Bill Nelson

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, as long as we have a lull, on a much lighter note I note for my colleagues some of the conversations I had prior to the Christmas recess and prior to all the bowl games. It so happened Florida had three college teams in bowl games, and so in trying to be a good Senator representing my State of Florida, I went to the respective Senators from the States with the other three teams. Given the fact that the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville was being waged between Florida State University and Virginia Tech, I naturally went to Senator Warner and Senator Allen and suggested we have a friendly wager on the game. What Senator Allen and I agreed to was we would wager a crate of Florida oranges and a bushel of Virginia peanuts. I am one who absolutely loves peanuts, and I am going to thoroughly enjoy those Virginia peanuts that are going to be presented to me by Senator Allen next week. We will have an appropriate ceremony and may even have the president of Florida State University present for this solemn occasion. Then I went to the other Nelson in the Senate, our fellow freshman, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and suggested that something as monumental as the national championship being played in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena was certainly worth us determining we would put something of specialty of our State on the line, backing up our boast that our team was going to be the national champion: The University of Miami versus Nebraska, the Hurricanes versus the Cornhuskers. So we determined in a friendly conclusion it would be a crate of Florida oranges versus a box of Omaha steaks. I am already stoking up my grill. For the third bowl game of a Florida college team, the Orange Bowl in Miami pitting the University of Florida Gators against the Maryland Terrapins, I searched and searched for Senator Mikulski, and I could not find her in the remaining hours of the session. I finally found Senator Sarbanes. I explained what I had done in the other bowl game and what was on the line in Miami in the Orange Bowl. Senator Sarbanes chose not to engage in a friendly wager, of which I have just had the occasion today to remind him. He suggested he was wise beyond his years in not taking up my challenge. Early in our tenure one day I overheard the other Nelson in the Senate speaking to a group, in a voice sufficiently loud that he knew I could overhear his statement. I will sum up the conversation in this spirit of levity. Senator Ben Nelson said to them, within my hearing: Oh, you must understand, I am the Nelson in the Senate who comes from the State with ``the'' football team. I sauntered over and I said: That's right, Ben, you come from Nebraska, with the great Nebraska Cornhuskers, which I have great respect for, one of the finest football programs in the Nation. But, Ben, you must explain to your folks that I am the Nelson in the Senate who comes from the State with six professional football teams: the Dolphins, the Bucks, the Jaguars, the Gators, the Hurricanes, and the Seminoles. I think that has now been amply demonstrated by the bowl games we just witnessed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to thank Chairman Hollings and ranking member McCain for agreeing to include in S. 1214, the Port and Maritime Security Act, a Coast Guard and Navy study to evaluate the merits of establishing a Center for Coastal and Maritime Security. The events of September 11 cruelly illustrated the challenges we face in providing comprehensive and reliable security for our homeland. There is no challenge more daunting than the integration of our Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies and their coordinated efforts with our Armed Forces to protect our vast and complex maritime and industrial areas. My amendment directs the administration to seriously consider establishing an institution that can provide integrated and coordinated training for the organization, planning and execution of security systems necessary to protect our vulnerable ports and coasts from potential terrorist attacks. I am grateful for the inclusion of language directing this study because the U.S. Navy's Coastal Systems Station in Panama City, Florida is uniquely staffed with coastal security experts to help the Coast Guard conduct this assessment. In analyzing the costs and benefits of a Coastal and Maritime Security Center, I urge the Coast Guard to work closely with the Coastal Systems Station to ensure the best possible recommendation for the Administration and Congress. Mr. President, I am confident that the study directed by this language will conclude that an investment in interagency integrated education and training to improve the protection of our ports and harbors is in the very best interests of our national security.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator from Pennsylvania would give me 2 minutes of his time.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator. Terrorism Insurance

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are coming down to the crunch time with the conclusion of this session. One of the issues to be decided this afternoon is whether or not we are going to have any protection on terrorism insurance--not only for large and small businesses but also for homes and cars, and for personal lives. Since there are so many agendas going on with this topic, I urge, since this is the very last gasp, the Senate to come to an agreement for a fallback and a short period of time--say 6 months--and adopt legislation that would have the Federal Government assume the terrorism risk for that short period of time with a freeze on rates so the consumer is not paying the high rates now being jacked up; and a moratorium on the cancellations so the consumers, businesses, and individual home and car owners would have protection against a terrorist risk of loss. We can do that. That is a fallback position. The alternative is to do nothing. That is unconscionable. Rates are being jacked as we speak, and cancellations of terrorist coverage is now occurring in the 50 States. I thank the President for letting me bring this to the attention of the Senate. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding the time.

