Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, it is very apparent that President Mubarak must step down. The longer he waits to realize he has to step down, the more difficult it is going to be in order to have an orderly transition and to keep the peace in Egypt. The longer he waits to announce he is stepping down immediately, the more difficult it is to transfer power to his Vice President, General Omar Suleiman. If he had done this several days ago, then that transition would have been so much easier because General Suleiman is well respected in Egypt, certainly by the military. He is well respected by the Arab neighbors in the region, and he is well respected in Israel, as well as the United States. But every day there is violence and bloodshed in these clashes, it makes the Arab street much more difficult to accept any semblance of authority that would come from Mubarak, even though, under the Egyptian Constitution, there is a Vice President, albeit that Vice Presidency has been vacant for years and years and years. But, nevertheless, there is a Vice President who is in the constitutional line of succession to become President. Again, I say what I said several days ago: President Mubarak needs to recognize, despite his long years of great service in keeping Egypt stable, especially in the aftermath of the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, that it is time for him to step down, that there is a new nation of Egypt out there and they want reform and they want free and fair elections and most of them want a peaceful and orderly transition of power. I would again call on the President of Egypt to step down and step down immediately and let the Presidency be assumed by his Vice President, with the guarantee of free and fair elections in September and the guarantee that President Mubarak is not going to run for reelection. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it seems to me that what we ought to be doing with regard to this law is fixing it instead of repealing it. We ought to be focusing on fixing it instead of focusing on repeal. Already, unanimously, it seems, people have embraced different parts of this law as certainly necessary. You could go down the list. Twenty-six-year-olds can now stay on their parents' health insurance policies. Health insurance companies can't go off spending all kinds of money on all kinds of jet airplanes and vacations. They have to deliver, on large group insurance policies, 85 cents of health care out of the $1 of premium paid--85 percent. Then, of course, you can't have a health insurance company cancel you in the middle of your coverage. Who in the world would not embrace this in the law; that is, you can't have some silly kind of reason that you are not going to give health insurance to a patient because they had a preexisting condition when, in fact, they had a skin rash, and that is an excuse. There is a lot in this law that is good, not the least of which is that there are 35 million people out of the 45 million who are uninsured in this country who, come 2014, will have private insurance, private exchanges, called health insurance exchanges, in each State, to which they can go and shop for health insurance. If they can't afford it because they are somewhere between that and the rate at which they are eligible for Medicaid or they are up to 400 percent of the poverty level for a family of four, they will have some assistance from the Federal Government so they can purchase that private enterprise exchange insurance. If you can bring 35 million people into the health insurance system, what happens to it? If they have health insurance, they start getting preventive care. That means you avoid what happens now, which is they don't have health insurance, they avoid going to the doctor because they can't afford it, and they wait until the health problem turns into an emergency. Where do they end up? They end up in the emergency room, which is the most expensive place now, with a full- blown emergency, and the laws of the 50 States require the emergency rooms to treat those people. Guess what. Who pays? All the rest of us pay. So if you can bring 35 million people out of the 40-some million uninsured Americans into the health insurance system, you bring down the per-unit cost that all the rest of us pay, which is tacked onto the health insurance premiums we pay. Because when the hospital picks up the tab, who do you think pays? It is distributed right out to the health insurance system, and the rest of us end up paying. So there is a lot of good in here. What we ought to do is fix it. We should not repeal it. There is another issue that has arisen in this great debate we are having, which is of historic proportions, on what is going to happen to this law that was passed in this body by a 60-vote margin. What has happened is there have been a lot of lawsuits filed. In two cases, Federal district judges have ruled the law is constitutional. In two other cases, Federal district judges--this is the lower court of the Federal court system--have ruled it is not constitutional. Of course, we have had action by the legislative branch, the other House, the House of Representatives, which has voted to repeal the law. Now here we are with the issue in front of us on which we will vote later today. Well, doesn't anybody conclude that this matter is going to the Supreme Court to decide if this law is constitutional? When the Supreme Court decides, regardless of what we have done or what we haven't done, the Supreme Court decision is going to discard political and partisan interests. So isn't it in our commonsense interest if we would come here and join together in a resolution to petition the Supreme Court to have an expedited review of this case? Typically, what happens with these two for and two against, that will work its way up through the court of appeals, and that will take another year, year and a half, and then it will get to the Supreme Court. That will take another year, year and a half. Why don't we expedite the matter? Why don't we express our intent to have an expedited review by the Supreme Court? I have filed such a sense of the Congress--a resolution--and its passage might prevent people from arguing back and forth over this law for the next several years. Everybody in this country that will be affected would have an answer, and they deserve an answer. Therefore, I urge the Senate to consider adopting the resolution asking the Supreme Court to step in and decide quickly whether the current law meets the constitutional test. My preference is that we fix the law, that we not throw it out. I don't want to go back to the days of the insurance companies dropping people because they get sick or depriving seniors of help getting their prescription drugs. But because the matter ultimately is going to be resolved by the Nation's highest Court, I think we ought to take a commonsense approach on this resolution. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. Mr. President, I see no one else is on the floor seeking recognition. I will just add that another commonsense component in this law that certainly means don't repeal it is the assistance that is given to senior citizens. That assistance is in the form of help with the cost of their prescription drugs. The Congress passed, and it was signed into law years ago, a prescription drug benefit, but that benefit was only partially assisted by the Federal Government, and senior citizens had to pick up a big part of the tab. This law closes a lot of that gap, what is commonly referred to as the doughnut hole. We do not want to take that away from senior citizens. I certainly think that is going to stand the constitutional muster. There is another part of this law that is so beneficial as well, and that is, are we not concerned about the deficit, are we not concerned about how we are going to get our country back on a road toward balance of our deficit so that we have a balanced budget? What this law does, which seems to me common sense that you do not want to repeal it, it saves the Federal Government, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan, highly technical economic team, $250 billion over the next 10 years and in the second 10-year period would save up to $1.2 trillion to the Federal Government. There are plenty of reasons that we ought to fix it instead of repealing it. I urge my colleagues--and I see my dear friend from the State of Nevada came in. Before he came in, I had urged us to consider a sense-of-the-Congress resolution to have an expedited appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, whenever a Senator, such as Senator Pryor from Arkansas, has to announce to the Senate the loss of a near personal friend, especially one he has been friends with, and with their parents, for years, it is always a tremendous loss. We are coming up in a couple of days on the 25th anniversary of another great loss in this country, when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded before our eyes on our television screens on January, 28, 1986. It was such a shock to the Nation, and it hit deep in our psyche because the symbol of America's technological prowess was the space shuttle in the early infancy of the program. The Challenger was only the 25th flight of the space shuttle that the Nation witnessed. In that rerun over and over of the close-up view of those