Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for about 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Equal Access to Care Act. I am jointed by my colleagues Senators Durbin and Edwards. This legislation is designed to address a disturbing development which may make it harder for some seniors to have access to Medicare. I have recently become aware of a practice, an early example if which took place in Florida, in which doctors assess their existing patients a $1,500 membership fee in order to receive continued care. In some States, these fees have been as high as $20,000. By charging these extraneous and unwarranted dues, the doctors can shrink their practice, yet maintain their profits. Another version of this arrangement is to require that patients seek and pay for non-Medicare covered services from their doctors as a condition for joining or remaining in the practice. Tragically, the patients who can't afford these large sums for the privilege of medical care or who choose not to purchase non- Medicare covered services are simply told to find another doctor. In areas where there is already a shortage of doctors, this practice could severely hamper Medicare beneficiaries' access to health care. Then, in addition to membership fees the doctors bill Medicare for the cost of the covered services they provide. Were Medicare a private insurance company, this practice would not be allowed. Private health insurance companies do not permit their providers to charge an ``access fee'' as a condition to being accepted as a patient. The Federal Government, the American taxpayers, should not hold its providers to a looser standard, thereby supporting a distasteful division of Medicare beneficiaries into haves and have- nots. This situation is unacceptable. The Medicare Equal Access to Care Act bill will put a damper on such agreements. This legislation is simple: it will prevent any federal health program, like Medicare, from reimbursing doctors who charge their patients membership fees, as defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or who require that their patients purchase non- Medicare. I want to emphasize that this legislation does not interfere with the right of the doctor and patient to enter into private arrangements. A doctor may forego Medicare reimbursement and charge patients a membership fee of any amount, and patients have the choice of whether to accept that condition. Likewise, a doctor is free to charge a patient for any service that is not reimbursed under Medicare. Though they present a carefully crafted loophole, these arrangements violate the intent and spirit of the Balanced Billing Act. Clearly, our health care system is not working for patients. Additionally it's not working for doctors, if they must resort to these types of practices. Also, hundreds of thousands of our nation's seniors have been informed that their managed care company will be withdrawing from the Membership program. We need to adequately reimburse doctors, to provide the incentive to continue to participate in the Medicare+Choice program. Just as we don't want Medicare beneficiaries to be told their HMO is unavailable, we don't want them to be told their doctor is unavailable, unless they pay a fee. These are among these reasons that Congress needs to complete and pass a Patient's Bill of Rights and send it to the President. But in the meantime, we must protect our seniors and ensure that their access to Medicare is not subject to hurdles and conditions. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Medicare Equal Access to Care Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Equal Access to Care Act. I am jointed by my colleagues Senators Durbin and Edwards. This legislation is designed to address a disturbing development which may make it harder for some seniors to have access to Medicare. I have recently become aware of a practice, an early example if which took place in Florida, in which doctors assess their existing patients a $1,500 membership fee in order to receive continued care. In some States, these fees have been as high as $20,000. By charging these extraneous and unwarranted dues, the doctors can shrink their practice, yet maintain their profits. Another version of this arrangement is to require that patients seek and pay for non-Medicare covered services from their doctors as a condition for joining or remaining in the practice. Tragically, the patients who can't afford these large sums for the privilege of medical care or who choose not to purchase non- Medicare covered services are simply told to find another doctor. In areas where there is already a shortage of doctors, this practice could severely hamper Medicare beneficiaries' access to health care. Then, in addition to membership fees the doctors bill Medicare for the cost of the covered services they provide. Were Medicare a private insurance company, this practice would not be allowed. Private health insurance companies do not permit their providers to charge an ``access fee'' as a condition to being accepted as a patient. The Federal Government, the American taxpayers, should not hold its providers to a looser standard, thereby supporting a distasteful division of Medicare beneficiaries into haves and have- nots. This situation is unacceptable. The Medicare Equal Access to Care Act bill will put a damper on such agreements. This legislation is simple: it will prevent any federal health program, like Medicare, from reimbursing doctors who charge their patients membership fees, as defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or who require that their patients purchase non- Medicare. I want to emphasize that this legislation does not interfere with the right of the doctor and patient to enter into private arrangements. A doctor may forego Medicare reimbursement and charge patients a membership fee of any amount, and patients have the choice of whether to accept that condition. Likewise, a doctor is free to charge a patient for any service that is not reimbursed under Medicare. Though they present a carefully crafted loophole, these arrangements violate the intent and spirit of the Balanced Billing Act. Clearly, our health care system is not working for patients. Additionally it's not working for doctors, if they must resort to these types of practices. Also, hundreds of thousands of our nation's seniors have been informed that their managed care company will be withdrawing from the Membership program. We need to adequately reimburse doctors, to provide the incentive to continue to participate in the Medicare+Choice program. Just as we don't want Medicare beneficiaries to be told their HMO is unavailable, we don't want them to be told their doctor is unavailable, unless they pay a fee. These are among these reasons that Congress needs to complete and pass a Patient's Bill of Rights and send it to the President. But in the meantime, we must protect our seniors and ensure that their access to Medicare is not subject to hurdles and conditions. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Medicare Equal Access to Care Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are in times when it seems we ought to be doing what is on the top of the national agenda. Meeting this terrorist threat, providing the resources to our military, and providing the humanitarian assistance in our efforts in Afghanistan clearly should be at the top of the agenda. In meeting the national economic condition we have seen as a result of the airlines having the difficulty of getting their passengers back, it took us 3\1/2\ weeks to get the aviation and airline security bill passed in this body. When it finally passed last Thursday, it was on a unanimous vote. But it was filibustered. We had to go through all the motions of breaking the filibuster to finally get it to where we would get a unanimous vote because different people had different agendas. So, too, we find ourselves now with the foreign operations appropriations bill being held off and last night having the motion for cloture defeated. We couldn't get 60 votes so that we could proceed on this very important appropriations bill that directly affects what we are doing on the other side of planet Earth at this moment. We simply must move swiftly to conduct the business of the American people. There is no more urgent pending business than this foreign operations bill that we are simply trying to get to, but we keep being held up in the Senate. This foreign operations bill gives the administration and Secretary of State Powell the resources and tools needed to build the international coalitions that are so necessary in fighting this war on terrorism. It is clearly necessary for us to be able to successfully conduct the operations of Enduring Freedom. Specifically, this bill provides funding for the important international initiatives vital to conduct U.S. foreign policy. If this foreign operations bill does all of that, why are we having the difficulty of getting to it? Why can't we have our debates where there might be disagreement on something other than a bill that is so important to the national agenda and supporting our men and women in uniform over in the central Asian region of the world? Let me talk about something else that this bill does. It provides $5 million for Afghan refugees. Why is that important? It is important because we have a major two- pronged effort in Central Asia. We have the military effort, and we have the humanitarian effort. We are dropping food. We want to be able to win the hearts and minds of those people. We want to take the example of what has happened in North Korea, a communist dictatorship, where we have sent bags of food that the people of North Korea know have come from the United States because the bags say, in the native language, ``This is a gift from the people of the United States of America,'' and those people know it. Because of their starvation, those North Koreans are very appreciative. Do you know what they do with those bags, those sacks after, in fact, they have eaten the food? They use that material from the sacks for clothes, for suitcases, for anything that human ingenuity can think of to use those sacks. They recognize that the food has come from the United States because it says, in their language, ``This is a gift from the United States of America.'' So we have been very successful in doing that. So we ought to take the model of what we have done so successfully in our humanitarian aid in North Korea and apply it in Afghanistan. Secretary Powell came over to discuss a lot of these matters with the Foreign Relations Committee and this matter was brought up to him. He thought that was an excellent idea. But part of it depends on us passing this bill, this appropriations bill, which has $255 million for Afghan refugees. And we cannot even get this bill up because yesterday we only got some 50 votes to break this filibuster so we could get this bill to the floor. So here we are, still debating the motion to proceed. It is inconceivable to me, with what is at stake for this country and the interests of this country over in that part of the world near Afghanistan, that we have people who are delaying this legislation coming to a swift passage. Let me give you some additional items in this bill. There is $326 million in this appropriations bill for nonproliferation, antiterrorism, demining, and related programs. One of the big problems is, even from the old days of the Afghan war with the former Soviet Union, there are so many mines that for our troops, once they are in there, or for nongovernmental companies going in to distribute food, there is the risk of detonation. We need to be in there demining. This foreign operations appropriations bill provides money for that. Why can't we get on with passing this legislation instead of it being derailed by a filibuster? This bill also includes $4 million for a terrorist interdiction program designed to enhance border security overseas to reduce terrorism. It also includes $38 million for the antiterrorism assistance program to support training and emergency and first responder training. Additionally, the bill provides important bilateral assistance to nations that are so