Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Clinton, Senator Sununu, and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1216, the Kids and Cars Safety Act, otherwise known as the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I never cease to be amazed at our senior colleague, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, for the great oratorical skills he has, the vast memory store he carries, of which we have just had an example that from memory he can recite poems and he can recite historical dates. He is such an inspiration to the rest of the Senators, and he is, indeed, the pillar upon which this Senate rests. Once again, we have been treated to the oratory of the great Senator from the State of West Virginia.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it has been 5 years since four Americans disappeared in the jungles of Colombia while helping that country's Government fight its war against narcoterrorism. Five years ago yesterday, a single-engine plane carrying these Americans lost engine power and crashed into the jungle. One of those Americans and a Colombian colleague were brutally executed by the terrorist group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, commonly known as FARC. The remaining three--Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Goncalves--were taken hostage by the FARC and have since languished in the Colombian jungle prison, where they are held despite repeated appeals for their freedom. Fortunately, we think, through recent news crews, that those Americans are still alive. They are being held somewhere in an undisclosed location in the jungle along with untold numbers of other hostages. These men were involved in our decades-long struggle against drugs that are polluting our children's minds and the lawlessness in Colombia. Their sacrifice and those of their families--and most of those families live in Florida--is all too real. We can't forget them. That is why I am making these remarks after this 5-long-years' anniversary that occurred yesterday. Last year, I introduced a resolution condemning the FARC for its use of hostage taking and drug cultivation to visit terror upon peaceful people. Our colleagues passed that resolution, which also called for the immediate release of all those FARC hostages, including the Americans I have mentioned. I am here today, after 5 long years of these Americans' captivity, to again remind our colleagues of the plight of these men and their families and to ask for their support in doing everything possible, as we continue to try to secure their freedom. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, thus far, the Department of the Army has acknowledged that there have been 124 incidents of sexual assault against contractor and military personnel in Iraq which are currently under investigation. We know of only three of those cases that are now being considered by the Department of Justice and, therefore, the Department of Justice will not respond to my entreaties about this investigation because they say it is an ongoing criminal investigation. However, in other cases, we have gathered some facts, and these facts have been quite telling. There does not seem to be a standard to protect female contractors or military personnel from sexual assault in Iraq under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army. The 124 cases of sexual assaults of both contractors and military personnel have been acknowledged just under the Department of the Army. The question is, under the other branches of the service whose contracts are being administered by civilian contractors, how many are there; and are there similar cases in the other theater of operations--Afghanistan as well as in Iraq? What we also know from the facts we have gathered thus far is the problem is not within the U.S. military nearly so much as it is among contractor personnel because there is a nebulous set of regulations as to how it is to be handled on the reporting of a rape. Untold numbers of sexual assaults have been committed in Iraq, and the Departments of Justice, Defense, and State are providing very little information on whether they have been prosecuted. It is time we have this information. Last December, I wrote to the Secretary of Defense asking him to launch an investigation by DOD's inspector general into the rape and sexual assault cases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I sent similar letters to the Secretary of State regarding the investigations carried out under the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and I requested that the Attorney General update me on the status of the related criminal investigations. I asked whether and why evidence in the sexual assault cases was turned over to the private firms. I got into this when one of my constituents in Tampa, FL, came forth and told about the assault case. This had followed a Texas case that had been elevated to the public sphere. Apparently, one of these women was assaulted, then went to see the doctor, and a rape kit was prepared by the military doctors. That kit would have the evidence of the rape, and it was turned over to the civilian contractor. Suddenly, the rape kit disappeared. So the question is, what steps has the Department of Defense taken to ensure the full investigation and prosecution of these cases? In the meantime, the Department of State has told our office that diplomatic security has investigated four cases. One of them was the Texas lady, and that was where a contractor personnel assaulted another contractor personnel. Another involved a State Department employee who allegedly assaulted a woman employed by a contractor--in this case KBR. Then another case involved two State Department employees. According to the State Department, three of the cases were referred to the Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution. Recently, our