solid rocket boosters going off in different directions 10 miles high in the Florida sky, the Nation witnessed that extraordinary loss. I will never forget the memorial service in Houston at the Johnson Space Center, when the President of the United States--as sometimes happens in times of grief--became not the President of the United States, not the Commander in Chief, but the comforter in chief. And that was again vividly illustrated a few weeks ago as President Obama delivered that ringing and highly emotional speech in Tucson, AZ. So 25 years ago, as all the crews gathered there at the Johnson Space Center, President Reagan touched the Nation as the comforter in chief and pointed out that despite that tragedy, those brave souls were doing what America has in our genes. By nature, we are explorers and adventurers, and we don't ever give that up. Otherwise, we become a second-rate Nation. Look at the history of America as explorers. Remember the criticism we read about in our history books concerning President Thomas Jefferson when he wanted to spend a paltry couple of thousand dollars on an expedition called the Lewis and Clark expedition, to see if they could find the passage to the Pacific coast. As a result of that mission, from which miraculously they returned and most of them were alive, they brought back all the artifacts of what this broad land contained. Remember when Tom Hanks played Jim Lovell in ``Apollo 13.'' ``Apollo 13'' was one of the most successful American space ventures not because they didn't land on the Moon, because they couldn't. Most of the spacecraft on the way to the Moon blew up. We thought we had three dead astronauts who were going to drift in space until they ran out of consumables. And it was that incredible story about how all of America's aerospace expertise resided with the astronaut who had stayed behind. He had been training, but he was exposed to the measles and so he was replaced. So then he was there, with all that knowledge and training for the mission and he could go into the simulator and they were able to simulate in real time how they were going to convert that motor of the lunar lander to get the space ship kicked out of lunar orbit and back on a trajectory to Earth. And remember after they got back--as Tom Hanks is playing Jim Lovell, the commander, in the movie-- someone in the audience asks the commander of the now safely returned crew of Apollo 13: Well, is there really the money to continue to explore space? And Lovell's answer is: What would it have been like if Columbus had returned from America and they never went back to follow in his footsteps as an explorer? So it is, during this time of tragedy, and hearing an individual Senator, Senator Pryor, talk about the loss of loved ones and family friends and young people with bright futures, and the reflection in a day or so of the anniversary of the Challenger tragedy and the loss of seven lives, including the teacher, Christa McAuliffe, who was going to teach that lesson plan to the classrooms from space, we are once again reminded that because we dare to venture, because we are by nature explorers, there are risks, and sometimes the price to be paid is with human life. But that is not a reason not to take the risk and to boldly venture forth. This is a good reminder for us as Americans as we face so many uncertainties--whether it be financial and our future of trying to get out of the recession, or whether it be the uncertain future in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or how the leadership of al-Qaida is being morphed into other countries, such as Yemen or Somalia, or the constant uncertainty of whether we will have a job tomorrow, or whether we can retrain for the new kinds of jobs that are coming on line. There are a lot of uncertainties--the uncertainties of our energy future. Can we remain dependent on 70 percent of our daily consumption of oil coming from places such as the Persian Gulf and Nigeria and Venezuela? No. It is time for us to venture forth, to explore new realms, to develop new technologies and to be creative. And, of course, as the President spoke last night, we can't do that unless we have an educated workforce, which is so necessary for us to be creative. It is that creativity, that Yankee ingenuity of Americans, that keeps us competitive in the global marketplace today because we can outinvent, we can outcreate. That is the change America has. As we reflect upon the tragedies, the individual tragedies that we have, the collective tragedy that we had as a nation--25 years ago with Challenger, several years ago with the loss of Columbia, the losses we had most recently that are seared into our hearts in Tucson--the hope that springs forth for those who are wounded, that they would come back to lead normal lives, these are our challenges. Keep at it. Keep at it. I say this also. Because it is a time of uncertainty, a lot of pundits are having fun because it appears that NASA is in disarray. NASA should not be in disarray. We have a blueprint. We have a roadmap for the future in the NASA bill that passed this Congress--one of the few that passed in the Congress before the lameduck session. It simply says let's continue to encourage the commercial companies to develop a service of taking astronauts and cargo to and from the space station and let's see if we can do that safely, as determined by NASA, but more efficiently and, therefore, more cheaply, given the constraints of budgets. But, at the same time, we then allow NASA to do what it does best, which is to venture out and explore the heavens. In so doing, we are going to build a new rocket that will take large components up and that will fulfill the President's goal, which is to go to Mars. The President specifically set a timetable of 2025 to land and return safely on an asteroid. That is no easy feat, given how fast an asteroid flies through space. But it will give us new technologies, as we develop, to go to Mars. Think of the unbelievable time it would take us under conventional technology--10 months to get to Mars. Then, once you got to Mars, you pretty well have to stay on the surface of Mars for 1 year, until the planets are realigned, revolving about the Sun, so Mars comes in closer to the Earth for the 10-month trip back. That is why we need new technologies. An astronaut who flew seven times, Dr. Franklin Chang- Diaz, a plasma physicist from MIT, is developing a plasma rocket that will take us to Mars in 39 days. Then, with that short time flying, at 400,000 miles per hour by plasma thrust, we could stay on the surface 1 month, to return to Earth without having to stay 1 year. These are exciting new technologies. A pilot project of that plasma rocket, with the acronym VASIMR, is being developed to fly on the space station and provide a continuous pulse that will keep the space station boosted, instead of it having, in the degrading of its orbit for conventional technology, to keep boosting it. Not only is the sky the limit, not only is the stratosphere the limit, the heavens are the limit if we as Americans will assume this can-do posture that is so typical of the personalities of explorers and adventurers; in other words, the personalities of we, the Americans. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise in support of the New START treaty. I wish to make a comment. I was raised in a time that when the President of the United States went abroad, he spoke for our country and there was no partisanship when that occurred. It is troubling to this Senator to hear comments about our President when he goes abroad in an apology tour. I would beg to differ, and I think we ought to rise above that partisanship when issues of national security are at stake. Now to the treaty. This agreement with Russia is going to strengthen our national security. Look at all the people in the Pentagon who have embraced it--the former Secretaries of State, the former Secretaries of Defense, from both sides of the political aisle, and it deserves our support too. I expect today we are going to get an overwhelming bipartisan vote in favor of this treaty. I wish to specifically address the question that has been raised about modernization of our nuclear stockpile--an issue I had the privilege, as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, to be engaged in over a 4-year period. Arguments have been made that somehow this treaty is going to interfere with the modernization of our nuclear weapons infrastructure. Well, it is exactly the opposite. Ratification of this treaty is so important to give security and stability to the question of the use of those nuclear weapons that it will allow us to spend the needed resources on the modernization of our nuclear complex, which is an equally important matter. As part of this year's Nuclear Posture Review, the administration has made a commitment to modernize our nuclear weapons arsenal and the complex. We must do so to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent because as these weapons in stockpile age, we have to update them and we have to modernize them so they are effective, secure, but also safe. We need to be sure our nuclear weapons are going to work as designed and that they will remain stable and secure. In the past, when we maintained a larger and more expensive nuclear stockpile, our weapons were developed and tested frequently. That is very expensive. By