Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires the taxpayer to provide a settlement statement to the IRS as proof that a home was purchased. While I support that requirement, the fact is that there is no settlement statement in the case of a manufactured home that is purchased and will be either sited on land already owned by the home buyer or sited on land to be leased by the home buyer. In those instances, a retail sales contract is used to purchase the home. This contract contains all of the truth in lending disclosures, as well as all the itemized disbursements relating to the transaction. Mr. Chairman, is it the view of the Senate that the IRS should accept retail sales contracts as proof of purchase in the event that a settlement statement is not available to the taxpayer?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada be able to follow in the order. He was kind enough to let me go ahead so I might be able to then sit in the chair and preside at the appointed hour.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to have a facsimile of the successful rocket test brought onto the floor for demonstration purposes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, this is a facsimile of the rocket that was a successful test today, called the Ares I rocket. The test flight was the Ares IX--X for ``experimental.'' It wanted to show all of the flight control systems. It was an exceptionally successful test. It was only intended to go into suborbit. The stages that were live were the first four of the five stages of the solid rocket booster, which presently are identical to the solid rocket boosters--the two big candlestick-type things on either side of the space shuttle orbiter and the big external tank, what makes up the stack that we refer to as the space shuttle. In the design of the new rocket that was extraordinarily successful today, they have added a fifth segment. Instead of that being loaded with solid propellant--which, by the way, has the consistency of a pencil eraser--a dummy fifth stage was constructed, with the same weight and flight characteristics, along with the second stage of the rocket--again, designed and configured and weighed to be exactly what would be the second stage of the rocket. And then, with the upper part here, the capsule looks a lot like the old Apollo capsule, but instead holding six or seven astronauts instead of the three in the Apollo--the crew being known as Orion. And then we have the escape rocket, these rockets here, so that if you had a malfunction and explosion at any time in the first couple of minutes of flight, you could eject the capsule with the humans on board, and it would parachute back. We don't have that capability, for example, in the space shuttle today because, for the first 2 minutes of flight, you are basically married to those solid rocket boosters. If anything goes wrong, there is no escape possibility on the space shuttle. The new rocket is designed so that it has that increased safety factor. What I wanted to point out to the Senate is that, with this success today--and there is some question about whether it is this rocket--the President will decide, along with his NASA administrator, Marine GEN Charlie Bolden, whether they want to complete this rocket in its present architecture, as the way for us to get into space after the space shuttle has shut down or if they want some other kind of configuration. But the fact is we had a very successful test today. What I want to say to the Senate is that it is another example of the ability of this country and its people, in science and technology, in its engineering prowess, in its can-do spirit, in its ability to build on experiences that we have had in the past, in order that we can create machines we can marry up with humans and explore the unknown. Most every child in America in school knows of the Hubble space telescope. That was put up by an astronaut crew. Remember, its lens had been erroneously ground, and it was blind once it was put up. We had to send a second astronaut crew up in a space shuttle, retrieve it, put new glasses on it, and they have had three servicing missions on the Hubble space telescope over the course of the last decade and a half. Of course, Hubble has peered out into the unknown, back to the origins of the universe, to the light that was emitted shortly after the big bang. And with the new upgrades to the Hubble space telescope, we are even going to be able to look back further in time in the universe. This is the prowess, the genius of America. This is what we do not want to give up. I congratulate the team at NASA for the tremendous success they had today. Whether it is this rocket for the future or some other derivative, America has exhibited her can-do and successful spirit again this morning. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I think it is important, as we approach this monumental debate on health care reform and health insurance reform, to understand what it is we are trying to achieve at the end of the day. I don't think there are very many people in America who would say the present system of health insurance and health care delivery is sufficient, given the fact there is uncertainty as to whether someone will be able to continue in their health insurance and whether, even if that health insurance is available, it is going to be affordable today. Availability and affordability are two of the goals. As we go through this amendatory process once the bill comes to the floor, we have to remember that is the goal. If you listen to our good friend, the Senator from Arizona, he ticks off a whole bunch of things he says are additional taxes, fees, and so forth on the people. Let's examine that. First of all, if you do nothing, we have a system that is not serving our people. I am going to round the percentages, but this is approximately the case: About half the American people get their health insurance through their employer in a group policy. Indeed, what we are finding out, as those policies are being renewed, is employers are coming back to their employees and are saying: We have this humongous increase in premium we are going to have to pay to continue to give you the same benefits in group health insurance policies. One of the executives of one major telecommunications company told me they were forced, by the insurance company, to endure a 47-percent increase in premiums and, he said, we negotiated that down from a 53-percent increase. Let's not lose sight, as we get into the nits and gnats, of what we are trying to achieve. About half of us are insured through group policies through our employers. Then there is another 16 percent of us or so for whom our health care is taken care of by Medicare. There is another 10 percent of us whose health care is taken care of by Medicaid--because we are either poor enough or we are disabled enough to qualify under the Federal law that has a joint Federal-State financial responsibility. Generally, that split is about 55 percent of Medicaid paid by the Federal Government and 45 percent paid by the State government. How much of the entire populous of the country have we already talked about? About half employer-based health insurance, about another 15 or so percent Medicare, another 10 percent--we are up to about three- quarters of the American people. What is the remaining 25 percent? About 5 percent of us, we don't have an employer or our employer doesn't offer it, but we desperately need health insurance. Where do we get it? We go to an insurance company and we get an individual policy. Of course, since it is only our life, there is not a big pool of people to spread that health risk over. Guess what happens to our premiums if we have an individual policy. The premiums go through the roof. Oh, by the way, don't even try to get an insurance policy on your health if you have a preexisting condition. What does that leave in the American population with regard to health care through health insurance? About 20 percent don't have any health insurance. They are uninsured. A major part of this health reform bill that will come to this floor in a few weeks is to try to bring them into the system, the uninsured, and get them insured. Why? First of all, it certainly makes sense, from a quality of life standpoint, that we have someone able to get preventive care from a doctor before it turns into an emergency. But that is not now the case. They don't have health insurance, they can't afford it or they choose not to get it-- but they get health care. Where do they get it? They go to the most expensive place, which is the emergency room, at the most expensive time, and that is when the sniffles have turned into pneumonia. Of course, the care is exceptionally more costly. By the way, who pays for that? All the rest of us back here pay for that. Do you know how we pay for it? With our increased premiums on the policies we are paying for, either individually or through our group employer-sponsored health insurance. Do you know what that cost is? It is, on the average in America, about $1,000 more per year for a family insurance policy that we are paying to take care of those people who are uninsured but still get health care. When you come out here for the nits and the gnats, saying: It is wrong here, we are going to have a fee here and a tax there, let's not lose sight of the goal of what we are trying to do, which is bring everybody into the system, let the principle of insurance operate for you, where you spread the health risk over millions of lives so you bring down the health costs, get a system of health insurance for those who are uninsured and those who cannot afford insurance and especially those who are getting stuck in the wallet through individual policies-- get them into a health insurance exchange, where there is competition and where there is no barrier if you have a previous existing condition; so you have a guarantee you can get health insurance, and it is going to be at a competitive price. We have had a rhubarb in this country over something known as a public option. Most people do not realize that 90 percent of the American people will not be affected by a public option. But the 10 percent who will be getting their health insurance in the previously uninsured or unaffordable group, who is now going to get it in this health insurance exchange, where insurance companies are going to come in and compete for that business--that public insurance company, if it is in existence by the time the final bill passes, will compete in that health insurance exchange against those insurance companies on an even- steven competitive basis. Let's remember the goal. We are trying to bring in folks who cannot get insurance, the folks who do not have insurance but still get health care that all the rest of us pay for. It lowers our bills over here by not having to pay for them. When we bring them into the system, into this new health insurance exchange, those who do not have health insurance--some of them cannot afford it, but they are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid in their State--the bill that will come to the floor will provide a series of subsidies according to the person's income, based on their percentage of the poverty level, that will assist them to get that health insurance in the private insurance sector. I come back to the beginning, the reason I asked the Senator from Pennsylvania if he would sit in the chair so I could come back to my desk and make a response in response to Senator Kyl. Is everyone satisfied with what we have? Clearly no. Is health insurance available to everybody? The answer is no. Is it affordable for everybody? The answer is no. Can it be streamlined by us changing the health delivery system, which we want to do? That clearly is the case. We can do it with electronic records and accountable care organizations. We can do it by following the patient, instead of the patient going to this specialist and this specialist and this specialist, and none of the specialists are talking to each other and they are duplicating all of the tests. We can put primacy on a primary care physician who will follow that patient. We can do it with those kinds of delivery reforms. This is the desirable goal. This is why we have to have health insurance and health care reform. My final point is this: The previous Senator who spoke, the Senator from Nevada, said we are going to take a lot of money out of Medicare. In the bill that is coming to this floor, the money that is coming out of Medicare is the money that is going to be contributed to the reform of the system coming from the Medicare providers, not the Medicare beneficiaries, in other words, not the senior citizens. The Senator says: But there is $120 billion that is coming out of Medicare Advantage. Well, what was Medicare Advantage? Medicare Advantage is a fancy term for a Medicare HMO. You know what a Medicare HMO is? It is an insurance company. When it was originally set up 10 or 15 years ago, a Medicare HMO was going to save money to the Federal Government, Medicare, by paying only 95 percent of what Medicare fee for service did. But then the people in the rural areas did not get it, so it did not work. Along comes this famous prescription drug bill 6 years ago, and added to it is this fancy new thing called Medicare Advantage that creates an advantage for the insurance companies by giving them an additional 14 percent of reimbursement over the standard Medicare fee for service. Guess who gets to keep most of that. The insurance company gets to decide what they are going to do with most of it. It is true that in the 75 percent that the insurance company keeps per Medicare senior citizen in Medicare Advantage, that money often is given as a break to the senior citizen in things such as copays and the premium payments for Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D. That is why this Senator in the Finance Committee offered an amendment that would say: Okay, we are going to get Medicare back to being standardized where we are not going to give a cushy 14-percent extra to the insurance companies called Medicare Advantage. Instead, we are going to start getting that on a more competitive basis over time to bring those payments down. But it would not be fair to take it away from the seniors who already have it, so this Senator offered an amendment to grandfather in the seniors who have it now. So do we need health reform? You bet we do. And the Senator from Utah is over here. I commend him. Because he and I are cosponsors on another health reform bill that is even more visionary than what the two of us think is going to come to the floor. But it is a recognition that we have to reform the present system. I want to take this opportunity to try to set the record straight on some of the statements that have been made here. I look forward to continuing this debate on all sides of the issues as the bill comes to the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to join with our colleagues on the floor in thanking my new colleague from Florida, with whom I have had the pleasure of starting a very fast and meaningful friendship. As he knows, his predecessor Mel Martinez and I had a friendship that had spanned more than three decades. I am equally enthusiastic about this opportunity to represent the State of Florida with Senator LeMieux. Let me say that as I was listening to the Senator's maiden speech, of course I reflected back 9 years ago to my maiden speech. And, interestingly, at that time--I think it was about 6 weeks after I had been here, so it was the middle of February 2001--I spoke on the budget and the fact that we had a surplus, and how we wanted to keep that surplus and not go into deficit, a lot of the same themes the new Senator from Florida has sounded here today. Of course, your maiden speech in this August body is quite memorable. I did not have the luxury, as the new Senator from Florida has, to have a number of his colleagues sitting here. As a matter of fact, it was an empty Chamber for this Senator save for the Presiding Officer. But in the course of this speech, I mentioned that it was my maiden speech. I am proceeding on. All of a sudden the doors, these side doors, swing open, and in strides the senior Senator from West Virginia, the person who is a walking political history book. He assumes his position in this chair right here. I get through with my remarks, and he says: ``Will the Senator from Florida yield?'' I said: ``Of course I yield to the senior Senator from West Virginia.'' He proceeds to give, off the top of his head, a history of the Senate maiden speeches. And, of course, what a memorable event that was for this Senator in his maiden speech, and it will be equally a memorable event for the new Senator from Florida. I join our colleagues in congratulating him on his maiden speech.