Senate staff met with representatives of the Department of Defense IG's office, and we asked them to brief us because of the response received from the Department of Defense, which certainly did not answer my questions. The inspector general's office stated that, and this is what blew our mind, the Army Criminal Investigation Command has investigated 124 cases of sexual assault. Now, that is just the Army, and that is just in Iraq. And that is just in the 3 years of 2005, 2006, and 2007. So what about the other services and what about Afghanistan? So this naturally leads me to question whether there could be hundreds of additional investigations going on about contractor personnel--specifically in the ones that have come to us, it was the contractor KBR--and it suggests that perhaps there could be many assaults that have not been investigated at all. And because the inspector general's office would not provide information on the disposition of these investigations, it certainly is unclear whether there has been any prosecution of these within the military or the criminal justice systems, or whether it has been dealt with administratively. Now, one of my Florida constituents was, and I will use the word advisedly, allegedly sexually battered in Iraq in 2005. And although the Naval Criminal Investigative Service was supposed to be investigating her case, they will not even say anything about the basic matters of the case because, the Navy says: Law enforcement records are exempt from disclosure at the time requested if it can be reasonably expected to interfere with the enforcement proceedings. I think we in this Congress, we in the Senate, and those of us on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, certainly have an obligation to investigate. Because cases such as this can languish far too long without any information from the Government coming forth in order to protect these individuals. So I have asked that our office follow up with the Defense Department, with the following detailed questions: The actual numbers of the sexual assault cases reported since 2001 in Afghanistan and since 2003 in Iraq and the disposition of each case. I have asked to have the information of the service components or the Government agencies involved in each resulting investigation. I have asked for the status of the persons involved in each case--in other words, I want to know whether they are Active military, U.S. Government civilian employees, contractor employees or are they an Iraqi or Afghani national. I have asked for an explanation of the U.S. jurisdiction or the investigative authority for sexual assault allegations in both those areas in which we are engaged--Iraq and Afghanistan. And I have asked for a clear explanation of the rules, regulations, policies, and processes under which sexual assaults are investigated, evidence is obtained, and responsible individuals are held accountable. I have also asked for a clear explanation of how the Department of Defense divides authority among all its various investigative arms in these sexual assault cases. I have had to ask these questions because DOD and the Department of State have not been forthcoming. Yet what is being told by some of these assault victims is absolutely horrifying. For example: One female contractor employee, during cocktail conversation, suddenly, totally, passed out. Apparently, her drink had been spiked. She awoke to find out she had been assaulted many times. Upon seeing a military doctor, in fact, that was confirmed and the rape kit was prepared. But when the rape kit was turned over to the contractor, it amazingly disappeared. The evidence disappeared. That contract employee then, upon asking questions, was locked in a container and could not get out of the container to go and tell her story to other personnel of her contractor, and she only got out because she was able to persuade someone to let her use a cell phone to call her father back in the United States. That is how she got out of her confinement. Now, if all of that is true, there is simply no excuse for this. But what we need to determine is the truth. It is a shame that the senior Senator from Florida has to come to the floor of the Senate to elevate this issue in order to say to the Department of Defense and the Department of State that we want the answers to our questions. I have asked the questions. I expect, on behalf of the Congress of the United States, that we will get the answers. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have heard one of the best-- I cannot use ``oration'' because it was far superior. It was one of the best explanations of how the Department of Justice has gone awry by the Senator from Rhode Island. I commend the Senator from Rhode Island. I thank him for his legal analysis, and I wish to underscore what he has said, that the reason the Department of Justice was ignoring that Court of Appeals decision, the reason the Department of Justice was ignoring all of the history of the record that has been built over time, of which the Senator cited the statements from World War II, the reason all of that has been ignored or purposely missed is because the Department of Justice became politicized so that politics became the rule of the day instead of the rule of law. In a nation that recognizes it is a nation of law, not a rule of men, when politics is inserted for law, then we get into the trouble we have gotten into. That is what brings us here. I have already addressed this subject of why my conclusion, a long deliberative process of coming to the question, that we ought to etch into law the Army Field Manual as the standard by which the intelligence community will carry out their interrogations. That ought to be the law. I thank the Senators who have spoken in favor of this legislation. We are going to have a chance to vote on it pretty soon. Each of us can determine what we think