important to both the Middle East peace process as well as fighting terrorism. It provides foreign assistance of $2.7 billion to Israel, almost $2 billion to Egypt, and $228 million to Jordan. Need I remind you how important the King of Jordan and his government are to us as we knit together a coalition of Arab and Muslim nations to assist us in this war on terrorism. Yet we have people who are delaying this legislation for their own agenda. Their own agenda may be important to them, but is it as important to us in America as the war against terrorism? Let me suggest some other things this legislation says. It provides assistance for the independent states of the former Soviet Union--now get this--the Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia; former states of the former Soviet Union, now independent states that are absolutely critical as we knit together the coalition in this war against terrorism. U.S. support and assistance in these nations are needed now, and it is in our national security interests. Yet the legislation is being delayed. It is being filibustered in this Chamber. There are also other items in this legislation. We must keep the focus on the Andean region. This bill provides $718 million for the Andean regional initiative, which includes $147 million for humanitarian and development programs. This Andean initiative is a part of a balanced effort aimed at eradicating coca crops, supporting interdiction efforts, and strengthening the rule of law in those conflict-plagued regions of the world. This is critical to the U.S. focus on Latin America where democracy itself is being threatened. That is a very high priority in the agenda of protecting the interests of the United States. But we have people filibustering this bill, not allowing it to go forward. I daresay when it passes, it will probably pass almost unanimously, if we can ever get it to a vote. Yet we have people dragging their feet for their own specific agenda purposes. I will give you more examples. This legislation that is being held up right now provides funding recommendations for conflict resolution in the Middle East and the Balkans. It provides funding for conflict resolution in the War Crimes Tribunals in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone, and it provides funding for regional democracy programs in Asia. Yet the legislation is being held up. So I urge our colleagues to put aside their differences and stand up for what is in the interests of the United States at this particularly critical time in our country. I ask all our colleagues to join in the spirit of bipartisanship we have had over the course of the last several weeks in sending a strong statement to the American people and to those around the world who would wish ill upon the United States. Let's send that strong message that we will move forward with a policy that is important to freedom, democracy, and American values, despite the efforts of those in the world who would try to undercut all things we hold so dear in this country. I plead with our colleagues, it is not in their interest to delay and to obfuscate, to use tactics of filibustering an appropriations bill that is so important to the national security interests of this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be recognized to speak as in morning business, and the time I consume be counted against the 30 hours of postcloture debate.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator has been a great inspiration to me and all the members of the Commerce Committee which he chairs. What a great inspiration it is to see on matters of grave national importance that the Senator, as chairman, and the ranking member, Senator McCain, work so closely together. I want the Senator to know that observation comes from many Members. What troubles me is that certain Members of this Chamber, for either ideological reasons or for partisan reasons or for parochial reasons, would not recognize what the chairman of the Commerce Committee and the leadership is saying, how important to the national defense of this country it is to produce legislation on airline security so that the American people believe we are following through on a promise we made to them so they will be encouraged to get back on the airlines and start flying. This will help all of the collateral industries such as car rental companies, such as hotels, such as restaurants, tourism destinations, and so forth. As we say in the South, it is just beyond me----

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That we would have people hold up this legislation, cause us to have 30 hours of debate not on the bill but just on a motion to proceed to get to the bill. The big hangup is over federalizing the airline passenger screeners.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Everybody in America wants the most proficient, the most trained, the most expert, and well-paid people doing the adequate and professional and thorough job of screening people when they go through those checkpoints. If that means federalizing, then we ought to be getting about the business of the American public and passing this legislation and moving it. I want to add a comment and also another compliment to the Senator, our chairman. Over the weekend I visited two ports in Florida. I visited, on Friday, the Port of Pensacola. In the warehouse there, I found a huge load of sacked flour that was going to Tadzhikistan. Fortunately, those 100-pound sacks of flour were red, white, and blue so people would know where it was coming from--the USA. That is what we need to do if we are going to try to win the hearts and minds of people as we have had such tremendous success doing in North Korea, a Communist dictatorship. The food we have sent in there is in these red, white, and blue sacks so people know where it is coming from--the USA. So I was very gratified to see that. But when I went to the Port of Pensacola on Friday and the Port of Jacksonville yesterday, Monday, it was to talk about security and to talk about the bill the Senator had passed out of committee on September 14 and the amendment that he intends to add, increasing the amount available, both in grants and in loan guarantees, for the 300 ports that we have in this country in order for them to upgrade security because, if we are looking at vulnerability, where a terrorist might attack, clearly a port--whether it be a cruise ship or whether it be a commercial ship with a precious cargo or whether it be a port colocated with a military facility or, in the case of the Port of Pensacola, where they would be responsible for loading and unloading military equipment--not for the Pensacola Naval Air Station but for Hurlburt Air Force Base, which is the head of the Air Force Special Operations Command--be it any of those particular roles that a port plays, we have to upgrade security there. I thank our chairman for his leadership. Wouldn't it be nice to get to the port security bill, if we could get through the airline security bill?