see. We are seeing the rates of a number of liability, property, and casualty policies going through the roof as a result of the uncertainty of the climate set about by terrorism. There is an easy way to handle that, and if this body does get together on a terrorism insurance bill, then clearly it ought to have the protection that, first, the premiums collected for terrorism insurance not be mixed with the premiums collected for liability, fire, theft, slip and fall, and other activities. Why? If an insurance company needs to charge an additional amount for terrorism, and there is no experience or data save for the September 11 experience, we need to know how much is being charged so that the insurance commissioners of the 50 States will be able to build some data and see clearly whether or not the amount of a premium being charged is, in fact, actuarially sound to support the threat of future insurance losses from terrorism. The commissioners need data and they need experience and the only way, from an accounting standpoint, they can accurately measure that is the premiums for terrorism insurance are kept separate from all other premiums for the normal property and casualty insurance cost. A second provision that is absolutely essential for the protection of the consumer is that there be a cap on the amount the premium can be raised. Instead of these gargantuan rate hikes that are now occurring-- some double and triple the amount that businesses have paid in the past--there could be a much more modest rate hike. If that is not enough or if that is too much on the basis of the experience--in other words, the payout for terrorism losses in the future--the insurance commissioners of the 50 States will be able to have a record they can then figure out whether that is too much or too little. Instead of taking advantage of the trauma of the climate of September 11, we ought to put a cap in any legislation we pass on the amount the rates can be raised by insurance companies. Mind you, even though we think this is applicable just to large buildings, football stadiums, or public places that might be on a target list of terrorists, just wait. We are going to see in neighborhoods that happen to be near a nuclear plant the rates for homeowner insurance policies and automobile insurance policies jacked up; thus, all the more reason why we need to separate the premium that applies just to the terrorism risk, as well as cap it for the initial rate increase to pay for the terrorism insurance. There is a third protection of the consumer that must be included in any legislation the Congress passes, and that is the prevention of redlining or, in other words, the prevention of saying: I am going to give you terrorism insurance, but I am not going to give you terrorism insurance. In other words, there has to be a mandatory obligation that all policies be able to have the terrorism coverage. Those three particular points of protection of the consumer must be in legislation that comes out of the Senate and was suggested by the White House yesterday but with no details: Point No. 1, separate the funds from an accounting standpoint so we know how much is going in to the insurance company for the terrorism risk; No. 2, cap the amount initially that can be raised until some experience can be built up and data is available to see if the rate being charged for the terrorism risk is actuarially sound; and, No. 3, have a requirement that there be the mandatory coverage of the terrorism risk so that there cannot be cherry-picking, saying: We will cover you, but we will not cover your policy. Then the public of America would be well served. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this Nation honors in many ways the service of those who have worn the uniform of our Armed Forces and placed themselves in harm's way to defend our freedom and way of life. This Nation raises great monuments to commemorate the many battles and the countless heroes of those battles fought throughout our history. This Nation sets aside special days to remember the sacrifice of generations of Americans who have stepped forward in America's defense. This Nation hallows ground where we lay to rest those who have served us in our hour of greatest need. Our National Cemetery System is not only hallowed ground, national cemeteries are monuments to military service, the places where we go on those special days to pay tribute to the sacrifice of so many in our history. Today I offer legislation to establish a national cemetery near Jacksonville, FL, to meet the needs of thousands of veterans who have chosen to live out their lives in northeast Florida and southeast Georgia. Florida's veteran population is the second largest in the Nation. Right now in northern Florida and southern Georgia, there are nearly half-a-million veterans. Florida has the Nation's oldest veteran population and one of the largest remaining populations of World War II veterans. We are all aware that this greatest of generations is passing away at higher and higher rates. Unfortunately for these hundreds of thousands of veterans in Florida and Georgia, the nearest national cemetery is located in Bushnell, FL, which is 3-hour drive from Jacksonville. The national cemetery in St. Augustine is full and closed. The nearest national cemetery in Georgia is in Marietta just north of Atlanta. Our veterans have made great sacrifices to protect our country in her days of peril, and certainly deserve to rest in honored respect in a national cemetery. To honor the veterans of northeast Florida and southeast Georgia, we must act now, in order to have this facility established by 2006 when our World War II veterans' deaths are expected to reach their peak. Senators Graham and Cleland and I are honored and proud to sponsor this important bill, and we look forward to the support of our colleagues as we provide for our veterans who have given so much for our country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this Nation honors in many ways the service of those who have worn the uniform of our Armed Forces and placed themselves in harm's way to defend our freedom and way of life. This Nation raises great monuments to commemorate the many battles and the countless heroes of those battles fought throughout our history. This Nation sets aside special days to remember the sacrifice of generations of Americans who have stepped forward in America's defense. This Nation hallows ground where we lay to rest those who have served us in our hour of greatest need. Our National Cemetery System is not only hallowed ground, national cemeteries are monuments to military service, the places where we go on those special days to pay tribute to the sacrifice of so many in our history. Today I offer legislation to establish a national cemetery near Jacksonville, FL, to meet the needs of thousands of veterans who have chosen to live out their lives in northeast Florida and southeast Georgia. Florida's veteran population is the second largest in the Nation. Right now in northern Florida and southern Georgia, there are nearly half-a-million veterans. Florida has the Nation's oldest veteran population and one of the largest remaining populations of World War II veterans. We are all aware that this greatest of generations is passing away at higher and higher rates. Unfortunately for these hundreds of thousands of veterans in Florida and Georgia, the nearest national cemetery is located in Bushnell, FL, which is 3-hour drive from Jacksonville. The national cemetery in St. Augustine is full and closed. The nearest national cemetery in Georgia is in Marietta just north of Atlanta. Our veterans have made great sacrifices to protect our country in her days of peril, and certainly deserve to rest in honored respect in a national cemetery. To honor the veterans of northeast Florida and southeast Georgia, we must act now, in order to have this facility established by 2006 when our World War II veterans' deaths are expected to reach their peak. Senators Graham and Cleland and I are honored and proud to sponsor this important bill, and we look forward to the support of our colleagues as we provide for our veterans who have given so much for our country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.