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 469 and the Senate resuming legislative session, the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1776.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 14, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the State of the Banking Industry.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 14, at 10 a.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 14, 2009, at 11:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging and the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 14, 2009, from 2:30 p.m.-5 p.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Prohibiting Price Fixing and Other Anticompetitive Conduct in the Health Insurance Industry.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the Energy and Water appropriations bill. It certainly is going to continue to help us provide for the Nation's energy needs and water infrastructure, but it also restores funding to our efforts at restoring America's Everglades. For many years, the Everglades have simply languished. Over half a century ago, or three-quarters of a century ago, the idea was to get rid of the floodwaters, and mankind went in there and completely reversed what Mother Nature intended, diked and drained and sent freshwater out to tidewater and did it exactly the opposite. In this massive project, we are trying to restore the natural ecosystem that once dominated the entire south half of the peninsula of Florida. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 was a major step toward restoring parts of the Everglades. This effort was also helped by this year's omnibus and stimulus spending bills which put a significant amount of funding toward restoration--about $360 million. Building on that momentum, the President's budget for fiscal year 2010 included $214 million in funding for the Everglades from the Army Corps of Engineers. Despite the best bipartisan efforts of the Florida delegation, the final bill contains $180 million in funding for the Everglades instead of what we had hoped for, but we do have exciting things happening this year. In a few months, there will be two groundbreaking projects that are critical to restoring the Everglades--the construction of the Tamiami Trail bridge and the Picayune Strand. While this particular appropriations bill falls short of the President's request, I have been assured by the administration that Site One, which is one of the projects that is funded minimally in this appropriations bill, and the Indian River Lagoon, also funded minimally, are going to have the funds needed to go forward from another source, perhaps the stimulus bill. I wish to express my appreciation to the administration. We have overcome great obstacles to get us this far. This bill settles the question of whether the Indian River Lagoon and Site One are new starts or not. In 2010 we will begin construction on those new projects. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that ``the great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving.'' When it comes to the Everglades restoration, we are going in the right direction. We have great science, we know what needs to be done, and we are doing it. In 12 months, we have allocated $600 million for the Everglades. In the next year, we are going to break ground on four projects. I wish to conclude by saying that restoration not only means doing these projects, which often are Army Corps of Engineers projects, but it also means protecting the 68 threatened and endangered species that call the Everglades home. Just yesterday, a long-awaited Federal report was released that found that the Burmese python, a giant constrictor snake, and four other large constrictor snakes pose a high risk to these kinds of environments in the United States. We have been saying this for the last 3 years, but we now have the official report issued by the Federal Government. The report says, in particular, that Florida, Texas, and Hawaii provide prime habitat for these giant predators. Remember, these predators have no natural enemies. It doesn't make any difference if the critter has scales, feathers, or fur--these giant constrictor snakes consume them all. We have 68 threatened and endangered species in the Everglades that call the Everglades home. According to the superintendent of the Everglades Park, there are estimates of up to 140,000 of these snakes because they proliferate so greatly. They got one female, and they found 56 eggs inside her ready to hatch. That is how much they proliferate. So the report finally backs up what the National Park Service staff, the scientists, and the citizens of south Florida have been concerned about for the past years--the enormous damage caused by importing invasive species like the Burmese python. We are going to continue to work with the Florida delegation and the Department of the Interior, with Secretary Ken Salazar, who has taken a personal interest in this, with the Army Corps of Engineers, with the State of Florida, the local communities, and the citizens who are committed to the Everglades, toward restoring this national treasure. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from North Dakota that the one example he gave about algae--it is so exciting that we know now that you can take algae and put it in some kind of plastic cylinder, expose it to sunlight, and with the right ingredients in there, pump in CO2, and it consumes the carbon dioxide and in the process it makes ethanol. So as the Senator has hinted, if this process ends up working, and working efficiently, what about putting an algae ethanol-producing plant right next to a coal-fired electricity plant to take the CO2 out of the coal, and instead of trying to inject it into the ground, put it right into the ethanol-producing algae plant? There are limitless possibilities, as the Senator from North Dakota pointed out. I find it quite exciting.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any recess adjournment or morning business period count past cloture.