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I go from the debate, along with my good chairman and leader, Senator Hollings, that tends to get one's blood pressure up over the fact we are having to spend 30 hours debating the airline security bill, to now go to the subject of great sadness over the passing of one of the greatest leaders that the Senate has ever produced: Senator Mike Mansfield. Growing up in my political adult lifetime, of course, he has always been someone to whom I have looked up. He was someone I looked up to while I was in college because he was already an established leader. He was an assistant to the majority leader, Lyndon Johnson. He reigned because he was loved and respected as majority leader for an unprecedented 16 years. One of the greatest compliments I have read in the commentary since his death was made by one who was on the other side of the aisle, Senator Scott, who paid him an extraordinary compliment that he was one of the finest men he had ever met. The fact that Senator Mansfield was selected by administrations of both parties to represent this Nation in the nation of Japan as our Ambassador for an unprecedented long time also speaks volumes. But the reason I felt compelled to come to the floor today was to share with the Senate my observations of Senator Mansfield in the last few months, for I had never really known Senator Mansfield except when I saw him faithfully every Wednesday as he attended the Senate prayer breakfast. It is a private meeting completely off the record where Senators can come and share what is on their hearts. Who was the first one there every Wednesday? None other than Senator Mansfield at age 98, as much a participant in that activity every week as anybody else in the room, often with many of us deferring to him for his political, professional, and spiritual guidance. That spoke volumes to this freshman Senator. It said something else to me about a man who has had so many accolades. But I saw a man that was truly walking humbly with his God. That is what I wanted to come to the floor of the Senate to share. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to take care of a major problem we overlooked recently in passing the defense authorization bill. I take my inspiration from Holy Scripture where we are told that in God's eyes, the measure of our faith is to look after orphans and widows in their distress. The fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill we just passed corrected one long-standing inequity but not another longstanding inequity. What the Defense authorization bill did was correct an inequity by restoring benefits to our disabled military retirees because currently our system penalizes military retirees, who have given our country the best years of their lives, by reducing their retirement pay by the amount of disability pay they are entitled to receive. This simply is not fair. Senator Reid, our great Democratic floor leader, offered the amendment to the Defense authorization bill, and it was accepted. It allows the disabled military retirees to receive both their disability pay and their retirement pay concurrently instead of one offsetting the other. It makes it effective upon the Defense authorization bill becoming law. I supported it. All of us supported the Reid amendment. It is now included in the final version of the bill. That correction in law is long overdue. Now there is another related injustice which needs to be addressed. The legislation I am offering will extend the same protection of benefits to the widows and orphans of military retirees because the same kind of rule that penalized disabled retirees, the offset of disability pay to military retirement pay, also hurts the widows and the surviving children. Mr. President, go back to 1972 when Congress established the military survival benefits plan to provide retirees' survivors an annuity that was specifically modeled after the civil service survival benefit plan. Like the civilian plan, the military survivors benefit plan is a volunteer benefit program purchased by the retiree. Retired service members pay for this benefit from their retired pay. Then upon their death, their spouse or dependent children can receive up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an annuity. Surviving spouses or dependent children of 100-percent service- connected disabled retirees are also entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation from the Veterans' Administration. But the annuity paid by the survivors benefits plan and received by a widow or an orphan is reduced by the amount of the dependency and indemnity compensation received from the VA--the same unfair offset that we are now correcting for our military retirees. So the penalty for widows or orphans is no more justifiable than for retirees. In fact, in the absence of their veteran spouse or parent, the survivors' need for a stable income is often greater. They have depended on the person who has received this disability pay because that disabled person's income was lowered because of their disability, and often because the spouse or the children have to be caregivers to the disabled person, their incomes likewise are