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 rise to recognize the important achievement the Senate has made today in defending our homeland. Just over two months ago, my state of Florida was the site of the first in a series bioterrorist attacks on our Nation that culminated here in Washington, DC. While the repercussions evolving out of the anthrax attacks on our mail system pale in comparison to the enormous tragedy of September 11, the families of those who suffered tragic deaths after being exposed to anthrax laced letters and those of us who continue to be displaced on Capitol Hill understand the very real dangers associated with the elusive threat of bioterrorism. In the wake of the anthrax attacks, we, as a Nation, began to realize that we were not fully prepared to effectively and comprehensively respond to biological threats. The attack in Boca Raton, FL elicited an array of missteps and symptoms of inadequate preparation at all levels of government. Because Floridians, and Americans, had never faced such a threat before, the necessary communication lines had not been formed and many emergency responders were not properly equipped to handle this new type of crisis. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001, passed by the Senate today, is an important first step at increasing our ability to respond to, and prevent, future biological attacks at the Federal, State, and local levels. It will enhance our ability to detect an attack by improving disease surveillance systems and public health laboratories. It will improve our ability to treat victims of an attack by increasing hospital capacity for disease outbreaks. It will also enhance our ability to contain an attack by expanding pharmaceutical stockpiles and accelerating the development of new treatments. Finally, this bill seeks to target future bioterrorist threats in a comprehensive manner by protecting our food sources and other potential targets. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a portion of the bill that I believe is essential to our Nation's coordinated prevention and response initiative. Like many Americans, I sought out additional information about the threat of bioterrorism after anthrax was discovered in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Washington, DC. In the course of my research efforts, I had the opportunity to visit with some of the professors, researchers, and scientists that work for the University of South Florida Center for Biological Defense. The Center for Biological Defense is a joint project of the University of South Florida College of Public Health and the Florida Department of Health. The Center focuses on a full spectrum of studies and programs, ranging from research and development to outreach and educational seminars. The Center has implemented a multifaceted approach to biological defense research that utilizes a number of universities throughout the state of Florida to implement its studies and projects. The Center for Biological Defense has laboratory programs that are dedicated to improving surveillance systems, developing early detection capabilities, rapidly identifying pathogens, and fully understanding the factors that affect the toxicity of biological agents. Moreover, the Center concentrates on efforts to enhance health care preparedness, to strengthen hospital hygiene and containment capabilities, and to coordinate vital educational and training programs for emergency management and health professionals, which has proven to be a crucial component of the response efforts to the anthrax contamination occurring over the course of the past 2 months. While the preeminent focus of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001 is on our government agencies and their crucial missions, a portion of this bill recognizes our Nation's universities as a critical component of the United States bioterrorism defense plan. Centers across the Nation, like Florida's Center for Biological Defense, do critical bio-defense work at the local, State, and national level everyday. In fact, it is these programs that have coordinated first responder training programs, developed products capable of identifying biological contamination on site, and developed new techniques for containing disease and preventing the spread of contagious pathogens. I am delighted that the Senate has been proactive in acknowledging the tremendous value of these programs in an effort to encourage their receipt of additional Federal grants in the future. I am pleased that I was able to be part of the effort to draft and pass the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001 and I am thankful to my fellow Senators for ensuring the passage of this vital bi-partisan legislation prior to the holiday recess. I look forward to passing a final version of this bill at the conclusion of the conference between the House and Senate, as I believe that implementation of this bill will not only ensure our preparedness for any future biological threats, but will also quell the concerns and fears of the American people.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wanted to comment to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee about how much I appreciate his leadership, how much of a privilege it has been for me to be a member of that committee, along with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, another leader of the committee, and how much you have taught me and how much you have encouraged me. With that background, I am going to Afghanistan on January 3, and I am really looking forward to bringing back a report to the committee that might be of value as we discuss the future of the coalition, keeping it together, of all of those countries in the region that we will visit, as well as for the future of Afghanistan. I commend the chairman of the committee for how he has been so steadfast in his insistence for the role of women in the new Government of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has a history of having very prominent women in the professions. Of course, all that disappeared with the Taliban. It is time to reassert the rights of women and, particularly, in our case, to insist on that as they form the government. It is with a great deal of appreciation I say to my chairman and to the chairman of the subcommittee how much I thank them for their leadership.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly on the subject of terrorism insurance because in the closing couple of days of this session, there is some question as to whether or not we will even get a bill. I want to say if we don't, that is a mistake. It is a mistake because to do nothing would leave us in the condition that we are in now, where so many of the businesses and homeowners and automobile owners of America would be in a position of not knowing if they are covered by terrorism or not because a number of companies have already filed with the insurance commissioners of the 50 States, withdrawing terrorism as a risk that would be covered. The flip side of that is where terrorism may be covered, and with no plan, the opportunity is ripe for the rates to go up considerably. Take, for example, the issue of Giant Stadium in the Meadowlands. I am told that they have upwards of a 400-percent to 500-percent increase in the rates. Is that a fair rate? Only the insurance commissioners of the 50 States would know, but an insurance commissioner has to determine if a rate is fair by looking at data and looking at experience. In this particular case, we have precious little data or experience. Therefore, the insurance departments of the 50 States are simply not going to know or, even if they thought a rate was excessive and arbitrary, they are not going to be able to deny the rate because they can only deny it if they went into court and proved to a judge in an administrative law court, or in a court of law, that it