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 wish to speak on behalf of those of us who are concerned about NASA and express my personal appreciation to the Senator from Maryland, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that handles NASA, for the tremendous work she has done in appropriating money to keep NASA going. If I may, I want to go beyond the Senator's appropriation. She has taken the very difficult task of a budget that is quite lean, put out by the President, and has come up with the best she can come up with in trying to sustain the Nation's human space program with those resources. What we know is, over the course of the last several years, the Office of Management and Budget and the White House have not given adequate resources to those of us in this Chamber who want a vigorous human space program. We simply, over the last several years, have not been able to get the resources we need for NASA to do everything it has been asked to do, with the result that NASA is now at a crossroads. I commend Senator Mikulski for her work in how she has put together this budget. We find ourselves now with the opportunity beyond this specific budget to strengthen and advance our leadership in the world or to stand by and allow what has become a hallmark of U.S. leadership to slip by the wayside. Last month, the blue ribbon panel the President appointed, called the Augustine Commission, released a summary of the findings from the final report on the Nation's space program. That report has not come out in detail. We await its release. In part, what it says is, the U.S. human space flight program that has made America a world leader in science and technology ``appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory.'' Specifically, the report will say: [O]ur space program is being asked to pursue goals without the appropriately allocated resources. So this country stands at a crossroads for NASA with a stark choice before us: We can continue on the path we are on--underfunding and underallocating our space program--or we can choose to act. We can choose to act by ensuring that the appropriate resources are allocated to meet the goals laid out before us. The Augustine Commission was abundantly clear. It said that--while the current path we are on is unsustainable--``meaningful human exploration is possible under a less constrained budget'' with an additional $3 billion a year. That is $30 billion additional over a 10- year period. These are not my words. These are the Augustine Commission's words. Even though we face uncertain economic times--certainly in a recession--the challenge of finding that additional money is one we cannot afford to ignore. I wish to add my voice to others from this Chamber in asking the President to divert $3 billion to NASA from the unspent portion of the $787 billion in the economic stimulus recovery money. The stimulus bill--that we passed by a one-vote margin back earlier this year--was to get this economy moving again, to stimulate, to electric shock therapy the economy back to life by getting dollars out, turned over, and jobs created. That is a very good source for this money, for NASA to be able to continue on the road of what almost every American wishes for--to continue to explore the unknown. We have identified other possible revenue sources for future years. But no matter how much we find by scraping the bottom of the barrel, it is still going to come down to one thing: It is going to be the President's decision. If we remember, similar to President John Kennedy before him, a President has to decide and has to commit the resources. If this President will do it, it will commit the space program that will keep America a global leader in science and technology. Why do I say that? Think of all the effects of the spinoffs that came out of the Apollo Program when President Kennedy said: We are going to the Moon and back, and that was within a 9-year period. Currently, our space program is funded at less than 1 percent of the total Federal budget. Yet our space program has always paid back dividends--both tangible and intangible--which is vastly greater than the initial investment. The additional funding for NASA, I have indicated, will ensure the United States remains at the very top for the peaceful use of technology for the betterment of humankind. Of singular importance, this commitment will help us to inspire the next generation of explorers and the next generation of scientists and technologists and engineers and mathematicians and educators. It is this payoff which is Apollo's greatest and lasting legacy. We have a similar opportunity right now in front of us. You think about that generation of kids who got inspired when President Kennedy said we were going to do what was almost thought to be the impossible and how many of those kids