reduced; thus the need for this disability pay as set up in law sometime ago for the survivors' need. Well, Mr. President, I know of no other surviving spouse annuity program in the Federal or private sector that is permitted to offset, terminate, or reduce their survivor payments because of disability payments. Naturally, I was disappointed in this year's Defense authorization bill that we have left behind the widows or orphans of 100-percent disabled retirees. I am not talking about 50-percent disabled; I am talking about the widows or orphans of 100-percent disabled retirees. I believe we should have and could have addressed this issue when we fixed the offset problem for military retirees. But we didn't. So that is what we are trying to correct with the offering of this legislation. We should honor our commitments with disabled military retirees and their surviving widows and dependent children. So today I am offering stand-alone legislation to eliminate that offset called the VA dependency and indemnity compensation offset against the annuity paid by the survivors benefit plan. I will repeat what I said at the outset. In the first chapter of James, verse 27 of the Holy Scriptures, we are told in God's eyes that the true measure of our faith is to look after orphans and widows in their distress. So we simply can't allow this situation to stand. We need to restore the full benefits to our country's military retirees and their families. I will continue to work to do right by those who have given this Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to our care. Thank you for the opportunity of addressing the Senate as I introduce this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to take care of a major problem we overlooked recently in passing the defense authorization bill. I take my inspiration from Holy Scripture where we are told that in God's eyes, the measure of our faith is to look after orphans and widows in their distress. The fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill we just passed corrected one long-standing inequity but not another longstanding inequity. What the Defense authorization bill did was correct an inequity by restoring benefits to our disabled military retirees because currently our system penalizes military retirees, who have given our country the best years of their lives, by reducing their retirement pay by the amount of disability pay they are entitled to receive. This simply is not fair. Senator Reid, our great Democratic floor leader, offered the amendment to the Defense authorization bill, and it was accepted. It allows the disabled military retirees to receive both their disability pay and their retirement pay concurrently instead of one offsetting the other. It makes it effective upon the Defense authorization bill becoming law. I supported it. All of us supported the Reid amendment. It is now included in the final version of the bill. That correction in law is long overdue. Now there is another related injustice which needs to be addressed. The legislation I am offering will extend the same protection of benefits to the widows and orphans of military retirees because the same kind of rule that penalized disabled retirees, the offset of disability pay to military retirement pay, also hurts the widows and the surviving children. Mr. President, go back to 1972 when Congress established the military survival benefits plan to provide retirees' survivors an annuity that was specifically modeled after the civil service survival benefit plan. Like the civilian plan, the military survivors benefit plan is a volunteer benefit program purchased by the retiree. Retired service members pay for this benefit from their retired pay. Then upon their death, their spouse or dependent children can receive up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an annuity. Surviving spouses or dependent children of 100-percent service- connected disabled retirees are also entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation from the Veterans' Administration. But the annuity paid by the survivors benefits plan and received by a widow or an orphan is reduced by the amount of the dependency and indemnity compensation received from the VA--the same unfair offset that we are now correcting for our military retirees. So the penalty for widows or orphans is no more justifiable than for retirees. In fact, in the absence of their veteran spouse or parent, the survivors' need for a stable income is often greater. They have depended on the person who has received this disability pay because that disabled person's income was lowered because of their disability, and often because the spouse or the children have to be caregivers to the disabled person, their incomes likewise are reduced; thus the need for this disability pay as set up in law sometime ago for the survivors' need. Well, Mr. President, I know of no other surviving spouse annuity program in the Federal or private sector that is permitted to offset, terminate, or reduce their survivor payments because of disability payments. Naturally, I was disappointed in this year's Defense authorization bill that we have left behind the widows or orphans of 100-percent disabled retirees. I am not talking about 50-percent disabled; I am talking about the widows or orphans of 100-percent disabled retirees. I believe we should have and could have addressed this issue when we fixed the offset problem for military retirees. But we didn't. So that is what we are trying to correct with the offering of this legislation. We should honor our commitments with disabled military retirees and their surviving widows and dependent children. So today I am offering stand-alone legislation to eliminate that offset called the VA dependency and indemnity compensation offset against the annuity paid by the survivors benefit plan. I will repeat what I said at the outset. In the first chapter of James, verse 27 of the Holy Scriptures, we are told in God's eyes that the true measure of our faith is to look after orphans and widows in their distress. So we simply can't allow this situation to