the mid-1990s, we had developed sophisticated computer models that can identify and resolve the problems without the nuclear testing. Unfortunately, because of lessened funding back in the era of about 2006 that research diminished, resulting in the layoffs of a lot of the people in our National Labs. I have had the privilege of visiting those three National Labs. There is an incredible array of talent, but that is what happened back in 2006. I think we have, especially in this administration, a new resolve to turning the situation around and to modernizing the nuclear complex. So what does this modernization entail? The comprehensive plan includes an $85 billion investment over the next decade and a $4 billion increase over the next 5 years, and that investment is going to accomplish several things. It is going to fund the construction of the 21st century uranium and plutonium processing facilities, it is going to spur a reinvestment in the scientists and engineers who perform the mission, and it is going to enhance the lifetime extension program for our nuclear weapons. By the way, it is not only just extending the life of those weapons, it is also making them safer. Some Senators have expressed concerns about the level of funding for this modernization. I believe our President and this administration have adequately addressed those concerns, and I would note that the Directors of the three labs--Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia--all believe the administration's current plan will allow them to execute their requirements for ensuring a safe, secure, reliable, and effective stockpile. While we move forward with that modernization program, we should also move forward--it is a separate issue--with the treaty. Passing this treaty is going to safeguard our national security while demonstrating to the men and women of our nuclear complex that we have reached a national consensus on nuclear sustainability.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I pay tribute during this holiday season to the men and women serving our Nation so nobly across the globe. As we mark the 10th year our Nation has been engaged in combat, we should all be reminded of the extraordinary sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen. As we gather with our loved ones, we must not forget those servicemembers who cannot be with their families and friends this holiday season. We honor these men and women risk their lives to protect our freedom and way of life. The one constant in this uncertain time is the heroism of people who so willingly fight for freedom. The strength of our Nation is built on their devotion and sacrifice. Specialist Kelly J. Mixon I rise today to honor the fallen, like Army SPC Kelly J. Mixon of Yulee, FL, who was killed by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan on December 8. Specialist Mixon would be 24 years old on Christmas Eve. Sadly, he will be buried in Arlington National Cemetery on December 29. To the many men and women who have given the last measure of freedom, our country will remember your bravery and patriotism. To the families of these fallen servicemembers, we can never express enough gratitude for the sacrifice you must bear. On behalf of the people of Florida and our Nation, our prayers are with you.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4053, introduced earlier today.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I support this treaty. The support is overwhelming, and it is bipartisan. The fact that the entire defense establishment and the Pentagon supports this treaty should be significant. The questions that have been raised about the modernization of our, basically, arsenal of nuclear weapons are legitimate. But they are questions that are constantly tended to not only by the appropriate committees in the Congress but by the defense and national security establishment. The Cold War has now been over for two decades. The United States and Russia still possess 90 percent of the nuclear weapons. The fact is, we need stability in these huge arsenals of nuclear weapons between our two countries. To have this stability then allows us to be able to confront the rest of the world and the dangers that exist with regard to a potential nuclear threat. While our nuclear triad remains an important component to our overall national security, it is no longer necessary for us to maintain such a huge stockpile. We are facing new threats, and we need new answers. Here is what we know about the bottom line. This treaty enhances cooperation with Russia. It allows for onsite inspections. It allows for verification of Russia's nuclear arsenal. It also demonstrates to a worldwide audience our commitment to oversight and monitoring of nuclear weapons. This START treaty reduces the number of nuclear warheads in Russia by 30 percent. Preventing a nuclear terrorist attack is paramount. The more we create stability with Russia, it allows us then to increase pressure elsewhere on other countries that we are always concerned about having nuclear weapons. And we are always concerned about those nuclear weapons getting out of their control and getting into the hands of people who would do us harm. Of course, we are certainly concerned about those other countries with nuclear ambitions--one, North Korea, that apparently already possesses nuclear weapons, and the country of Iran, which is certainly trying to possess nuclear weapons. It is commonsense that what you do is take an arsenal of some over 2,2200 nuclear weapons and reduce them. It is just common sense that you would, under a treaty between the two nuclear powers that have 90 percent of the nuclear weapons, that you would start to reduce delivery systems. It just makes common sense that we would be able to have an inspection and verification regime so that we can have that stability between Russia and the United States. You can always bring up all kinds of things. This does not affect in any way our ability to have a national missile defense system. If we do not ratify this treaty--and it is not only my hope but it is my expectation that we are going to be able to get the 67 votes to ratify this treaty, but if we did not, we would put ourselves in a much less safe position because the previous START treaty expired a year ago. Without START, there is no recourse or system to inspect warheads. We have been analyzing this treaty now for the last 7 months. The bipartisan support of this treaty, Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, along with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, we have been combing through these details. We constantly have to develop new ways to safeguard our national security. Developing new state-of-the-art systems allows for a more vigorous inspection regime. We have built up some of that experience since the Cold War ended. When it comes around to investment, the Obama administration has agreed to invest $85 billion into the nuclear weapons complex. The administration agreed to Senator Kyl wanting another $4 billion increase. That is a modernization that needs to take place at several of our facilities. So let's move on and ratify this treaty. This treaty does not limit our missile defense options. We have clearly and consistently heard from Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many others in the Defense Department state that this is the case. The treaty's ratification is long overdue in order to secure our Nation's security. I believe we must ratify this treaty now. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are soon going to vote on the bipartisan compromise on extending the expiring tax cuts and unemployment benefits. Although, as I described yesterday, it is a bitter pill to swallow because of the extended funding that will cause the deficit to rise, I doubt there is anybody in this Chamber who wants the alternative; that is, inaction or a political stalemate which is certainly not an option. Job growth remains anemic. For many of our constituents who are struggling to make ends meet in the midst of this jobless economic recovery, unemployment benefits have already expired. Without action, on January 1, those fortunate enough to have a job would see a significant drop in their paychecks as the middle-class tax cuts enacted 10 years ago also expire, with the effect that the taxes would be going up all across the income spectrum. So out of this stark reality facing us on January 1, this is when people of good will have come together--people of good will who have different opinions, and who, as I said, have to swallow hard on some of the parts of this package. It is my intention, as we vote in just a few hours, to vote for this package. It does provide relief that is critical for middle-class families. For example, for a family making $63,000 a year, if we didn't pass this bill, and the existing tax law expired, then that income level, a family earning $63,000--their taxes would go up by $2,000. This bill prevents that. These middle-class tax cuts are extended in this legislation for a period of 2 years, and that includes the 10-percent income tax bracket, the $1,000 child tax credit, an increase in the standard deduction for married couples, and an expansion of the 15- percent tax bracket for married couples. The bill rewards work by continuing provisions in the 2009 Recovery Act that expanded the earned-income tax credit