ought to be representative of America, if it ought to be torture or not. We are clearly going to have an opportunity to say that because we are going to vote on a proposed law that says: Is torture going to be the standard for America? I wish to speak on another subject, so I guess the appropriate parliamentary procedure is for me to ask consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while we are waiting here for some of the determination of a time agreement with regards to the consideration of the conference report, I want to go ahead and lend my support and acknowledge to the rest of the Senate that this is a bill that is very necessary to pass. Because, what this bill does, by authorizing the activities of the intelligence community, it continues to make the oversight function of the Congress--in particular, the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees--poignant and relevant to a community that is not accustomed to having oversight. Our committee leadership, chairman and vice chairman, Senators Rockefeller and Bond, as we say in the South, they have cracked the whip with the intelligence community to get them to realize that this is a constitutional government of shared powers; that the executive branch doesn't just run the show--particularly on something as sensitive as the collection of intelligence. Rather, it needs to be done within the law, and one of the ways of ensuring that is through the sharing of powers between two different branches of Government who have checks and balances upon each other. We in the legislative branch oversee the activities of the executive branch--in this case, all of the intelligence community and their activities, which are absolutely essential to the protection of our country. This conference report is a very important bipartisan document, which increases the accountability in the intelligence community, and it authorizes dozens of critical intelligence programs to keep us safe every day. The conference report includes a new, strong inspector general in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Inspectors general are increasingly important in the intelligence community, where billions of dollars are spent outside of public view. Our committee, as well as the American public, has to rely on the inspector general as an important part of the oversight of the intelligence community. As we look back, several years ago, we completely reorganized the intelligence community. A Director of National Intelligence was set up to integrate the disparate elements of the intelligence community. But there is a lot more that needs to be done, and a strong inspector general at the DNI is another step in the right direction. The conference report also includes a provision that makes the Director of the NRO--the National Reconnaissance Office--and the NSA-- the National Security Agency--subject to Senate confirmation. Now, why is that important? That is important because, again, it is part of the checks and balances of the separate branches of Government. Both of these agencies, outside of the public view because of the top-secret nature of this work, oversee large programs that cost vast amounts of money, and not every program has been a success. So by having the confirmations of the Directors of the NRO and the NSA come to the Senate, it improves that accountability and responsiveness to the legislative branch of Government. The authorization bill also requires an assessment of the vulnerability of the intelligence community's major acquisition programs. We have to assess that the program is going to stay on track and that it is not going off the rails with regard to cost. We are talking about billions of dollars on some of these programs. By keeping them on track, by knowing what to anticipate, it is much easier to plan ahead. This bill also provides an annual reporting system which will help us keep in focus, curbing these cost overruns and these schedule delays. If you don't do that, things are going to get out of control. As the intelligence community continues to be more and more sophisticated because of the technical means it employs, it is more and more important that our oversight tools be in place and effective. Now, that is enough alone to pass this bill, but we have an area of disagreement coming up. We are expecting the minority to offer a point of order that would remove a provision in the conference report. This provision requires the Army Field Manual to be used as the standard for interrogation methods. This Army Field Manual was released over a year ago. It specifically prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. There are eight techniques in the Army Field Manual that are specifically prohibited from being used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations: forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape on the eyes; applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain. The fourth is waterboarding. That is prohibited. The fifth is using military working dogs. The sixth is inducing hypothermia or heat energy. The seventh is conducting a mock execution. The eighth is depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, and medical care. Now, haven't I just described what America is all about? Is that not the standard by which we, as the leader of the world, have to announce to the world what we believe in and how we are going to conduct ourselves, and that is how we are going to conduct ourselves not only among our own people and how we treat them but how we are going to treat others? The manual provides that three interrogation techniques may only be used with higher level approval. The good cop-bad cop interrogation tactic; the false flag tactic, where a detainee is made to believe he is being held by another country; or separation, by which the detainee is separated so he can't coordinate with other detainees on his