stand. We need to restore the full benefits to our country's military retirees and their families. I will continue to work to do right by those who have given this Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to our care. Thank you for the opportunity of addressing the Senate as I introduce this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I was so inspired by the comments of the Senator from North Dakota that I felt compelled to rise to offer my additional comments to the thoughts the Senator from North Dakota has offered. I have gone home each weekend and heard my people respond that they are so proud that they have seen a unanimity of purpose, a unity of leadership, unity of the executive and legislative branches of Government, and they are so proud that they have seen bipartisanship as America has responded to the crisis we now face. In the midst of that unity and that bipartisanship, we have seen swift action on a number of pieces of legislation: First of all, the emergency supplemental that would appropriate $20 billion to respond to the terrorists and another $10 billion to respond to the crisis in New York; Then, as the Senator pointed out, the quick action on the financial package for the airlines so that we can get people back into the air and help shore up this major component of our economy. But in the midst of all this unity, I think that partisanship and ideological rigidity is beginning to raise its ugly head again, for as the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out, there was an objection offered last week when we needed to pass a Department of Defense authorization bill that held it up some 5 days more. Finally, we got an agreement after a tortuous process of trying to explain to others that you couldn't load down the Department of Defense authorization bill with everybody's agenda, that you had to keep it pure and address the defense needs of this country, particularly at a time such as this. We came to a point yesterday late in the day where the majority leader--and I believe the minority leader--wanted to agree to the unanimous consent request of the majority leader to proceed on this airline security bill, and yet there were objections--perhaps for some partisan reasons, perhaps for some ideological reasons, perhaps for some parochial reasons. But as so eloquently pointed out by the Senator from North Dakota, are we forgetting what is in the interest of the country, which is to get the American public flying again, and to help all of these myriad of industries that are dependent upon a healthy airline industry with lots of passengers? My State is clearly one that is so desperately affected by the lack of airline travel and its spillover into the hotels, restaurants, and the visitor attractions. You can go on with car rental companies, on and on. The majority leader, our wonderful leader, Senator Daschle--I think with the concurrence of the minority leader certainly in wanting to be there--wants a bill that would put sky marshals on the planes, that would strengthen the cockpit doors, that would have enhanced and federalized screening of passengers, that would help train the crews for anti-hijacking procedures, that would require background checks on those who are not citizens who want to learn to fly in our flight schools, and all of those things that are unanimously embraced in this country and that we want to pass. As so adequately pointed out by the Senator from North Dakota, it is 4:25 on Thursday and we can't proceed to the bill. We can't even proceed to the motion to proceed because it is going to be filibustered. We will pass the motion to proceed next Tuesday. But then there are 30 hours of debate on the motion to proceed before we can ever get to the airline security bill unless people will come to their senses as to what is in the national interest, putting aside their partisan concerns, putting aside their parochial concerns, and coming together again in what has been a bright, shining moment for America in the unity and bipartisanship that has been displayed in the last 3 weeks. I was sufficiently moved by the comments of the Senator from North Dakota that I wanted--I thank him for taking my place in the chair as the Presiding Officer--to offer these remarks. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 167, submitted earlier today by Senators McCain, Kerry, Gramm, and myself.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on behalf of the other Senators--and I know they are in various negotiations on other legislation; in Senator McCain's case, the Airline Security Act, and in the case of Senator Gramm, he is involved in the Intelligence Committee right now--I say on behalf of all of them, and for me, what a great privilege it is to recognize a public servant, Ambassador Pete Peterson, who served as a Member of Congress prior to being named by President Clinton as the first United States Ambassador to Vietnam. We bring forth this resolution commending Ambassador Peterson because of his extraordinary leadership in helping bring about the Vietnam Trade Act, which this Senate passed earlier today. What is so poignant about this story of Douglas Pete Peterson is the fact that when he first went to Vietnam during the Vietnam war as an Air Force pilot, he was shot down and captured and held in captivity for over 6 years. He was able to return to that country as Ambassador and has won the hearts of the people of Vietnam. I remember reading a story that absolutely gripped me about a few days before Pete Peterson departed as Ambassador to Vietnam, he had a reunion with one of his captors. This was a captor who, at a time of great stress, after Pete had been beat over and over again to the point of unconsciousness, and he did not know if he was going to live or die at that particular point, in his stupor of coming in and out of consciousness, he motioned to one of his captors that he was thirsty, and his captor brought him a cup of tea. A couple of days before Pete was to depart as the first Ambassador from America to Vietnam, and a very successful Ambassador, he had a reunion with that