went into math and science and technology and engineering. Look what that generation brought to us in the global marketplace. The Augustine Commission notes that the time may finally be upon us when commercial space companies can begin to carry some of the burden of the access to low-Earth orbit. Many of these companies are already developing capabilities to give us a commercial resupply of the International Space Station. Are they going to be successful? We certainly hope so. Are they going to be timely? We do not know. These commercial ventures are already behind the timeline. We certainly hope they are going to be timely. This ability, according to the Augustine Commission, is critical to ensuring our ability to operate the station beyond 2016. Almost everybody unanimously agrees we should be planning to keep the International Space Station, of which we are still continuing to complete its construction and equipping, to keep that going at least until 2020 and to maximize the return of what has become a substantial $100 billion investment. Those commercial endeavors serve another function. They also create new industries and, with that, new jobs for Americans. But we are still going to have to have the question of: What is NASA's new mission, new architecture? How are we going to fund it? What are we going to do with the workforce in the meantime that is going to have severe disruptions? This is what the President of the United States is going to have to decide as soon as the Augustine Commission report is final and is published. The International Space Station has proven to us that many nations can work together on enormous endeavors in a peaceful fashion. The station--just now being completed--is at its dawn, and its many economic, scientific, and social payoffs from our investment are still to be realized. But the international partnerships formed during the design, the construction, and the ongoing operation of the station have proven something. It has proven that the world community looks to the United States for leadership in space. Many of the world's nations are patiently waiting to see which direction our country chooses, which direction this country chooses as a result of our President's decision. At the same time, these many nations are prepared to follow the U.S. lead in the form of additional commitments and resources in space. To turn our backs on space at this moment would have negative effects that would reverberate around the world. It is interesting that last night President Obama hosted several young people at the White House for a star-gazing party. Oh, that must have been very exciting for those young people. They had the opportunity to view, in vivid detail, craters on the Moon, the rings of Saturn, the colors of the planet Jupiter, and the belt of the Milky Way. For many of those kids, it was the first time they ever even thought of viewing those things. The wonderment displayed by those children--and many of those adults there as well--proved, once again, that the space program inspires. If all goes well, tomorrow morning America will successfully plow a rocket into the surface of the Moon to help determine conclusively whether large quantities of water can be found just beneath the lunar surface. Imagine, this mission may reveal new knowledge about a source of water for astronauts in the future and fuel for their rockets to explore the cosmos. A suitably funded space program is the best catalyzing element to gather and organize the energies and abilities of this Nation. In return, this program will pay many dividends, perhaps the most important of which is to inspire, encourage, and motivate the next generation of Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Mikulski on her appropriations bill but then to join me in supporting increased funding for NASA and this Nation's space program. You can tell I am quite intense about this subject. I have had the privilege of being a beneficiary of our Nation's space program. I have seen us achieve extraordinary things. It is a part of our character as a people. We are, by nature, as Americans, explorers and adventurers, and I do not want us to ever give that up. That is why I make this plea to the Congress of the United States and to the President of the United States for NASA's funding. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in December 2007, I became involved in an issue that I continue to work on today. The issue is our government's failure to prosecute multiple incidents of sexual assault against American civilians working alongside our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. After surviving sometimes brutal attacks, these civilians too often found themselves in a legal blackhole. No one could tell them how to report the crime. No one knew who should investigate, putting precious time and evidence at risk. And perhaps worst of all, no one could guarantee their personal safety. Their attackers, meanwhile, usually fell outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ, the legal code that our men and women in uniform must obey, and beyond the effective reach of our criminal laws. Over the last 2 years, I have been in frequent contact with the Departments of Defense, State, and Justice to ascertain the scope of this problem. Although these agencies have, on the whole, cooperated with my requests, I am not satisfied that we have a full picture of the number of sexual assaults perpetrated against Americans--contractors and military--in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor do I believe that the respective departments have clear policies in place to address crimes committed by and against U.S. contractors serving in the war zones. In April 2008, I chaired a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee that included harrowing testimony from Mary Beth Kineston and Dawn Leamon, who were former civilian contractors for Kellogg Brown & Root, better known as KBR, which is a former subsidiary of Halliburton. These patriots testified that they were sexually assaulted while working for KBR in Iraq. In written testimony submitted to the committee, another woman, Jamie Leigh Jones, wrote of being drugged and gang-raped by her coworkers, also while working for KBR in Iraq. When she reported the crime to her superiors, Ms. Jones was locked in a shipping container. Not until her father was able to contact Congressman Ted Poe was Ms. Jones rescued from captivity. When similar crimes are committed within the United States, on a permanent military base, or at one of our embassies overseas, the authority and responsibility to prosecute these crimes is clear. Yet because these crimes were committed abroad and the victims were civilians, their stories never see the light of day. There is no jury, no public record and no transcript. Additionally, in many cases the victims' employer has moved for such cases to be heard in private arbitration. At the hearing, Dawn Leamon stated that there was an arbitration clause in the employment agreement she signed, and that KBR used that clause to prevent her from seeking justice in a court of law. These arbitration clauses, which have become all too common, protect the companies from accountability when a crime occurs. In response to the hearing and testimony of these courageous women, I offered an amendment in mark-up of the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act that later became law, Public Law 110-417. That amendment required government contractors to report crimes committed by or against employees in Iraq or Afghanistan to the appropriate U.S. government authorities. The law now requires contractors to have in place resources to assist victims and witnesses of crimes, so that there is a place to go for help. I also attempted to include a provision that would prevent contractors from requiring employees to enter into mandatory arbitration contracts. I am pleased that Senator Franken has taken an interest in this important issue, and I am cosponsoring the Franken amendment, Senate amendment No. 2588, which denies funding to Department of Defense contractors who continue to use mandatory arbitration clauses to force sexual assault victims into arbitration. If adopted, this important amendment would close the legal loophole that prevents the victims of sexual assault from getting the justice they deserve. It is my hope that justice for these women will encourage reform to the entire system. I encourage my colleagues to join us in unanimously adopting this amendment. It is my hope that such a showing of support will urge its adoption in the final conference bill. It is imperative that this provision become law.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the World War II War Crimes Accountability Act of 2009. The bill seeks to hold the surviving Nazi war criminals accountable for their crimes by encouraging foreign governments to prosecute and extradite wanted criminals. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Cardin, for supporting this important legislation. The atrocities committed by the Nazis and their allies during the Second World War were vast and have helped shape the modern concept of crimes against humanity. After the war, some of the perpetrators of these heinous crimes escaped justice and have been living out their days as free men. In an effort to bring these fugitives to justice, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Targum Shlishi Foundation of Miami, Florida launched ``Operation: Last Chance'' to help identify and facilitate the prosecution of the remaining unprosecuted Nazi war criminals and to assist governments in bringing Nazi war criminals to justice. Among the Center's many open cases there is Alois Brunner, a key operative of Adolf Eichmann, who was responsible for the deportation of 47,000 Jews from Austria, 44,000 Jews from Greece, 23,500 Jews from France, and 14,000 Jews from Slovakia to Nazi death camps. He lived in Syria for decades and the Syrian government refused to cooperate with international prosecution efforts. He was convicted in absentia for his crimes by France. He was born in 1912 and last seen in 2001. While is it doubtful that he is still alive, there is no conclusive evidence of his death. Another case is that of Milivoj Asner, who served as the police chief of the city of Slavonska Pozega. During 1941 and 1942, Mr. Asner orchestrated the robbery, persecution and destruction of the local Serb, Jewish, and Gypsy communities, which culminated in the deportation of hundreds of civilians to Ustasha concentration camps, where most of the deportees were murdered. After his exposure in Operation: Last Chance, the former police chief later escaped once again to Klagenfurt, Austria where he currently resides. Within our own government, the Office of Special Investigations at the Justice Department is tasked with identifying, investigating and denying refuge in the United States to the Nazi persecutors. As a result, the U.S. is the only country in the world to have won an ``A'' rating from the Simon Wiesenthal Center for effectiveness in pursuing justice for