story-- those techniques can be used, but it has to be approved at a higher level. Mr. President, there is something that is going to worry everybody, and it has worried this Senator personally and as a member of the Intelligence Committee. What if all of this doesn't work and the country is in imminent peril? Well, along with the standards we are going to set, which I hope we are going to pass into law--these standards in the Army Field Manual which will state clearly what the standards are for our country and how we are going to conduct ourselves--there is always the constitutional authority under article II. As Commander in Chief, the President can act when the country is in immediate peril. And if he so chooses, as Commander in Chief, to authorize activities other than what the Army Field Manual allows, then the President would be accountable directly to the American people under the circumstances with which he invoked that article II authority as Commander in Chief. What we are saying today does not relate to the President's article II power. We are setting statutory power. It is important that we tell the rest of the world the standards of how we interrogate detainees. We are putting these standards into law and we will ensure that these techniques are in compliance with the humane treatment that we would expect and hope our Americans would also receive. I think there should be no confusion. We have an obligation to set these standards into law. If that dire emergency ever occurred in the future, the President has his own authority under article II of the Constitution. But that is not the question here today before us. The question is: What do we set as the standard of interrogation, and that has to be that there is no torture allowed under this statutory law. Therefore, when the point of order is raised that would take the Army Field Manual standards for interrogation techniques out of the conference report, I urge the Senators not to take this provision out of this important intelligence reauthorization bill. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have two subjects I wish to discuss for the Senate. The first is, with the dramatic events shifting as we select the nominees for President from our two great parties, we potentially have a significant train wreck that may start occurring in the Democratic Party as a result of a divisive issue of seating the Michigan and Florida delegations to the National Convention because the Florida legislature, a legislature that is controlled by the Republican Party, passed a bill that moved the Florida primary earlier than the date allowed by the Democratic National Committee. In fact, it moved it, instead of the deadline of February 5, 1 week earlier to January 29. The Democratic National Committee then stripped all of Florida's delegates to the National Convention. Mind you, the bill that was passed was an election reform bill. While it was being deliberated in the State legislature of Florida, in fact, the Democratic leader of the State senate offered an amendment to take out January 29 and instead put it back to February 5, which would have complied with the Democratic National Committee's request and rules. That amendment by the Democratic leader of the State senate was defeated. The bill then went on to pass because it was an election reform bill having to do with the functioning of election machines in Florida, something about which we are quite sensitive in our State as a result of our electoral history. As a result, the Democratic National Committee took great umbrage at this and instead of their rules providing that they would take away half of Florida's delegates to the National Convention, they took away all of Florida's delegates and, in fact, the first four privileged States that were allowed to have primaries or caucuses prior to February 5--namely, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina-- extracted a pledge from all the Democratic candidates for President that said they would not campaign in the State of Florida. They honored that pledge. The election was held pursuant to State law, a law passed by the legislature and signed into law by a Governor who happens to be Republican. Because of that, Florida is being penalized by the national committee by not having any delegates. In the meantime, the State of Michigan, under a Democratic legislature, signed into law by a Democratic Governor, moved their primary up to January 15. They had their primary January 15. Likewise, the Democratic National Committee took away their delegates to the National Convention. But the difference was that only a couple of the Presidential candidates' names were on the ballot because of a Michigan law that allows the candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot when, in fact, the Florida law does not allow that. The Florida election, on January 29, had all of the candidates on the ballot. Here is the coming train wreck: If one of our two leading candidates does not get a majority by the time all the primaries and the caucuses are over, with the last one being the South Dakota primary on June 3, if that does not decide who is the winner of the Presidential sweepstakes of being the Democratic nominee, then we go into a period during June, July, and all the way to the end of August at the Democratic National Convention, a period of enormous uncertainty and turmoil--first of all, the turmoil of whether the superdelegates, who are generally the members of the DNC, the congressional delegations, both House and Senate, and the Governors, who are all unpledged as for whom they would vote, so they would be getting in their back rooms and deciding, and the turmoil of what to do with Florida and Michigan's delegations. Why is this important? It is certainly important to this Senator, the senior Senator from Florida, because in fact, not only did Florida voters turn out on January 29 