and the refundable tax credit. The bill also continues the tax credit that allows taxpayers to claim a $2,500 tax credit for all 4 years of their higher education. In my State of Florida, 600,000 Florida taxpayers benefited from that tax credit. It also has significant consequences for everybody across the board. For example, without an extension of the unemployment benefits through this coming year, 7 million unemployed workers would lose one of the last lifelines available to them. This bill is going to breathe life into the private sector through a payroll tax reduction of 2 percent for 1 year. What that does is put more money into people's pockets, which they will then go out and spend. That spending will turn over in the economy and that will produce jobs. The bill includes provisions of particular importance to my State. Our State is one of six that does not have an income tax. As you know, when you calculate your Federal income tax, you can deduct your State income tax. For those six States, we finally got a provision in 6 years ago--whereas we don't have an income tax in Florida, we have a State sales tax. We put that in, and that is a deductible item, comparable to other States that have an income tax--to deduct that in the calculation of the Federal income tax. I am pleased that this agreement extends that deduction. The bill also has an extension of section 1603, which is the Treasury grant program for renewable energy projects, to convert tax credits for the production of renewable electricity into an upfront investment tax credit, and to receive a grant in lieu of the investment tax credit. Certainly, as we are trying to move to renewable energy, that keeps that alive. It is badly needed. But what it illustrates is that there were some 20 to 25 Senators out here on the floor yesterday who were talking about our commitment to roll up our sleeves going into the next year, to try to do something about the reduction of spending and, therefore, reduction of the deficit, at the same time reforming a Tax Code that has gotten so complicated and so fraught with special interest provisions that it is crying out for reform. One way or another, we are going to have to make it happen. I believe that what we are going to vote on this afternoon is the first step of a badly needed effort toward restoring trust and confidence and starting to get our economy moving again. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous and specifically to offer my thoughts on the Articles of Impeachment. First, let me say as a general matter that when we as a body consider the nomination of a Federal judge, we do so with the hope and expectation that the individual being considered will uphold the law and treat people appearing in his or her courtrooms with fairness and impartiality. The lengthy record presented by the House managers demonstrated that Judge Porteous has had an ongoing pattern of conduct that does not comport with the trust that the Senate placed in him when it confirmed Judge Porteous as a U.S. district court judge in 1999. The managers also presented sufficient evidence for me to vote in favor of each of the Articles of Impeachment. Because of the lengthy, ongoing, and egregious nature of the judge's conduct, I also voted to disqualify Judge Porteous from any future Federal office. The most compelling evidence presented for each article was as follows: Article I--The record demonstrated that Judge Porteous, while presiding as a U.S. District Judge, denied a motion to recuse himself in the case of Lifemark Hospitals of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, despite the fact that he had a corrupt financial relationship with the law firm representing Liljeberg Enterprises. The record also demonstrated that Judge Porteous engaged in corrupt conduct after the Lifemark v. Liljeberg bench trial, and while he had the case under advisement. Judge Porteous solicited and accepted things of value from both Mr. Amato and his law partner, Mr. Creely, including a payment of thousands of dollars in cash, then ruled in favor of the law firm's client, Liljeberg Enterprises. Article II--The record demonstrated that while Judge Porteous was a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, he engaged in a corrupt relationship with bail bondsman Louis M. Marcotte, II and his sister, Lori Marcotte. The record also demonstrated that, as part of this corrupt relationship, Judge Porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value for his personal use and benefit, including meals, trips, home repairs, and car repairs, while at the same time taking official actions that benefitted the Marcottes. Article III--The record demonstrated that Judge Porteous knowingly and intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury related to his personal bankruptcy filing, and that he repeatedly violated a court order in his bankruptcy case. Article IV--The record demonstrated that Judge Porteous knowingly made numerous material false statements about his past to both the U.S. Senate and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the office of U.S. district court judge. The record demonstrated that these statements included the following: 1. On his Supplemental SF-86, Judge Porteous was asked if there was anything in his personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or blackmail him, or if there was anything in his life that could cause an embarrassment to Judge Porteous or the President if publicly known. Judge Porteous answered no to this question and signed the form under a warning that a false statement was punishable by law. 2. During his background check, Judge Porteous falsely told the Federal Bureau of Investigation on two separate occasions that he was not concealing any activity or conduct that could be used to influence, pressure, coerce, or compromise him in any way that would impact negatively on his character, reputation, judgment or discretion. 3. On the Senate Judiciary Committee's Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, Judge Porteous was asked whether any unfavorable information existed that could affect his nomination. Judge Porteous answered that to the best of his knowledge, he did ``not know of any unfavorable information that may affect [his] nomination.'' Judge Porteous signed that questionnaire by swearing that the information provided in the statement is, to the best of my knowledge, true and accurate.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to say to the new Senator from Illinois, thank you for your forbearance. 10 years ago, this Senator made his maiden speech on the floor, and it was about this very same issue. Because then, a decade ago, we had the privilege of having surpluses. My maiden speech was about exactly if we did not watch out, what was going to happen is those surpluses were going to go into deficits. If we had been good stewards of our condition, we could have paid off the national debt over the course of 12 years. But we took a different direction. I am to be followed by the Senator from Minnesota, and the Senator from California. I think what we are hearing here, in a bipartisan way, after we are swallowing a bitter pill of what we are going to vote on tonight, that is going to increase the debt $900 billion, because under these economic circumstances it is the right thing to do to jump-start the economy-- I think what we are hearing now is a confluence of events that is going to bring us starkly face to face, that we are going to have to reduce the debt and we are going to have to do tax reform. Because the conditions are so raw now, it is our responsibility to explain what we see as the economic circumstances of the country, explain it to the American people, and then act on it. When emergency conditions arise, there is opportunity, and that is the opportunity to make change for the good. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we had a hearing in the Commerce Committee yesterday about the future of NASA. We had the President's science officer, the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. Holdren; and the Chief Financial Officer of NASA, Dr. Robinson. We pointblank asked both of them if they intended to follow the new law, the NASA authorization bill, that sets out a visionary course for the future of our manned and unmanned space program. They both indicated they would absolutely follow the direction of policy within the administration; they would follow the law. Clearly, this has the President's stamp of approval. For once, we passed the bill unanimously in the Senate and by a three-quarters vote in the House of Representatives. The President then signed the bill into law. It is the President's policy. It is a policy that balances a number of things. We continue the International Space Station at least until the year 2020, a space station, by the way, that is just now being completed after over a decade of construction. It is designated as a national laboratory, but a host of nations are all participants in the International Space Station, and cutting-edge research will be done utilizing the unique property of zero gravity of orbit as the space station orbits the Earth at 17,500 miles an hour. We will start to develop new rockets that, as we speak, are being developed to carry cargo to and from the International Space Station. Those rockets will be in a competition between commercial