Holocaust crimes. Yet despite the best efforts of the U.S. Government and tireless work of organizations like the Wiesenthal Center, some countries continue to harbor wanted Nazis and refuse to accept the extradition of Nazi criminals from other countries, including the U.S. This inaction is shameful. It is incumbent upon us as Americans to honor the memory of those killed in the Holocaust and to pay tribute to the sacrifices of the men and women who fought and died in World War II. The last surviving Nazi war criminals are dying off. We must do everything in our power, including equipping our own government with important tools, to bring these war criminals to justice before it is too late. The World War II War Crimes Accountability Act seeks to strengthen U.S. efforts by directing the Attorney General to assess a country's cooperation in prosecuting and extraditing war criminals when considering prospective countries for admission into the Visa Waiver Program. It also requires the President to issue an annual report describing such cooperation for countries seeking entry into or renewal of the Visa Waiver Program. I believe that giving the administration this added review process will help encourage foreign governments to prosecute and extradite wanted criminals. I hope that others will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and voting it into law. Time is of the essence. Surviving Nazi war criminals are becoming increasingly rare. We must do all that we can before it is too late.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the World War II War Crimes Accountability Act of 2009. The bill seeks to hold the surviving Nazi war criminals accountable for their crimes by encouraging foreign governments to prosecute and extradite wanted criminals. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Cardin, for supporting this important legislation. The atrocities committed by the Nazis and their allies during the Second World War were vast and have helped shape the modern concept of crimes against humanity. After the war, some of the perpetrators of these heinous crimes escaped justice and have been living out their days as free men. In an effort to bring these fugitives to justice, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Targum Shlishi Foundation of Miami, Florida launched ``Operation: Last Chance'' to help identify and facilitate the prosecution of the remaining unprosecuted Nazi war criminals and to assist governments in bringing Nazi war criminals to justice. Among the Center's many open cases there is Alois Brunner, a key operative of Adolf Eichmann, who was responsible for the deportation of 47,000 Jews from Austria, 44,000 Jews from Greece, 23,500 Jews from France, and 14,000 Jews from Slovakia to Nazi death camps. He lived in Syria for decades and the Syrian government refused to cooperate with international prosecution efforts. He was convicted in absentia for his crimes by France. He was born in 1912 and last seen in 2001. While is it doubtful that he is still alive, there is no conclusive evidence of his death. Another case is that of Milivoj Asner, who served as the police chief of the city of Slavonska Pozega. During 1941 and 1942, Mr. Asner orchestrated the robbery, persecution and destruction of the local Serb, Jewish, and Gypsy communities, which culminated in the deportation of hundreds of civilians to Ustasha concentration camps, where most of the deportees were murdered. After his exposure in Operation: Last Chance, the former police chief later escaped once again to Klagenfurt, Austria where he currently resides. Within our own government, the Office of Special Investigations at the Justice Department is tasked with identifying, investigating and denying refuge in the United States to the Nazi persecutors. As a result, the U.S. is the only country in the world to have won an ``A'' rating from the Simon Wiesenthal Center for effectiveness in pursuing justice for Holocaust crimes. Yet despite the best efforts of the U.S. Government and tireless work of organizations like the Wiesenthal Center, some countries continue to harbor wanted Nazis and refuse to accept the extradition of Nazi criminals from other countries, including the U.S. This inaction is shameful. It is incumbent upon us as Americans to honor the memory of those killed in the Holocaust and to pay tribute to the sacrifices of the men and women who fought and died in World War II. The last surviving Nazi war criminals are dying off. We must do everything in our power, including equipping our own government with important tools, to bring these war criminals to justice before it is too late. The World War II War Crimes Accountability Act seeks to strengthen U.S. efforts by directing the Attorney General to assess a country's cooperation in prosecuting and extraditing war criminals when considering prospective countries for admission into the Visa Waiver Program. It also requires the President to issue an annual report describing such cooperation for countries seeking entry into or renewal of the Visa Waiver Program. I believe that giving the administration this added review process will help encourage foreign governments to prosecute and extradite wanted criminals. I hope that others will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and voting it into law. Time is of the essence. Surviving Nazi war criminals are becoming increasingly rare. We must do all that we can before it is too late.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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