for the primary, they turned out in record numbers. About 1.8 million Florida Republicans turned out, and the Republican National Committee was penalizing Florida Republicans, not by taking away all of the delegates to the National Convention but by only taking away half. Over 1.7 million Florida Democrats turned out to vote, and they expressed their will. The turmoil is what to do about the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations. Just recently, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, an esteemed, very distinguished former Governor of Vermont, Governor Dean, our chairman of the party, as reported in the New York Post a couple of days ago, was proffering maybe having a new caucus in Michigan and Florida as a way of selecting the delegates to the National Convention from those two States. But, Mr. President, you cannot undo an election with a caucus, and especially you cannot undo an election where 1.7 million Florida Democrats have gone to vote in a secret ballot and replace it with a caucus that maybe 50,000 people would show up. It is a basic underpinning of our democracy, and it is a basic underpinning of a constitutional right to vote and to have that vote counted. So what do we do? I am certainly amenable for anyone who has a suggestion to get us out of the potential train wreck because the potential train wreck could well be that if the Florida and Michigan delegations are not seated at the National Convention in August, those are two key States that only 2 months thereafter would be voting on who is going to be the next President of the United States. So with this speech, I am making a plea to all of our colleagues in the Senate and beyond to try to find an accommodation in which the right to vote and to have that vote counted can be respected, especially in the State of Florida where all of the candidates' names were on the ballot. That is the first issue about which I wanted to talk. International Space Station The second issue about which I want to talk, and I want to put on my hat as the chairman of the Space Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, is the importance of the International Space Station of which the space shuttle launched yesterday successfully. And it was a magnificent launch. They are now closing in on orbit onto the International Space Station. They are taking up a European module that will be an important component of this International Space Station. This International Space Station is two football fields long--this thing is huge--about 325 miles up, orbiting the Earth at 17,500 miles per hour. The International Space Station was created as a multibillion-dollar facility to do research internationally. One of the major experiments for which NASA has yet to find space on the space shuttle to fly and be attached to the space station is the alpha magnetic spectrometer. This is an international consortium of some 20 countries and 50 universities around the world. It is being built as we speak. It is almost completed. It is being built in Geneva, Switzerland. It is looked upon as a scientific experiment that possibly several Nobel prizes will come as a result. But we have to get it up there, Mr. President. And the NASA Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin, is saying: No, we don't have space on the space shuttle. This alpha magnetic spectrometer was designed to fly in the cargo bay of the space shuttle. It takes up about 25 percent of the cargo bay of one space shuttle flight. The Administrator, in detailed testimony in front of our committee, with this Senator questioning him, said he doesn't have space. He said he had a couple of contingency flights, after all the other flights are allocated. Remember, the Administrator of NASA says his plan is to shut down the space shuttle in September of 2010--and oh, by the way, we don't have a rocket ready that can start flying thereafter. The latest estimate is there would be a 5-year gap, until 2015, in order to fly an American rocket with humans--called Aries--with a capsule called Orion. Well, what do we do in the meantime? NASA is planning that we are going to pay for Russian Soyez vehicles. Well, what is the geopolitics going to be in the year 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, before we will have a human-capable rocket to get to the international space station? We are going to pay for Russian vehicles? In other words, we are going to lay off NASA employees and contractors in order to buy Russian vehicles in a geopolitical setting, and we don't even know what our relationship with Russia is going to be in the year 2011. If it isn't particularly good, what is the cost of that, or what is the ability of them to say: Nyet, we are not going to sell you a ride on a Russian Soyez vehicle. Now, that is the danger. So NASA is going to complete the construction of the space station. It has two contingency flights. I said: Well, why are they contingent? I asked that of Dr. Griffin, the Administrator of NASA, and he said: Well, they have additional equipment for the space station, and they have extra spare parts we want to put up. So I said: Well, then, you mean they are not contingent. He says: Yes, I guess you are right, they are not contingent. But he says: We don't have space to fly the alpha magnetic spectrometer. What does this experiment do that all of these universities and all of these nations are so interested in getting it up there so they can go to work? What it does is it identifies the origin of cosmic rays, and that means it can help us understand the origin of the universe. This is not just an American experiment, this is an international experiment of countries around the world. This is a part of us wanting to understand our beginnings. This is a part of our nature, as a people, to want to explore the heavens and understand the universe. This is an essential part of our space