companies, a competition conducted by NASA for making those rockets safe enough in order to take crew to and from the International Space Station and, at the same time, realizing that NASA's real vision is to go out and explore the heavens. The NASA authorization bill starts the development of a heavy-lift rocket that will be able to take components up into low Earth orbit, where they can be assembled, and then ultimately to fulfill the President's goal he has set, which is to go to Mars. The path by which we go to Mars is yet to be determined. A lot of that will depend upon the development of technology. There is within this NASA bill a robust technology development program for such missions as going to Mars or to an asteroid or whether we go back to the Moon. We were on the Moon 40 years ago. Now it is time to venture on out into the cosmos. Under conventional technology, it would take 10 months for us to get to Mars, and by the time you got there, the realignments of the planets as they orbit the Sun would cause us to have to stay on the surface of Mars for a year until the planets were realigned where Earth was going to be close enough to Mars for the 10-month return journey. So, naturally, there is development going on by a number of entities, but one in particular headed by the astronaut who has flown more than any other astronaut--seven times--Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz. He has been developing over the years, even from the time he got his Ph.D. at MIT, a plasma rocket, and that rocket is being now sufficiently developed that they are ready to do the testing stage and carry a small version of the rocket to the International Space Station, where it would be attached. A plasma rocket gives a constant stream of plasma energy that would keep the space station boosted to its height instead of constantly having to boost it every year or so because the orbit degrades. That plasma rocket would take us to Mars, if perfected, in 2 months instead of 10 months. If you go to Mars that fast--and by the way, that is going at 400,000 miles per hour--if you go that fast, then you don't have to stay on the surface of Mars for a year because you can stay there for a first trip for a few days, and the planets are still aligned so they are close enough so that in a 2-month period, you would be able to get back. These are exciting things for the future of both the human space program and the nonhuman space program. The development of technologies in Earth science, the unmanned portion--we have a fairly significant increase in the NASA budget with regard to the science portion. There is a huge increase in the budget of NASA for aeronautics. Remember, the first ``A'' in NASA--it is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The first ``A'' is aeronautics. There is a huge increase in the research and development for aeronautics. A lot of the airplanes we take for granted today or the cutting-edge advances in our military aircraft, where do we think that originally came in? It came from the research and development through NASA. So, naturally, the Commerce Committee wanted to make sure the administration, given some of the uncertainties of the actual funding levels, is on point to follow the NASA authorization law. We received those assurances yesterday. It is our hope that as we now come to decide how we are going to fund the rest of the government for the rest of the fiscal year--we are already into the fiscal year, October and November and going into the third month of the fiscal year; a fiscal year that started October 1-- we are hoping that, at the very least, we can take the existing appropriations from last year, the fiscal year 2010, and carry that forward, at the very least, for NASA. What that would mean is instead of having funding at $19 billion for 2011, the funding would be at last year's level of $18.724 billion. That would be $276 million less than the authorized level. NASA can live with that. The exceptional goals that are set in this NASA bill can be achieved with that cut, which is less than 1.6 percent of the total NASA authorized level--clearly, it can be done under these very austere times. So I am hopeful, on the basis of what we saw yesterday and heard in the Commerce Committee, we will be able to go forth. A third shuttle flight will be added that will fly next summer. As we transition into the new commercial rockets, as we transition into the development of the new heavy-lift rocket, along with its spacecraft known as a capsule, as we transition into the extension of the International Space Station, the modernization of our space facilities, particularly at the Kennedy Space Center--as we transition into all that, we will have less of a disruption of the employment in the space community than otherwise would have been the case with employment dropping precipitously off a cliff because of the shutdown of the space shuttle program. I am encouraged, I am optimistic, I am grateful, and I was happy to hear the unequivocal statements by the administration yesterday in support of the NASA bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if we want to revive our economy, one thing we can do is to bring back and extend the home buyer tax credit we enacted earlier this year. It was for a limited time. It has expired, but it was hugely successful. It is an $8,000 tax credit for qualified first-time home buyers and a $6,500 tax credit for repeat, move-up home buyers. And this tax credit that we passed that was law was largely responsible for many of the homes that were purchased in States like mine, Florida, where the housing market has gone kaput. The mortgages were inflated when the housing bubble burst, the property values dropped and you see a number of our States that have been hit so hard, albeit, the entire Nation has been hit hard by the housing bubble bursting. Well, we tried this home buyer tax credit, and it worked. It was popular in other States, like California, like in Texas. Texas had a more stable housing market, but folks recognized that a good housing market provides a lot of ancillary benefits for the economy. It creates jobs. It generates consumer spending. The studies have shown, looking back on this tax credit we gave for housing, it was in the first quarter of this year, it led to a 6-percent increase in all home sales, and it led to a whopping 42-percent increase in the sale of new homes. Now by contrast, when that credit expired, the home sales plummeted. Well, what does it mean in real terms to real people and real families? It means jobs. It means jobs selling houses, jobs constructing houses, jobs financing houses--anything associated with a person having one of their most important assets, their home. And then it means a lot of jobs about making all the things that go inside a house. And that's the kind of boost we need again. We need again to get this economy moving. Now, since it has been shown to work because it generates home sales and purchases--in States where the real estate industry is a large part of the economy, in States where housing values have dropped, where many homes are underwater in the value of their fair market value now compared to the face amount of their mortgage in many communities that are distressed by foreclosures--and what community has not been hit by that?--what it does is it turns that around and boosts the home sales. That is a part of economic recovery. Now, there are those who are out there who are going to say: Well, it is too expensive. That it doesn't yield good results in certain parts of the country that were not hit with the housing crisis like the rest of us were. And some people will claim: Well, we're coming out of the recession--by their estimation--and it would be better to target our efforts elsewhere. Mr. President, the recession's not over for many, many Americans. And if something has proven it works, why don't we reinstitute it? It was President Franklin Roosevelt who said, during another time of economic peril, the Great Depression, he said: Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment. Mr. President, do we not have the ``dark realities of the moment'' of what's happening in the State of the Presiding Officer right now, in my State, and many others? Indeed, these are dark economic times, and most every American knows it. Just look to the elections. In almost every exit poll after the election, 60 percent of the voters said the economy was the most important issue facing the Nation--that they were concerned about as they walked into that polling place. Forty percent of those same voters said their families are worse off financially than they were just a few years ago. And 33 percent of them said that someone in their household had lost a job recently. Is that not the ``dark realities of the moment''? So let's take something that worked. And despite the fact that it's costly, let's find an offset. Let's find another source of revenue to pay for approximately the $15 to $20 billion that the home buyer tax credit cost before that boosted the sales of homes and started to revive the housing industry and, therefore, revive the fair market values of people's homes. Let's move to quickly bring back this home buyer tax credit. It's worked before, and it will work again. Mr. President, if I may be recognized again, since no one is waiting to speak.