was excessive. But they don't have those tools. So what should we do? Well, let me say as a backup, if all else fails, and I hope it doesn't--and I am talking to the Senator from Connecticut, who is a leader; I want to talk about his bill--instead of us doing nothing, we ought to take a period of time and pass a bill that would say that the Federal Government will treat this as an act of war for this short period of time, and assuming the terrorism risk for insurance purposes, that there would be no rate hikes and there would be the guaranteed terrorism coverage on all the insurance policies--in other words, a moratorium on the cancellations that are going on right now on terrorism coverage, and a rate freeze on the rates that are presently being jacked up sky high in many cases. That is what I would suggest that the Congress consider as a backup, but we should not have to get to the backup. I want to talk to the Senator from Connecticut and the rest of the Senate to say that if we took a vehicle such as the Dodd-Sarbanes bill--it could be that or it could be the Fritz-Hollings approach but an approach that blends the risk being shared by insurance companies for the lower amounts, generally in a range of about up to $10 billion of losses from a terrorist event, and above that the Federal Government would share in an 80-20 or 90-10 arrangement, depending on the size of the terrorism loss. All of these bills have similarities. But what I would urge, and will urge if such a vehicle comes before the Senate by the offering of this amendment, is that there be a limitation on the amount that the rates can be raised for terrorist insurance risk purposes and that part of the premium that would go to the terrorist risk would be set aside in the insurance company for accounting purposes from the rest of the premium so that we would know how much would be there, and if there were no terrorist loss, that could continue to be set aside for a catastrophe, which would include the terrorist loss. And--this is the part I am not sure those sponsors of the bill understand--even though I want to limit the rate increase, because I, indeed, think the rates are being raised using the September 11 horrible tragedy as an excuse to jack up the rates, nevertheless we have a responsibility to act, and we could limit those rate increases and, in the case that another terrorist event occurs and the loss were to occur, there is a portion of my bill on page 2 that would then have a surcharge on the policyholders up to the amount of the loss. That surcharge would be approved by the insurance departments of the 50 States. In other words, since we would segregate the premium as allocated to the terrorist risk, and that limitation of the rates would be a 3- percent increase only, but if there were a terrorist event that exceeded an industry-wide--we are talking about $6 billion of premium-- then the surcharge would kick in. That is the part that I do not think those sponsors understand. They know I am a former insurance commissioner and I am quite concerned about rates being jacked through the roof and the consumer taking it on the chin, and that is why I wanted to come to the Chamber to speak. That is why I am so appreciative that the Senator from Connecticut is here. I just got off the phone with the general counsel of State Farm, someone whose advice I valued over the 6 years I was insurance commissioner prior to coming to the Senate. I will be talking to several other CEOs and general counsel. This is, in part, what we have been talking about all along, and it is not something that insurance companies should think is an anathema to their position. What is an anathema to their position is for them to gouge the public, the consumers, because it sets a limitation on the rates, but it is a fair way of approaching it. Clearly, at the end of the day, it is a way of protecting the businesses of America, the homeowners of America, and the automobile owners of America who, if we do nothing, are facing the prospect that insurance companies have withdrawn their coverage for a terrorist attack. I thank the President for the opportunity to speak on this very important subject that is so important particularly at the eleventh hour of this session of Congress. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to substantiate the seriousness of the 77 people who are fugitives from justice now living in Cuba and the crimes they have committed. The Senator from New Jersey told us about a crime that was committed in his State. A highway patrol trooper was shot in the face twice by someone who was subsequently convicted, imprisoned, and escaped from prison, and is now a fugitive from justice being harbored by the Government of Cuba. If you look at the crimes that have been committed by these 77 fugitives, they include air piracy, hijacking an aircraft, crime aboard an aircraft, crime of escape, aiding and abetting, crime of kidnapping, and the crime of solicitation to commit murder. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for yielding for me to underscore the gravity and the seriousness of these fugitives. I also think it is quite symbolic that on this day so many of us in this Nation have been riveted to our television sets to see a tape of Osama bin Laden mocking the United States, laughing and enjoying it as he is telling the stories of the World Trade Center being hit by aircraft and the Pentagon in Washington hit by aircraft. I think it is somewhat ironic that then we bring to the floor, on the very same day that we have once again focused on terrorism and terrorist acts and our war against terrorism, an example of the U.S. State Department having on a list published in 1999 seven states that sponsor terrorism. One of those seven states is Cuba. We have a bill before us that would allow the export of our bounty and the amber waves of grain and other products that come from the beneficent bounty of this Nation's agricultural produce internationally financed and financed by banks without Cuba being removed from the official U.S. State Department list as state sponsors of terrorism. It is just another reminder to us that if we are going to be serious about the war against terrorists--I think America is as a result of what happened on September 11--then we had better get serious that once we mop up in Afghanistan, we have to start mopping up these cells in other places. What does the U.S. State Department say is one of those states that sponsors terrorism? I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing this to the attention of the Senate. This Senate could easily adopt, in this time of a war against terrorism, these amendments by a voice vote, and we could proceed with what is otherwise a very fine farm bill, a bill that is for the benefit of this Nation. I want to lend my voice to the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from New Hampshire to tell them that I believe that these amendments ought to be adopted. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I would like, while we have a lull on the farm bill, to take this opportunity to speak on a subject that is very near and dear to my heart: What we are going to be doing as a nation to address the fact that, as a result of terrorist acts, there may be a lack of terrorism insurance on January 1. That is not only for commercial lines of insurance, which would be businesses such as shopping centers and office buildings, but it could also affect homeowners and automobile owners. Since September 11, businesses and consumers have suffered great economic losses, and we are reading about those repercussions every day. So I would like to address this very sensitive topic as we come into the closing days of this session. The insurance industry is now saying the clock is running out for those businesses that want terrorism insurance because 70 percent of reinsurance policies--that is, insurance on insurance, or, in industry terminology, reinsurance--70 percent of those reinsurance policies expire after December 31, and many insurance companies are threatening to cancel policies or to exclude terrorism coverage. We simply can't let that happen. Congress must act to make sure that insurance is available and affordable. It is the responsible thing to do. The problem is that there are so many different ideas on how to do it. I served for six years as Florida's elected Insurance Commissioner and State Treasurer. During that time, we experienced a major catastrophe--Hurricane Andrew. This natural disaster, with insurance losses totaling $16 billion, proved to be the most costliest in the history of this country. The private market was so paralyzed from this event that nurturing it back to life proved extremely daunting. Insurance companies were not offering new home owners policies; to the contrary, they were trying to flee the State of Florida and were cancelling policies for those who remained in the State of Florida. Fortunately, by establishing a private pooling mechanism, and carefully monitoring rate increases, we were able to reinvigorate and stabilize the market. Accordingly, in the waning days of this session, I would like to offer some of my experience as guidance as we proceed. Let me give you an example of what is happening just to set the stage as to how serious this is right now. The ISO, the Insurance Services Organization, which files policy provisions for many insurers, has announced that it is asking for terrorism exclusions in insurance policies across the nation. That should be the first warning sign. But there are other warning signs. For example, I will read from the Chicago Tribune of October 28. Listen to this: The world's leading insurers, led by Lloyd's of London, a collective name of 108 insurance-writing syndicates, said this month that commercial property premiums would rise by more than 80 percent. That is the Chicago Tribune. Then listen to a report that was sent out by Lloyd's of London. I quote from the investor newsletter of Lloyd's of London, Members of Lloyd's of London: Names may now have a historic opportunity for property underwriting following the sharp rise in premiums in the aftermath of the American catastrophe. That newsletter added that premiums were at ``a level where very large profits are possible.'' If there is any doubt about some of the shock to the system right now because of what is happening with rate increases, let me point out that the Wall Street Journal reported that insurance companies are already raising premiums by 100 percent or more on some lines of commercial insurance coverage. These accounts were presented by the Consumer Federation of America's insurance expert, Bob Hunter, at a press conference earlier today. Bob Hunter also talked about a big reinsurance company, one of the giants in Germany, named Alliance. Alliance has announced increases of 20 to 50 percent, and in some cases increases may reach 200 percent. Another example hits close to home for all of our Senators in the Northeast corridor: It is reported that the cost of insuring Giants Stadium in New Jersey's Meadow Lands for terrorism is now being increased from $700,000 to $3.5 million. That is a fivefold increase. That is a 500-percent increase. If that were not enough, the CEO of Zurich Financial Services, which is another one of the major giants from Europe which does business through subsidiaries here in the United States, told a gathering of insurers, on November 27, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11: The industry needed it to operate efficiently. The players who are strong in a responsible manner and are aggressive will be the winners of the next 15 years. What we saw in Florida with insurance rate increases after Hurricane Andrew seems to be occurring again this time on a national scale with huge increases in commercial insurance rates. That is why we must act. I understand that there are all kinds barriers to progress on this issue--people are trying to rewrite the tort laws of this country and thus you have a fight that has gone on almost as long as the Republic on this issue. If this continues, it is possible that we will not be able to pass anything in the next week. I am trying to understand what would be the consequence. Will the market respond? But I don't think that is the responsible thing. I think the responsible thing for us to do is enact a piece of legislation and get it signed into law. But I want to say to my colleagues that from all of my experience with insurance, as we deal with terrorism insurance we must be ever- mindful of consumer safeguards: Therefore, any bill that we would enact must have three fundamental protections for the consumer. I think the bill has to have three protections for consumers: No. 1, commercial insurers must offer coverage for the risk of terrorism on all policies. In other words, an insurance company could not clearly say they will cover your little two-story office building but not cover your 20-story office building. They cannot cherry-pick. There has to be mandatory coverage for all on terrorism risk. No. 2, the insurance company cannot cancel the terrorism insurance unless it is in the normal course of business, such as somebody did not pay their premiums. And No. 3, because we not only have to make terrorism insurance available, we have to make it affordable. Commercial consumers cannot afford these kinds of price increases. They cannot afford a 500-percent increase. They cannot afford a 200- percent increase. They cannot afford what Lloyds of London was saying was an 80-percent increase, particularly not if the legislation we pass here is going to have the Federal Government picking up most of the terrorism risk. So I clearly advise all my colleagues in the Senate, the third protection is that there has to be a reasonable amount of rate increase, and what it can be has to be limited. I have suggested it be in the range of about 3 percent, which would produce an additional $6 billion of premium, and that the $6 billion of premium associated with the terrorism risk not being mixed with all the other premiums like on fire and theft. Our legislation should require insurers to specify the price for terrorism coverage as a separate line item on the policy. If we do not carefully monitor proposed rate increases, the insurance companies are going to file whatever they want in an increase with 50 State insurance departments. Then those insurance commissioners, who are trying to do a good job, are going to put their actuaries to work to see if this is a reasonable filing. How do they determine if it is reasonable and not excessive and nondiscriminatory, which is usually the statutory standard for reviewing a rate increase? They have to have data and they have to have experience. We do not have any of that in our 50 State insurance departments. Thus, what will happen is, whatever the rate hike is that is filed, the insurance departments of the 50 States will not be able to say that it is excessive, and they will not be able to prevail in a court of law or in an administrative court of law. As a result, the practical effect will be that the insurance rate hike that is filed will, in fact, be in effect. And it would be 2 or 3 years before you could ever start to overturn it. What is worse, there are 10 States whose law says that an insurance company cannot file a rate until it is approved by the insurance commissioner. The legislation that is being contemplated to be passed in this body would say, this Federal legislation will supersede the State law, so that, in effect, the rate hike takes effect immediately even though the State law says, in those 10 States, that the insurance commissioner has to approve it first. That is a pretty high-stakes ball game. We simply cannot afford for this to go on. So what I am going to continue to urge, as I