program, but the NASA Administrator says he doesn't have space to fly it on the space shuttle and he is going to shut down the space shuttle in September or October of 2010. He said: You will have to put it over onto an expendable rocket, and that won't be for another 5 years. And instead of it being 25 percent of the cargo bay of a space shuttle, for an additional cost of about $100 million, he is putting it over here on an expendable rocket, 5 years later, that is going to cost between $500 million and $800 million. Now, that is not a good tradeoff. So how do we get it onto the space shuttle before they shut down the space shuttle? There are three flights where this could be done. STS- 129, which is set to go in August of 2009, has two express logistics carriers. In fact, you could reconfigure that flight or another flight in July of 2010. You could reconfigure those two flights by taking some of the payloads on those express logistics carriers and creating space of 25 percent of the cargo bay and put on this critical experiment--the alpha magnetic spectrometer; or in the flight that is to go on February 2010, STS-131, you could take the integrated cargo carrier vertical light deployable and a docking cargo module, you could take that flight and you could reconfigure that integrated cargo carrier vertical light deployable and create space for the alpha magnetic spectrometer. That would allow the space shuttle to launch 8,800 pounds of these orbital replacement units, plus the ICCVLD to the international space station on the same flight as this critical experiment--the alpha magnetic spectrometer. Now, why am I saying this? Because these are the specialists at the centers of NASA around the country who are saying this can be done. The Administrator tells our committee it can't be done, but it can. So I am making a plea. And it is not just this Senator because seated right by me is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, during that hearing late last year, making the plea as well. In a bipartisan way, we made the plea to NASA to reconfigure those last several flights to find room for the AMS because if you don't, Dr. Griffin, if you don't, NASA, you are going to kill this experiment that has enormous support in the international scientific community, all of which is the very reason for having an international space station up there in the first place--to do scientific research. I hope all of the management of NASA will do a recomputing. My tremendous congratulations to them. And Dr. Griffin knows I have been a supporter of his as he has turned around NASA, as he has taken very difficult times after the destruction of the last space shuttle Columbia, and he has brought back NASA with a professionalism that is the hallmark of NASA. The launch yesterday was another example of that professionalism, with that space shuttle closing in, as I speak, on the international space station to rendezvous, to dock, to deliver that European module, and to continue to equip that international space station to do what it was designed to do--scientific research. Let's complete that task before the space shuttle is shut down by finding space on the manifest to fly the AMT--the alpha magnetic spectrometer. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 31, 2008 from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in SH-216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in order to hold a hearing on Afghanistan.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, January 31, 2008, at 4 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Agenda I. Bills: S. l638, Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007 (Leahy, Hatch, Feinstein, Graham, Kennedy); S. 352, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007 (Grassley, Schumer, Leahy, Specter, Graham, Feingold, Cornyn, Durbin); S. 2450, a bill to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine (Leahy, Specter, Graham); S. 2304, Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 (Domenici, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy) II. Nominations: Mark R. Filip to be Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice; Ondray T. Harris to be Director, Community Relations Service, Department of Justice; David W. Hagy to be Director, National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 31, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A Hearing to Receive the Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.''

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 Thursday, January 31, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, for the purposes of conducting a hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the regulatory aspects of carbon capture, transportation, and sequestration and to receive testimony on two related bills: S. 2323, a bill to provide for the conduct of carbon capture and storage technology research, development and demonstration projects, and for other purposes; and S. 2144, a bill to require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study of the feasibility relating to the construction and operation of pipelines and carbon dioxide sequestration facilities, and for other purposes.