captor, and that Vietnamese gentleman offered him a cup of tea again. How times had changed and what a great leader for us to have representing America where he held no grudge; he did not want revenge. He offered the best of America showing that we are a forgiving people. After serving six distinguished years as a Member of Congress from the State of Florida, for Pete, a Vietnam POW, to return to that country that had held him captive the longest as one of the POWs, then to come back extending the hand of friendship with no malice in his heart, was to win the hearts of the Vietnamese people. In the process, he negotiated and tweaked and nurtured the Vietnam trade bill, which we passed earlier today. It is with a great deal of humility that I speak on behalf of so many others, including Senator McCain. Although he was not in the same POW camp with Ambassador Peterson, he clearly knew of him and thinks the highest of him. My words are inadequate to express the thoughts of all these other Senators. I want to say one thing in closing about Pete Peterson. He is not only a hero to so many in his public and professional life --his professional life as a military officer, as a Member of Congress, and as our first Ambassador to Vietnam--but he is also a role model as a human being. After he returned from Vietnam, he suffered through the years of a long and torturous process of cancer with his first wife, finally claiming her life, but Pete Peterson was right there with her the whole way. He had the joy in Vietnam of meeting an Australian diplomat's daughter of Vietnamese descent, his present wife Vi. They make an engaging and attractive couple. Mr. President, I offer these comments of appreciation as we pass this resolution.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

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, I rise today in support of the Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. This agreement paves the way for improved relations between the United States and Vietnam, and will improve overall economic and political conditions in both countries. I would like to say a few words about a man who was an integral part of negotiating this agreement, Ambassador Douglas ``Pete'' Peterson. Many people in Florida are familiar with the heroic deeds and leadership of Pete Peterson. It is fitting and proper that we, in this body, recognize his exemplary service to our country. Pete Peterson was a young Air Force pilot when he was shot down, captured, and held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam where he remained for 6\1/2\ years. He was regularly interrogated, isolated, and tortured. Very few POWs were held longer. His example of perseverance under the most horrible conditions and circumstances is one that cannot be easily comprehended, but is one that we must regard with immense gratitude. Pete Peterson was not deterred by his horrific experience in Hanoi and continued his service in the Air Force. He went on to complete 26 years of service, retiring as a colonel. He distinguished himself as a leader in Florida, and was elected to represent the second congressional district of Florida in 1990. After serving three terms in the U.S. Congress, Pete became the U.S. first post-war Ambassador to Vietnam. I have known Pete for many years, and he made a comment about his tour as Ambassador to Vietnam, which I believe, is indicative of his commitment to service, ``How often does one have the chance to return to a place where you suffered and try to make things right?'' Pete Peterson made things right. One step toward doing so was the Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. This was Pete's top trade priority, but it was much more. It was an important part of normalizing relations with Vietnam, including political and economic reform, as well as working to improve human rights. Only someone of Pete Peterson's caliber could have successfully represented the United States during the challenging period of normalizing relations and healing between our nations. Only someone of his patriotism, honor, and integrity could have played such a prominent role in achieving this trade agreement. This agreement will increase market access for American products and improve economic conditions in Vietnam as well as the climate for investors in Vietnam Now we still have some work to do. I know the Commission on International Religious Freedom has been critical of Vietnam, and I was disappointed to see some of the comments that came out of Hanoi in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11. However, only through engagement and cooperative efforts can we most effectively press Vietnam to continue to respect human rights and continue political and economic reform. That is why Pete Peterson should be recognized and thanked here today. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment and to support our chairman, Senator Levin, and our ranking member, Senator Warner, and to support our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who has written a very clear letter to all of us, which Senator Warner has already read into the Record, setting forth his reasons why we need to consider realignment and closure of some bases. We have close to 400 bases in the United States. With a reorganization of the force structure, it is very clearly stated by the Secretary of Defense that we don't need all of those bases, and that there would be substantial savings from closing some of them. Now, is any Senator up here going to want any base closed in his or her particular State? Of course not. Are all of us, with such a recommendation for closure, going to fight like the dickens to keep that base open in our particular States? Of course we are. But we are judging a question not within the myopic lens of just the interest of our own States but, rather, from the view as Senators looking at protection and providing for the common defense of the country. I have heard a number of our colleagues talk about this very sad tragedy of September 11 as a justification for not closing bases. It seems to me it is a justification for exactly the