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, America's secrets are not what are at risk with the exposure of thousands and thousands of documents of classified cables. America's friends and allies are at risk and, therefore, America's national security is at risk. When classified cables identify certain people who have helped us from around the world as we advance the interests of the free world, defend our national security, and the safety of all humankind--when those people are exposed, there are a lot of bad people out there who want to get rid of those kind of people. When sources of information--I will dress it up and tell you exactly what it is; it is called intelligence--when sources of intelligence are betrayed by being made public, by the disclosure, indiscriminately, of thousands and thousands of cables that were marked ``Top Secret'' or marked ``Secret,'' then what we have done is we have started to shackle our arms behind ourselves in our ability to defend ourselves. Why do I say that? Well, look at all the recent attempts at a terrorist act. We were able to avert the terrorist striking because we got the information that he was going to strike before he struck. Where did that source of information come? Often that source of information comes from far corners of the globe because we have a relationship with people who are giving us information that we then track down and find that, in fact, it is true and stop the terrorist from doing their dastardly deed upon innocent humans. Since 2001 and the September 11th bombings and the September 11th crashes of the airliners, over and over again the newspapers of this country have chronicled terrorist plots that have been thwarted for the reasons I have just said. Now along comes someone who, for whatever reasons of being a misfit, wants to disgorge thousands of classified cables that start to betray our sources of information to protect ourselves and protect others--not even necessarily our allies--but other innocent victims in other countries with whom we may not even have a relationship. This is the height of dishonoring our country and our people and all humankind, and it is the height of traitorous activity. It has to stop. We cannot continue to thwart these terrorist acts if we do not have reliable sources of information in order to disrupt the terrorist plots. Do you know what? The newspapers have chronicled, since the attempt, for example, of blowing up FedEx and UPS--and, by the way, those packages also were carried on commercial airliners with passengers on them--you know what the newspapers have chronicled? They have pointed out how the terrorist organizations are crowing about how little it costs them and how they will find another way in order to do this. As the newspapers reported, we found out and stopped that plot by long-distance sources of information that came to us. To betray those sources, to now put their lives in jeopardy by the indiscriminate turning over to an organization called WikiLeaks that suddenly puts all of this up on the Web, is the height of irresponsibility, an act against humanity, and it has to be stopped. Mr. President, 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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is a big day because in the House, they are about to consider the NASA bill we passed by unanimous consent in the Senate back in the first week of August. It is on what is called the consent calendar in the House which, in order for any of the six items on that consent calendar to be considered, they have to pass with a two-thirds vote. They are generally items that are less controversial in nature. It is certainly my hope that is going to be the case later this afternoon when the House takes up the NASA authorization bill. This is so important because the new fiscal year starts this Friday, October 1, and NASA is without direction. Even though the appropriation is going to be decided in our lameduck session starting in November-- probably by taking a whole bunch of appropriations bills and putting them together into what is known as an Omnibus appropriations bill and therefore the funding for NASA would be determined at that point. But this bill, the authorization for NASA for funding, for appropriations, is the blueprint, the roadmap. Even though certain appropriations may not be available until November or December, this gives direction to NASA to know what to do. For example, in our bill--there is an additional shuttle that is ready to fly beyond the two that are scheduled, one for November and one for February. That hardware is ready to go, and there is still additional equipment and supplies that we need to get to the space station. So our proposal in the authorization bill is, which was agreed to by the Senate Appropriations Committee that appropriated very closely to what the NASA authorization bill was in the Senate, it gives the direction to NASA to go ahead and start the preparations for that third flight of which all the hardware is already there. But they have to know that. They can't wait around until next January or February to start that preparation; they have to start it now. These are some of the critical issues. It is also critical that, for example, at the Kennedy Space Center, there are 1,100 jobs that are going to terminate tomorrow. This NASA authorization bill lays out the program for the future so they can start planning on some of those jobs that would be lost that may not be lost or recalled. That is why it is my fervent hope that we are going to get at least, if not more than, two-thirds of the House voting this afternoon to pass the NASA bill and then send it to the President for signature next week. Most of us have seen Ron Howard's dramatic film starring Tom Hanks called ``Apollo 13.'' Tom Hanks played the commander of that mission, who was Jim Lovell. Remember, that was the mission, Apollo 13, where en route to the Moon there was a major explosion onboard. We thought we had basically three dead men because how were we going to bring them back. It is one of the greatest space successes coming out of failure because, real time, astronauts back in Houston and the engineers all over America--at the cape, at Houston, all in different NASA facilities, the industries, the aerospace corporations--they all came together trying to figure out how we were going to get this crippled spacecraft back that had just lost its power, that had just lost its engines. Of course, that is one of the great success stories, that they brought it back, and ``Apollo 13'' chronicles that enormous success. Tom Hanks, who is playing Jim Lovell--in a part of the film, a person asks Jim: Jim, people in my State are asking why we're continuing to fund this space program, now that we've beaten the Soviets to the Moon. This is back in the late sixties and seventies because, remember, it was President Kennedy who said: We are going to the Moon. And we landed well before the Soviet Union did. They tried, but they never could make it. We landed in 1969. That person said: Jim, people in my State are asking why we're continuing to fund this program, now that we've beaten the Soviets to the Moon. What does Jim Lovell say? He said: Imagine if Christopher Columbus came back from the new world--and no one ever returned in his footsteps. If we had not had discoverers who were willing to discover the unknown, if they had not gone back to the new world, we would not be here today. We would not have this wonderful country that has been built. I think it is a truth that a society which does not seek to expand and explore is not going to be a society that will foster freedom and creativity, individuality, or progress. Think about the birth of this Nation. We are, by nature as Americans, our character is that we are explorers, we are adventurers. We set out and explored this Nation, following the longings of our souls. And each generation born since has advanced constantly and consistently, such that today we have to decide where do we go next. This country always had a frontier. When John F. Kennedy announced that we were going to the Moon, he had an administration that was called the New Frontier. We remember the development of this country. The frontier developed westward. Where is that frontier now? That frontier is upward. Then with the discoveries we are finding in science, it is also inward. It is the discovery of matter. It is the discovery of the workings of the human body and how to keep it healthy. And it is the exploration upward of space. What President Kennedy said was: The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not. He said: It is one of the great adventures of all time--and no nation which expects to be the leader among other nations can expect to stay behind. Since those prophetic words of President Kennedy back in the early sixties, when the Soviet Union had beat us into space with the first satellite and then beat us into space with the first human to orbit, we see what this Nation has done. Look at what we have received on Earth from the first 50 years of exploring space. We went to the Moon, and we have gone beyond. We have gone out of the solar system with exploring satellites, spacecraft. During this time, this space program has produced thousands of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. And it has helped make our Nation one of the most advanced and powerful in history. It has advanced the cause of science, and