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 January 31, 2008, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening Our Economy: Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Preservation.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to hold an oversight hearing on military recruiting.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 31, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Eliminating Agency Payment Errors.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I can tell my colleagues that our people are hurting. We don't normally think of the State of Florida, which is in the megatrend, which is the fourth largest State, which is going to become the third largest State within 4 years, the State that is the microcosm of the entire country in almost every demographic group--we reflect the country, in large part because a lot of the country has moved to Florida--you don't normally think of a go-go State such as that as being hurting economically. But, indeed, our State is hurting. A lot of it has to do with the real estate market going flat. You take tremendously robust areas such as Fort Myers, Lee County on the southwest coast of Florida; it has been in a building boom for years. Of course, that real estate market is flat now, and from all the ripple effects throughout the economy as a result of that, we are hurting. Our people are hurting because they are paying more for gas, for milk, for bread. Meanwhile, because of the flat real estate market, they are seeing their housing values plummet, and many of them are trying to correct the situation by selling their houses, which they can't sell, or unwinding the bad loans they have. But then they can't get buyers to look at their homes. We see the statistics bear this out nationally. December's rate on unemployment was 5 percent, and that is the highest it has been in 2 years. The GDP growth for the last quarter of last year, 2007, increased only .6 of a percent compared to an almost 5-percent increase in the third quarter of 2007. Yesterday, the Fed, in response, cut the interest rates again by a half point, and this is the second rate cut in 8 days. Today, the Department of Labor released the initial unemployment claims for the week that ended last week, January 26, and guess who had the largest unemployment increase in the country? My State of Florida. The layoffs are concentrated in construction, in trade, in service, and manufacturing. We are in the middle of a crisis with foreclosures, mortgage defaults, and we are hearing the experts say that the worst is still to come. Two million Americans could lose their homes. We had in Florida last year, in 2007, the second highest mortgage foreclosure rate with more than 2 percent of all our households entering some state of foreclosure during the year. That is a 100-percent increase over the previous year, and Florida home sales last year were down 31 percent compared to the previous year. Oh, by the way, the median home price dropped 13 percent. So we are now seeing that ripple effect through the economy, particularly in a State such as mine that was such a hot growth market. We are seeing it in the deterioration of the home values, and we are seeing it in the State's economy. The fall-off of revenues to the State of Florida has been significant. Since the housing crisis is at the heart of this slowdown, it is crucial that in this rescue passage we target these specific concerns. There is going to be a temporary increase in the conforming loan limits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the FHA program. I think these measures will help restore confidence and liquidity in the housing market. The Senate bill adds more aid, including a provision that would allow State and local governments to issue bonds to help with the financing of those subprime loans. Then, of course, we mentioned earlier disabled veterans. This package is going to provide quick help to disabled veterans, as well as seniors, and I am certainly hoping that we are going to get a clear up- or-down vote on providing an additional 13 weeks of unemployment compensation that is going to help ease the pain of those who are being laid off because of this recession we have now slipped into. Time is of the essence. In a perfect world, we shouldn't have to do this, because whatever we come up with in this package we have to go out and borrow, and that means we are going to borrow it from China. That is not good. That is piling on more debt to the national debt. But the fact is we have to do something. I am going to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Vermont, who comes from a cold weather State, this Senator comes from a warm weather State, and a lot of the ideas proffered by the Senator from Vermont apply to my State as well as his. He has very eloquently laid out how; that if you want to do stimulus, the quickest way to get the money into the economy and flowing so those dollars can turn over is increased compensation, unemployment compensation, and increased food stamps. This $300-per-person rebate approved over in the House, improved over here--not just because it is $500, but because it is going to senior citizens as well in the Senate Finance Committee package, whichever one of those you look at, it is going to be May, June, July, or August before those checks get out into the economy. If you want to do stimulus immediately, you are talking about 2 weeks away with increased unemployment compensation and food stamps. What the Senator says about taking care of our veterans, our disabled veterans, and what he says about the infrastructure, is true. We desperately need infrastructure improvements. As far as a stimulus right now, that is not going to put the money out there, but a lot of this stimulus package is psychological. It is the fact that the Federal Reserve, through monetary policy, by cutting the interest rates that banks share with each other--that helps, but there is a delay, a lag, before that does anything. The immediate jolt is psychological. So too with this stimulus package. At the end of the day, this Senator is going to support it because we do need that psychological jolt, that the Government is standing behind us, not slipping further into recession. But if this Senator had his druthers, he shares a lot of the ideas that the Senator from Vermont has proffered on the quick ways to get the money out into the economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado be recognized following my remarks.