have privately--this is my first public statement on this, save for an interview I had last week with the Washington Post and save for the testimony I gave to the Banking Committee and as a member of the Commerce Committee when I had the opportunity to express my thoughts there--but so much more is known now as to see what is starting to happen in these last few days of this session. This is what we are confronting. Simply, if we do not watch it, we are going to allow to pass through this Chamber, and be accepted by the House, a piece of legislation that, in order to take care of the problem of the lack of terrorism insurance, will then allow the rates to go sky-high, rates, I submit respectfully to all of my colleagues, that will not be able to be affordable, particularly by homeowners and by automobile owners. Even though the bills being contemplated say this is primarily for commercial insurance, they also say, at the option of the insurance company, for personal lines of insurance, such as for automobiles and homes, they can opt into it. What homeowners' insurance company, if it has homes, for example, in the neighborhood of a nuclear power plant, is not going to opt in to this kind of protection? So what I am saying is, you better watch out. We are about to vote for something that is about to mandate huge rate hikes. The Senate and the House of Representatives do not normally handle this stuff because ever since the 1940s in the McCarren-Ferguson Act, we transferred that ability to regulate insurance to the 50 States. Thus, we are not familiar with the facts of rate-making and the experience and data as to what is excessive in rate increases. We had better watch it. From the insurance companies' standpoint, let me tell you, I do think they need protection. They cannot simply be asked to accept the terrorism risk. There is not an insurance company in the world that wants to accept that risk. So in this Senator's personal opinion, I believe there is a role for the Federal Government as a backstop for the insurance industry accepting this huge potential risk. If we are fortunate, if our intelligence apparatus is working, then we will be fortunate not to have other significant terrorism losses. But there is that uncertainty on the basis of what we experienced on September the 11th, what we experienced back in the early 1990s when they tried to blow up the World Trade Center, what we have seen with regard to the Timothy McVeighs of the world and the Oklahoma Federal building, and so forth. So there is that element of terrorist risk where I do believe insurance companies need to be partnered with the Federal Government in helping assume that risk. We better watch out about the potential price hikes. We know the property and casualty insurers are going to be paying about $50 billion in claims from September 11. That is a huge payout. But let's remember that the companies are going to recover a lot of those insurance losses they have paid out in tax breaks where they can carry forward those losses and offset them against gains. Remember, this is an insurance industry. This is an industry that has been very fortunate to be financially flush with cash. In the property and casualty field, there is a surplus to the tune of in excess of $300 billion. In the reinsurance world of just those companies that reinsure, there is a surplus in the range of $125 billion. Their problem is not a lack of cash; it is the uncertainty of the quantifying and the pricing and the spreading of the risk of future terrorist attacks. In time, I believe, just as we have seen in Florida in the aftermath of that catastrophic hurricane that disrupted the entire homeowners marketplace, you will see the marketplace--along with the strengthened security that we are now imposing, fortunately, in this Nation, and our war against terrorism--I think in time that will solve the problem. In the interim, we are going to have legislation in the next few days in front of this body. Remember the three items we ought to look for, for the protection of the consumer: No. 1, that there be mandatory coverage for terrorism, that they can't red-line and say, I will select your skyscraper but not your skyscraper; No. 2, that they cannot willy-nilly just cancel the terrorism coverage; and No. 3, that there be a reasonable amount of rate increases proportionate to the risk the insurance industry is picking up, given the fact that the Federal Government will be picking up most of the risk, and not let this be an excuse for rate hikes that ultimately will affect the economic engine of this country. If insurance becomes unaffordable, the economic engine of this country cannot operate because of the need to have the protection against these acts of terror. I am grateful for the time to speak on a subject that is very important to this country. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Alaska and I thank the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Hawaii, who is kind enough to stay a couple of moments extra before I take the chair so that I might make a couple of remarks. I compliment and encourage the bipartisan efforts among the leadership in meeting with the President to discuss how to best proceed on an economic stimulus package. The efforts of those negotiators, in the framework set out last night whereby the top elected leadership of both parties in this Chamber will approach their efforts with the leadership in the House of Representatives and come to an agreement with regard to a stimulus package and taxes, is clearly a step in the right direction. We do need a stimulus package. We need it as soon as possible. We need it operative by the end of this year. A few days ago, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the U.S. economy has been in a recession since March. Some have responded to that announcement by saying since 6 months have already transpired, and since our average recession is typically less than 11 months, there was not a need to pass an economic stimulus package. They would say our economy at this point would likely recover on its own. I disagree with those conclusions. That is why I think we ought to move ahead with a stimulus package. That has all the more been brought to light by virtue of the announcement made by the administration yesterday that indeed the surpluses we were counting on projecting over the next several years are not going to be there. In fact, the sad news was that we were going to be in deficit financing; that is, spending more in any one year than we have had coming in tax revenue. How quickly things have changed. Just a few months ago we were still talking about the beneficence of projected surpluses over the course of the next 10 years and how we were going to be able to take care of a lot of the spending needs, including--this was prior to September 11-- the increased defense costs that clearly were a priority, and still be able to have substantial tax cuts and preserve the integrity of the Social Security trust fund surplus so it was untouched. Therefore, that surplus was going to pay off the national debt over the course of the next decade. Now all of that has been knocked in a cocked hat because of the slowed economy, the lessened surplus projected over the next decade, and then because we enacted a huge tax cut, a tax cut that over 10 years was in excess of $2 trillion. The effect of that has led to the present economic malaise and economic projections so that now the administration is saying we will have deficit spending over the next 3 years. It is with a heavy heart suddenly we have to face these new conditions. It is all the more important to have a stimulus package. Clearly, in my State, the State of Florida, we are feeling the effects big time. We are feeling the effects big time also because of September 11, the fear factor out there of people not wanting to get on an airplane. I have said many times from