it has dramatically improved the quality of life on the surface of the Earth. Why do you think we have the GPS that can tell us, at a moment, the pinpoint location of where we are? Why do you think we now take it for granted to turn on our TVs and have instant, uninterrupted communication on the other side of the globe real time? Why do you think we take it for granted that we turn it on if we hear of an inbound hurricane and that we can also monitor climate change? We now, fortunately, have airbags in our automobiles. We have modern medical miracles such as kidney machines and heart ultrasound equipment and LASIK surgery. Where do you think all these things came from? They came from the spinoffs of the development of technology for the space program. Look at a little watch such as this, which I have had for years. That came out of the microminiaturization revolution. Where did that come from? Back when we were going to the Moon, we had to develop highly reliable systems that were small in volume and light in weight. That set off the microminiaturization revolution. As a result of all these spinoffs, we have created new companies and tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands of jobs for skilled workers. Back in the summer, working with the White House, we developed this bipartisan legislation to get NASA on what we think is off the wrong track and on the right track. As I said in my opening comments, the House is taking up the Senate bill in about an hour, hour-and-a-half. What the President did was he declared Mars to be the ultimate goal. The goal is not to go back to the Moon. We were there 40 years ago. The goal is to get out of low-Earth orbit, get out of Earth's environment, and to explore the cosmos. The Senate bill provides the blueprint for NASA to lead the way for humans to explore beyond low-Earth orbit. We recognize that more nations and more commercial operators can get into space. Look at all the private services now that you can get from a satellite: photographs of the ground, photographs of buildings-- incredible--high-resolution photography. You can buy that from private companies. The Presiding Officer used to be a major radio broadcaster off of a satellite radio. Where do you think that comes from? That was developed with technology that came out of the early days of the space program. That has been perfected and is now a multibillion-dollar business that employs Americans. Clearly, the Cold War shaped our space program to begin with--we against our adversary, the Soviet Union, the two nuclear-tipped nations. Look now. We have built the International Space Station with the Russians and 14 other nations. Now we have the space station there but the shutdown of the space shuttle coming in another year. The space station is being completed in its construction, but NASA was starved over the last decade, and we do not have the new rocket ready. This legislation is going to reduce the time we have to depend on Russia for access to space, even though they have been a good partner, and their Soyuz spacecraft is a reliable way to get to and from the space station. It is going to shorten the time we have to depend just on them to get to the International Space Station. As a result of this new legislation, many of the space centers that would receive huge layoffs--and as I said at the outset, there are 1,100 pink slips that have been delivered and take effect tomorrow afternoon just at the Kennedy Space Center and 1,000 or so more are coming at the Johnson Space Center and other space centers around. So what our legislation will do is it will push NASA's development of a new heavy-lift rocket that will allow us to explore the cosmos, it will push it forward with a goal to fly by 2016, and it would make a significantly higher investment in commercial space ventures, specifically by accelerating the development of commercial carriers to take both cargo and crew to and from the International Space Station. Previously, NASA was going to shut down the space station by 2015. This is 2010, almost 2011. We are just completing the space station. Are we going to throw away, in 4 years, an investment of $100 billion? No. What this bill does, upon the suggestion of the President--which I appreciate so much--it is going to keep the space station alive until the year 2020. Now we have the time to move forward and start to get out and explore the cosmos. The bill develops the inspace technology that can help in the servicing and reusing of equipment to lessen the need to launch from Earth for future trips. By that I mean we take this heavy-lift vehicle, we get components up into low-Earth orbit, and in the zero gravity of the orbit with the capability of on-orbit refueling, we can put spacecraft together up there and not have to expend the energy to get out of gravity when we go out to an asteroid or we go out ultimately to Mars. It requires that this heavy-lift vehicle be designed to get us to other points beyond low-Earth orbit in a flexible path to Mars. Rather than throw away the investments and capabilities that have already been developed in this space shuttle, we direct NASA in this bill, to pursue an evolvable heavy-lift vehicle, one you can build from the existing technology but you can improve that hardware. At the same time, we insist that it be affordable. Designing and building within a budget is obviously the new challenge for NASA. NASA, too long in the past, has blown through budgets. It is a different day. It is a different discipline. That discipline is going to be needed at NASA. Our objectives are now beyond just getting to and being in space. We must now answer some questions. Can we harness new sources of energy in space for use there and for use here on Earth? Can we sustain human life on distant journeys? Present technology would take us 10 months. A crewmate of mine is working on a plasma rocket that will take us to Mars in 39 days. But the fact is, once we are there, we have to be on the surface of Mars for a year. Why? Because of the alignment of the planets, to get Mars back closest to Earth for the return trip. Can we sustain that human life? Can we develop the technology for those journeys? What about all the cosmic radiation from the Sun--nuclear explosions. You can't fry your astronauts with radiation on the way to Mars. Can we establish permanent outposts beyond Earth? Our vision is, we are going to explore asteroids, possibly go back to the Moon, and then to the surface of Mars, as this country, as the leader, and the rest of humanity journey toward the ultimate destiny in the stars. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, in the midst of all the strife and partisanship and ideological rigidity that makes it so difficult these days for us to bring about consensus in the world's most deliberative body, there is the occasion at the first of each of these meetings in the Senate that we do come together--when the chaplain mounts the rostrum, prays for the Senate and for the Nation, and then we all join together in the Pledge. I think it is worthy noting the way that the great master of the Senate, Senator Robert Byrd, taught all of us freshmen 10 years ago to mount the rostrum and to call the Senate together. As the Presiding Officer calls the Senate to order, he or she then announces the chaplain for the day and descends from the rostrum as the chaplain comes to the rostrum to offer the prayer. It is a recognition of the Deity, it is an expression of humility, it is a little symbolic act, but it is important. I think it is important to note that in July, when the entire Senate filed through that center door under that arch inscribed with ``In God We Trust,'' we all stood silently at our seats as our Chaplain, Admiral Black, gave a prayer over the flag-draped coffin of our departed colleague, Senator Byrd. Each of us stood silently in reverence and recognition not only of a fallen colleague but in recognition of a supreme Deity. And so it is that that tradition continues. And it continues with my friend, the Reverend Dr. Joe Hunter from Florida, who has shared with us his message this morning in the opening of the Senate with a prayer. The prayer started in the early days of the Continental Congress. It was in 1774, in that Congress, that a chaplain was called to open those sessions. Under the new government that came about as a result of the Articles of Confederation--which had not worked to keep a new spirited nation together because it didn't have a central government--they met together in that steamy room in Philadelphia to hammer out the Constitution, and the Constitutional Convention prayer was offered during those deliberations. As a matter of fact, it was Benjamin Franklin who made the comment-- when the delegates wondered whether this Nation could stand, a Nation that was seeking freedom, a Nation that was seeking democracy--Benjamin Franklin said something to the effect that if the Supreme Being knows even when a sparrow falls, will that Supreme Being not be involved in the affairs of a young and struggling nation? In the beginning of that Nation under a constitutional government, in lower Manhattan, the chaplain of the nearby church was proclaimed the Chaplain of the Senate. When the government moved to Philadelphia, the second Chaplain of the Senate was appointed. When the government moved to this present location on the banks of the Potomac, the third Chaplain of the Senate was appointed. In that long succession of Chaplains, we are so pleased to have as our Chaplain now, after so many distinguished ones, Admiral Barry Black, whom we all love and appreciate. So today continues a tradition with great selectivity of certain ministers being invited to come and pray for the Nation. Joel Hunter is the pastor of one of those mega-churches. It is a big church north of Orlando. But it is a church that has about five churches all spread out, with an incredible outreach to the community. Joel Hunter is a man who has reached out and ministered to Presidents, and Joel Hunter is a man who has done so much good for our community and our State and our country. He has suffered tragedy with the loss of a granddaughter just recently. Yet out of that suffering, all the more his compassion comes forth. Indeed, we are very privileged to have Dr. Joel Hunter as our Chaplain for the day. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in a few hours we are going to be voting on whether we want to take up the Defense bill. That should be a no-brainer, for, after all, defense of the country is one of the most important things the U.S. Government can do. We are going to consider that. Yet we have some highly inflammatory issues that possibly are going to derail this bill. I have the privilege of sitting on both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. The provisions in this bill, from my standpoint, are going to ensure that our service men and women who are putting their lives on the line for this country will have the training, the equipment, and the resources they need and deserve. Back in February, the Secretary of Defense told our Armed Services Committee that the Department's top priorities are ``rearming and strengthening the nation's commitment to care for the all-volunteer force, our greatest strategic asset'' and ``rebalancing America's defense posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current conflicts while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in the future.'' That is what the Secretary of Defense said. What more can you say? That is what this bill does. This National Defense Authorization Act is going to authorize over $700 billion in discretionary budget authority for the programs and initiatives to carry out what the Secretary of Defense said. In order to carry this out for an all-volunteer force, here are some of the things the bill will do. It will improve the quality of life for the service members and their families, authorizing much needed military construction and housing projects. Here is another example: Ensure that all of the forces preparing to deploy are trained for what they are deploying for and that their equipment is ready so that they can succeed at combat. I remember back in the early days of the Iraq war, I had mamas and daddies calling me because members of the Florida National Guard were in Iraq and they did not even have the adequate body armor. Never again for those kinds of things. But that is another reason for us to have this bill. Another reason: It will authorize a 1.4-percent pay raise for our service members. To get ready for the ongoing efforts to prevail in this fight, here is also what the bill would do: Counterinsurgency. It enhances our ability to go after the bad guys in those counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, and it would improve the ability of our military to counter nontraditional threats such as those that now threaten us in the cyber warfare domain. Of course, it would support the highest priority unfunded needs that are identified by the Chiefs of Staff. It would also authorize over $110 billion in base budget authority for funding high-priority weapons systems. I will give an example. The Navy's littoral combat ship allows us to get in close to shore in modernized equipment and boats; also, the E2-D Advanced Hawkeye, the Air Force's Joint STARS Program, and the new hot, stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This bill takes several steps to enhance our capabilities to protect our country against emerging threats, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This is in a subject area of the subcommittee in Armed Services that I chair. We are going to have an increased capability for manufacturing and testing capabilities to reduce the time required to produce high-demand items such as body and vehicle armor, the IED jammers, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles--that is the MRAP vehicles--and to modernize Department test capability facilities to ensure new weapons systems meet the requirements of that warfighter who is out there on the ground, facing the threat. In this bill is also funding for advanced technologies for weapons systems and further R&D to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels in our military machine. It is going to add $113 million for unfunded requirements that were identified by the commander of the Special Operations Command for ground mobility vehicles, deployable communications equipment, thermal and night vision goggles, special operations combat assault rifles, and nonlethal weapons technologies. This is the new kind of war and combat we are facing. It is often these highly specialized, trained units that are going in under stealth with highly sophisticated weapons and equipment to go after a very stealthy enemy who does not wear a uniform and who blends right into the local population. This bill also goes after getting us improved in the nonproliferation programs. There is so much in this bill. Yet we are facing not even getting the 60 votes this afternoon to be able to proceed with the Nation's defense. Why is that? Because there is a provision in here, that was voted out of the Armed Services Committee, on the repeal of the standing policy in the military of don't ask, don't tell--a repeal of it once the Department of Defense completes a comprehensive review of the repeal. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--once that review is done under the bill--must certify to Congress that they can implement the repeal while maintaining readiness, effectiveness, and unit cohesion. This provision obviously has received a great deal of attention. I believe that proceeding in this way--very cautiously--will allow the DOD to examine all the implications of repealing this policy while moving forward with this change. It is clear that this Defense bill is a key piece of the legislation for our military. For 48 consecutive years, the Senate has completed work on a Defense authorization bill. This year, a year when we have forces engaged in ground combat as we speak, is not the year for the Senate to suddenly say: No, we are not going to pass this kind of legislation. I urge the Senate this afternoon on this vote to allow us to proceed to the discussion and the amending of the Defense bill. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I also wish to share some observations of a recent visit I made to another troubled part of the world. In Colombia, I witnessed a country transformed. I went there with our four-star commander, General Fraser of the U.S. Southern Command. We went to a former FARC base in southern Colombia, the little village of La Macarena. It is now a headquarters for the special operations forces of the Colombian military. It is interesting, this place out in the middle of the jungle, a violent narcotrafficking insurgency that had completely controlled this territory and had intimidated and terrorized the people. The FARC leadership used to hold press conferences under a large tree that is now in the middle of that Colombian military base. There are actually vacationers from around the world that are coming to a nearby stream that used to be the vacation destination for FARC leaders and their friends. Well, those days of the FARC controlling that part of Colombia are over. In recent years, the Colombian military has killed, captured, disarmed hundreds of FARC fighters, and those who remain are on the move. The FARC is not defeated, but they are certainly diminished. Just before General Fraser and I arrived, the military carried out another daring hostage rescue, raiding a FARC camp and freeing four Colombian hostages. Some of those had been in captivity for well over a decade. I met with the President of Colombia. He was the Defense Minister a couple years ago, before he was elected President, when they pulled off that miraculous deception that rescued the three American hostages who had been there for years in captivity with the FARC. Two of those three American hostages were from Florida. So the Colombians, with U.S. assistance, have transformed their military into a 21st century counterinsurgency force, and it has been very effective. They are even sending their forces now to help train the Mexican security forces, where there is so much trouble brewing. Since the time is drawing nigh, I will share at a later date the troubles that Mexico faces. It is substantial, with the narcotraffickers basically penetrating all levels of the Mexican Government but especially the local and State governments of Mexico. It is of enormous importance to the United States that we have success with our neighbors, our friends to the south, to be able to get control of their country just like the Colombians did as they diminished the FARC. I yield the floor.