opposite; that it is a justification for recognizing that we need to be smart in how we are going to allocate the funds that are clearly going to be needed for the defense of this country, and that we best utilize and direct those funds in combating this terrible plague that has now beset not only us but the entire world, and that is this plague of terrorism. I wanted to add my voice to perhaps what is an unpopular point of view. Indeed, if one of our bases ends up on the closure list, I will be making the pitch, but that is not the question. The question is what is in the best interest of the country in the allocation of the dollars that are appropriated for the Department of Defense. If we can save some that can be allocated more to the prosecution of this war against terrorism, then, in this Senator's judgment, that is in the best interest of our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as we consider a major component of America's economic engine and what to do about it, clearly there are two things that stand out and that came out of our Commerce Committee hearing yesterday chaired by Senator Hollings. For the airlines to be able to fly again financially solvent, the security measures must be put into place so that the American public has confidence to fly again. I personally think it is safe to fly. I flew Monday night to Orlando, and there were only 10 people on the plane. Happily, when I flew back from Florida, from Tampa to Washington on Tuesday night, there were 40 people on the plane. My recommendation on the basis of going to two major airports in Florida, checking all of their security arrangements, is that the security apparatus is beginning to work. It didn't work on September 11. The first part of restoring this industry to health is security, so that we can get people back in the airplanes and the American public flying again. That, of course, has been amply demonstrated by our discussion today. I am a cosponsor of this bill. The second component that came out of our hearing was that the airlines, in order to be able to operate, have to have insurance that is available and affordable. That is what is creating the crisis right now, that several of the insurance carriers are about to yank the coverage from the airlines. Of course, the airlines will be grounded if that is going to occur. That is what is so important in this package that is coming out that the majority leader and the Republican leader are about to describe, a component of victims' compensation which would eliminate a lot of the uncertainty about all that collateral damage that had been done as a result of the World Trade Center being rammed by those two jet liners and where would be the source of that funding. Preliminarily, for the leaders to discuss what has been agreed upon as a first step--and I do believe this is a first step in a long journey, as we return to normality in our airline traffic system, a very big, essential first step--the American public, the American traveling public, has to be a major component. They have to have the confidence that they are going to be safe when they get back into air travel. A major component of economic restoration in this country is hanging in the balance. I am going to discuss why I think this is of critical importance to the country. Once we get through and decide on this first package--hopefully we will enact it this afternoon--then there are going to be many steps in this journey. There are collateral industries that have been decimated. Clearly, all of these other collateral industries, such as hotels, restaurants, tourist attractions, car rental agencies--and I have three of the Nation's largest that are headquartered in the State of Florida: Alamo, National, and Budget Rent A Car companies are headquartered in the State of Florida. You can imagine, with 50 percent of their business now not coming in the door, what is happening to their financial obligations, and to the obligations they have to banks on loan payments, and their obligations to the salaries of their employees. So as we get on down the road, I think what we are going to discover is, first and foremost, we have to get the airline industry back in the air operating with fairly full loads, so the economic engine is working and so it is supplying all of the air traffic that feeds so many of these other collateral industries, such as car rentals, such as hotels, such as convention centers, such as restaurants. Once that package has been firmly established--and I hope this gathering right here in this Senate is bringing reasonable men together so they might agree--then I think in the very near future--and I am talking about next week--we can address some of these other collateral industries that desperately need help. Today we are going to proceed with the debate on the aviation security bill. I don't think there is going to be a lot of disagreement on that. I think it clearly will reestablish in the public's mind that it is safe to travel. Indeed, I am going to demonstrate that with my own feet tonight when I walk on to another commercial airliner. I really do believe it is safe. By the way, if you need to fly, now is the time to fly because there are no lines. But in addition, it is my hope that we are going to have agreement here so we can proceed with this financial package to give the aviation industry the security it needs and, thus, the insurance industry will not start canceling their insurance starting Monday and Tuesday. It is absolutely essential, and it is essential for one more reason: because we don't want the terrorists to win. If they disrupt our economy, if they cause financial distress to a major component of America's economic engine, then they will have scored a victory. But we are not going to let them. That is why this great democracy is functioning as it is to provide the needed help. I thank the Chair for the opportunity for me to share. I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Hollings. I thank the ranking member, Senator McCain. It was an excellent all-day hearing yesterday in the Commerce Committee. I yield the floor.