this desk--and I fly every weekend at least twice--I think it is safe to fly. However, there are still a lot of people who do not think it is safe to fly. As a result, they will fly for business reasons, but they will not fly for leisure and vacations. There are parts of this country that are highly economically devastated. One such place is the capital city of the State of the Presiding Officer, Honolulu. Another is the largest tourist destination in the world, Orlando, FL. Another is Miami, with its robust cruise tourism business. Another is Las Vegas. We can look at the list of cities that as part of their economy are inextricably entwined with travel and tourism. We can see the economic devastation. When the leisure travelers are not flying, they are not getting into the hotels; when they are not getting into the hotels, they are not going into the restaurants, they are not going into the gift shops, and they are not going to the tourist attractions. As a result, we see the economic devastation. As wartime conditions continue, we should expect to see a continued loss of tax revenue due to the precipitous drop in travel and tourism and the overall economic activity. While every State has been affected to some degree, and travel and tourism is one of the top 3 industries in 30 of our 50 States, clearly States such as the State of the Presiding Officer and my State of Florida have been uniquely impacted due to the significant presence of the tourism and aviation industries in those States. For example, since the end of September, the average daily unemployment claims for Florida have risen by 55 percent, translating into approximately 50,000 more Floridians applying for unemployment benefits. That is mind-boggling. That is staggering. The unemployment rate in Florida is expected to peak at 6.1 percent next summer. The latest State forecast anticipates 120,000 lost jobs by the end of June, with an additional 115,000 jobs lost in the following fiscal year. And that is only in one State, my State of Florida. So these statistics show that we still need help, a tremendous amount of it. As we speak today, Florida's State Legislature is meeting in the capital city of Tallahassee once again, trying to rewrite the State budget to make up for more than $1.3 billion in lost revenue, while also trying to fund rising unemployment claims and skyrocketing assistance needs of those, the least fortunate among us. So while it is entirely possible that we have already seen the worst of our economic drops--I certainly hope that is the case--the ramifications of these losses will be felt by Florida and many other States for many months and possibly for years to come. There is no time to waste. We must pass a stimulus package as soon as possible. The substance of that package is clearly the very sticking point where we have substantive disagreement among lawmakers, not only in the Senate but at the other end of the hall in the House of Representatives. There is significant disagreement between that body and this body. Yet there are still many areas on which we can agree: increasing unemployment benefits, helping the unemployed maintain their health insurance, helping our States ride out a recession with fewer Federal spending cuts. At the same time, we must provide assistance to our smaller and medium-sized businesses, and to those sectors that have been hardest hit in these difficult times. Those are the things we can agree on, and we ought to come together in the stimulus package and make that happen. Once again, I applaud the continued efforts of the majority leader and the minority leader, the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senators Baucus and Grassley, for sitting down again today to try to come up with an agreement. Once they come up with that agreement, then we can pass it. We can pass it before we adjourn. We can get it into law--the President has said he will sign it--and we can start to take care of our weakening economy.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have another potential economic devastation in the State of Florida. Lo and behold, major league baseball has voted to eliminate two teams. The media reports suggest that four teams are on the short list of those that might be dissolved. Lo and behold, two of the four are from Florida--the Florida Marlins and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays--and the other two that are on the list of four are the Montreal Expos and the Minnesota Twins. If any of the four teams currently under consideration for elimination are dissolved--any of those four--the impact to Florida would be significant. Doing so, especially without input from the communities and the regions where the teams are based, would be a mistake. Baseball made promises to communities in my State that were relied upon by individuals who then built businesses and other assets around the teams. Both Miami and Tampa Bay have invested millions of dollars and years of sweat equity in their teams. Hotels, restaurants, concession vendors, and other hospitality companies, already reeling from the September 11 tragedy, stand to take staggering losses if baseball fails to honor its obligations. Yet the league has completely shut them out of the process, keeping everyone in the dark. The owners got together and made these decisions. They didn't reach out to the communities and get their input. Take, for example, eliminating the Minnesota Twins, which I suspect would have a great deal of interest to our Senators from the State of Minnesota, and the Montreal Expos, that would have considerable interest to the Senators who border that area. Let me tell you, that would be very troubling for Florida as well because both these teams have a significant minor league presence, and they have wonderful spring training facilities in the State of Florida. Their dissolution would have a direct negative impact on Lee County, which is Fort Myers and Palm Beach County, the city of West Palm Beach where the teams train and play. Many individuals and small businesses in these areas depend on the teams for their livelihood and would be irreparably harmed if the teams folded. Florida's attorney general, my good friend, Bob Butterworth, explained the problem best when he said ``the people of Florida are entitled to some straight answers about the future of major league baseball in this State.'' That is why I strongly support Attorney General Butterworth's decision to send investigative subpoenas to major league baseball. The people of Florida deserve to know what was said behind closed doors. I applaud the attorney general for taking action so we can get to the bottom of this problem and take whatever additional steps are necessary, including legal action to keep baseball in Florida for many years to come. It is my understanding we are soon going to have a hearing in the Commerce Committee, on which I have the great privilege to sit as a member, on this particular subject. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. We want some answers in that committee hearing. The league has an obligation to live up to its promises to the people of Florida, and I intend to work ceaselessly to ensure they do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I would like to address the Senate on another subject in addition to the budget. It is my understanding we are in a period of morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I compliment our chairman of the Budget Committee for the leadership he has given us and how steadfast he has been to be conservative in his outlook and his projections on what we should do with the projected budgetary surplus. It was the Senator from North Dakota, our chairman, who kept saying earlier this year: Watch out. These budget projections are too rosy. The budget, as projected over the next 10 years, is going to be considerably less. Isn't it astounding that before September 11 the debate was over the use of the surplus and whether to pay down or pay off the national debt over a 10-year period. Now we find ourselves in a shrunken surplus with a wartime condition. I also extend my compliments to the ranking member, our dear friend, the Senator from New Mexico. The point I want to make is how quickly the landscape shifts--that before September 11, if the Senate had taken the advice of the chairman of the Budget Committee, what we would have done would have been very conservative in our approach as to how we were going to use the projected surplus. We wouldn't have frittered a lot of it away. As the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out, that surplus was very likely to, if not disappear, be reduced. With the events of September 11, which put us on a wartime footing with new expenditures we had not planned on, combined with the diminished surplus--we were planning back in the summer to use the surplus to pay off the national debt. That is not even in the cards. Indeed, what is happening is the surplus that is left--the surplus in the Social Security trust fund--is going to be used up for other things to the point that we are facing the prospects of deficit financing, which is spending more than we have coming in in tax revenue in any one given year. That, of course, adds to the national debt. How sad it is that we did not take the advice of the chairman and be conservative in the way that we were going to plan our spending and our tax cuts for the next decade so that we would have a greater cushion when the emergency came, as surely as it was going to come, only it came sooner than we thought; it came on September 11. I thank the chairman for his leadership and for his knowledge about what this Nation is facing fiscally. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, may I be recognized?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I call to the Senate's attention the fact that the travel and tourism industry is a most important industry to all of our States but especially to 30 of our States. The travel and tourism industry is one of the top three industries in those States. As a result, we see that the reluctance of people to travel, particularly on airliners, is having a devastating economic effect upon areas of the country that are magnets for travel and tourism. Clearly, two such areas are in my State: Orlando, which is the No. 1 tourist destination in the world, and Miami, a central hub of travel and tourism throughout the Americas and of a huge cruise ship business to which passengers come by airliner. But you can look at other cities in the country--Atlanta, New York, Las Vegas--you could go to any number of the cities where travel and tourism is a major economic component, and they are devastated. For example, in Orlando it is very interesting; you see the dramatic effects of people afraid to be on airplanes and thus the reduced airliner traffic. You can go into downtown Orlando, in hotels that are more accommodating to business travel, and you will find that they are doing fairly well. But if you go out on International Drive, outside of Orlando, toward the tourist destinations, you will find hotels that have less than 50-percent occupancy. Indeed, I talked to the owner of one hotel--it is a hotel with 800 rooms--and they have closed up 600 of the 800 rooms. It does not take too long to understand, with that kind of reduced revenue, suddenly, the owners of those hotels are not going to be able to pay their mortgages, their taxes. Look at the devastating effects upon employment in the areas where they have laid off so many workers because they do not have the traffic to support all of the employees, and you see how that diminished economic activity ripples through the economy and starts to devastate not only a community but devastates a State. And when you look at the reduction in the sales tax in so many of our States, and the crisis State governments are now facing in their budgets, indeed, you see that it starts to economically devastate the Nation. Why am I saying all this? I am saying it because we have something we can do about it in this Chamber and in the other Chamber at the other end of the Capitol, because we have in front of us a bill for establishing airline security, with all of these items on which we have generally gotten consensus such as sky marshals, such as reinforced cockpit doors, such as hijack training for airline employees. But we come to this difference of opinion on the screeners, the airport security personnel: Should they be privately contracted or should they be federalized law enforcement officers? The reason I rise to make these remarks is because I just heard a riveting story by Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. On a flight inbound to Reagan National Airport last night, a passenger, perhaps intoxicated, stood up and started walking toward the cockpit. Now, mind you, the FAA has a regulation that for the last 30 minutes of a flight inbound into Reagan National Airport every passenger must remain seated. It is for the obvious reasons, with Reagan National Airport being so close to the centers of Government--10 seconds from the Pentagon, 20 seconds from the White House, and 30 seconds of a diverted flight path to the U.S. Capitol--that this was one of the safety precautions the FAA required on inbound and outbound aircraft at Reagan National Airport. As relayed by Senator Stabenow, they were inbound, and suddenly this rather large gentleman got up and started walking toward the cockpit. What she shared with us was, she was so proud of the professionalism that then occurred, with two sky marshals sitting in first class who immediately got up, without any fuss, and got this passenger on to the floor. Apparently, there was a third Federal law enforcement officer on the plane as well, toward the back of the plane. Everyone was instructed to get their heads down, that they were diverting immediately to Dulles Airport. The plane landed safely. All of the law enforcement personnel came out to the plane. It was handled very professionally. It was handled very safely. I tell you this riveting story, just told to me by Senator Stabenow, to make the point that the American public desperately wants to feel safe when they get on an airplane. They want to know that the most highly qualified, highly trained personnel are the ones who are not only on that aircraft, as was just demonstrated by the sky marshals' professional behavior, but they want to know that the most highly trained, qualified law enforcement personnel are the ones who are doing law enforcement checks of the hand-carried baggage and the profiling to try to avoid any kind of incidents in the future that would jeopardize the safety of the American flying public. Now, it just seems to me that with so much at stake, not only for the safety of people in airplanes but for the economic engine of this country, which is being so devastatingly affected in places such as my State and 30 other States where travel and tourism are one of the top three industries, it would seem to me that we ought to be able to have a meeting of the minds, enact this legislation, and get it to the President, who has said he will sign what the Congress produces, and get on about restoring the confidence of the American public in the safety of flying. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator will yield, I only underscore the importance of his comments about the vulnerability of our deep- water seaports which are so often co-located with military facilities. As we look at the Port of Jacksonville, there are major military facilities; Pensacola, the same; Port Canaveral, right adjacent to the Cape Canaveral Air Force Test Station as well as the Trident submarine turning base. As Senator Graham has pointed out, we have a real risk. How do we go about determining what is in the container that might have started at Singapore, comes to the Port of Lisbon, is transferred around onto a different ship, and ultimately comes into one of our American ports? On the reverse we have had quite a bit of success. Indeed, through a machine called a gamma ray machine which was set up initially to try to stop the smuggling and stealing--smuggling of stolen automobiles--the gamma ray machine takes an x-ray picture of the container without the harmful side effects of radiation from x-rays. You can see exactly what is in the container as the truck pulls up between two poles. The picture is there. The guard can check that against the manifest of what is supposed to be in the truck. Lo and behold, on the east coast of Florida there are some four or five gamma ray machines now set up, and it has virtually stopped all of the smuggling of stolen automobiles going out of those ports. If we can do that on the outbound cargo, clearly we have to figure out something for the inbound cargo because the vulnerability is there. I appreciate so much the leadership of my senior Senator from Florida. It is a privilege for me to join with him and Senator Hollings to try to enhance this legislation as it comes to the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to echo the assistant majority leader's comments about the right man who rises to the top for the times. Just to give an example in addition to the one the Senator from Nevada has already given about our former Governor having that unique experience because of his experience in State government, he understands now, uniquely, the vulnerability of the 300 deep-water ports that we have in this Nation because Florida itself has 14 deep- water ports. We have passed out of our Commerce Committee a port security bill. It is coming to the floor, hopefully, very soon. Senator Graham and I and Senator Hollings will be offering an amendment to significantly increase the Federal grants for security and loan guarantees to the tune of some several hundreds of millions of dollars of grants, and to the tune, over a 5-year period, of some $3.3 billion in loan guarantees. To do what? To try to make those ports more secure through badging, through sophisticated detection devices, through fencing, through guards, through gates, in addition to what the Coast Guard is already doing. It is just another example of the leadership offered by the former Governor of Florida, now our senior Senator from Florida, and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I wanted to add that one comment to the comments of the Senator from Nevada about the right man for the time. I would only say: Accolades to his ranking Republican on the committee as well, Senator Shelby, who has been a dear personal friend of mine since we came to Congress together in 1978. I am confident in the leadership of our Intelligence Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

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. Madam President, as we are locked in this deadlock with the House of Representatives over the question of airport passenger screening security, basically the deadlock is the Senate has passed a bill 100-0 that would provide for federalizing the screening process of passengers; that is, attaches to the Justice Department that these would be Federal employees who have specific training in law enforcement so we can heighten the feeling of confidence of the American flying public that they will be safe when they get in an airliner to take their travel. Why is this important? It is obvious the airline industry is one of the important economic components of our national economic engine, and as long as people are scared to get into a plane and fly, then we are not going to rev up that economic engine and get it functioning on all cylinders as is so necessary. There are parts of this country that are certainly more affected than others by the diminution of airline travel. Clearly, the city of New York, the State of the Presiding Officer, is drastically affected; clearly, cities in my State, such as Miami, or Orlando, the No. 1 tourist destination in the world. I have talked to the owners of hotels--not the business hotels; the business hotels are doing OK, not good but OK--and the tourist-oriented hotels now have an occupancy rate in the range of 40 to 45 percent. I talked to the owner of one hotel with 800 rooms; they shut down 600 rooms. It does not take a rocket scientist to recognize with that diminished revenue they will not be able to pay mortgage payments, taxes. They have already laid off a significant portion of their staff. We understand what happens as the ripples run through the economy. What do we do? We want to give a feeling of confidence, of safety, to the American flying public. What better way to do that than for the public to know, when they go through that passenger screening process, in fact, if there are people trying to do dastardly things to them by sneaking through implements of destruction, they will get caught. The fact is, recently they have not been caught. We heard this rather astounding story a couple of days ago about in the Chicago area a person had two knives, got on the plane, and had in their carryon luggage other implements of destruction. This is several weeks now, after September 11. We read the story last week about the fellow sitting on the airplane, in flight, horrified to suddenly realize someone had given him a pistol as a present, and he forgot it was in his carry-on luggage. He had the presence of mind to call over the flight attendant in the midst of the flight to say what happened. The fact is, airline passenger security had failed again. Does this engender confidence in the American flying public? Of course, it doesn't. We are undercutting the very thing we need to be doing for those desperately needing the airlines back in robust business again--the hotel operators, the service personnel, the gift stores in the hotels, the restaurants, the tourist destinations, and the multiplicity of industries and businesses, both large and small, that spawn from this wonderful, robust transportation network we have had in the skies. Why am I saying this? It took 4 weeks in the Senate to pass this bill because people in this Chamber were filibustering it because they wanted that passenger security screening operation to continue as it is, privately contracted out. That is not going to cut it. Yet we were held up 4 weeks. By the time it got around to the final passage, there was no Senator who was going to vote against it. It was 100-0 in this Chamber. Now we are at loggerheads with the House of Representatives, which by a very narrow margin of one or two votes passed a highly partisan bill that says it is still going to be contracted out. They say: Don't worry; we will federally oversee the contracting. But if the whole Nation's economy hinges on getting the public to believe it is safe to get back into an airliner and fly, are we not wasting precious minutes every day we are at loggerheads with the House of Representatives? We have a 100-0 vote here; they have virtually a split vote of 215 each. Why not look at what is best for the country? How many more newspaper stories do we have to read, as we have in the last couple of days, about the stun guns, the knives, and the box cutters getting through security. How much more do we have to read before it convinces us and convinces the body at the other end of this United States Capitol that it is time to put aside their philosophical positions, their partisan positions, and pass something into law so we can restore the confidence of the American people. I share these thoughts after considering this very important intelligence legislation, all of which is very necessary to the security of this country, as is the airline security bill important to the security of this country, both economically and as we take on the terrorists. I yield the floor.