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's cloture votes on the Rockefeller-Bond Substitute amendment No. 3911 and the Reid amendment No. 3918 to S. 2246, the FISA legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 3911 and ``aye'' on No. 3918. I believe that now is the time for the full Senate to consider and debate the difficult questions raised in this legislation. The Senate should consider and vote on important amendments relating to the protection of Americans' civil liberties and the question of immunity for telecommunications providers.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, with Florida's marine environment and tourism economy threatened by potential drilling a mere 45 miles off its coast, and a communist regime ruling Cuba, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. We must do all that we can to protect our Nation's natural treasures while at the same time emphasizing that the undemocratic Castro government has no right to speak for the people of Cuba. That is why I have asked President Bush to withdraw the letters that the United States exchanges with Cuba every 2 years. This exchange of letters is the only thing enforcing the 1977 Maritime Boundary Agreement between the United States and Cuba, and incidentally, one of the only rationales the Castro government has for drilling just 45 miles off of our pristine coast. We have seen what oil spills have done in other parts of the country and around the world. I am not prepared to take chances with Florida's coral reefs and other marine life, nor with the livelihoods of millions of Floridians who depend on tourism for their economic well-being. The continued exchange of these letters leaves the door open to economic and environmental disaster and the enrichment of the Castro regime. And so, I urge the administration to join me in closing this door on disaster and to protect Florida by withdrawing these letters now. Should Cuba gain a democratically elected government as envisioned by the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity--or LIBERTAD--Act of 1996, we could consider renegotiating our boundary agreement so that it clearly protects the environment. Until that time, however, withdrawing these letters is the best and first step towards protecting the people and environment of Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I, as the Senator from Wisconsin, my colleague, have had difficulty as we sit side by side in the Intelligence Committee with the issue of immunity. First of all, I want to say that I think the intelligence community, headed by Admiral McConnell, is doing an excellent job. They are correcting colossal mistakes. We had a colossal mistake on intelligence on September 11. We had another colossal mistake of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. And in order for us to protect ourselves, we, in fact, have to have information in order to disrupt the plans to attack us, to harm the Nation. So I give credit to Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. I give credit to General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to Steve Kappes, the Deputy Director of the CIA. I think they are doing a terrific job. I compliment the chairman and the vice chairman of our committee, and they are within earshot, and I want them to hear how much this Senator appreciates their cooperation between each other to work in a bipartisan fashion. They are talking right now, so I am not sure they are hearing me. I want them to know my personal appreciation for how they have taken a bipartisan approach. It is important that we thank people for the work they are doing. This legislation is an attempt to be crafted so that these folks can better perform their job but at the same time protecting the precious civil liberties Americans have that make us unique from any other society on planet Earth. We want to protect those rights of privacy. I believe there are protections in this bill that will extend to Americans, regardless of their physical location. One of the things we amended in the Intelligence Committee was that it doesn't make any difference, if an American is here in the United States or if they are abroad, if you are going after an American as a target, they ought to have to go to the FISA Court to get a court order called a warrant, regardless of where that American is, if they are a target of surveillance. That is important. It is important to support our constitutional protections of privacy and that the Government can't come and intrude in our lives. I think we have started off in the right direction. As the Senator from Wisconsin has said, I have a problem with the blanket immunity as well. I agree with Admiral McConnell. At the end of the day, we have to have the cooperation of the 10 communications companies, and they should not have the threat of a spurious lawsuit hanging over their heads, thinking they are going to be dragged out in public court over time as a means of trying to extract a pound of flesh from them. There should be every opportunity and encouragement for the telecommunications companies to cooperate with the U.S. Government intelligence community for the protection of the country. The bill before us does, in fact, give that immunity for any of the surveillance that did not have a warrant from the FISA Court from the period of September 11, 2001, to January 17, 2007. The problem I have with that is, I am not sure the telecommunications companies were attending to their knitting, as to whether they were getting legal orders from the United States Government, not in the first year after September 11, not in the second year, perhaps not even in the third year after the attack on New York City and the Pentagon and the attempt on other facilities in Washington. I am talking about this went on for a fourth year and a fifth year. I am not sure that, in fact, they had the legal basis to say that the Government, in fact, was complying with the law. Of course, I make that judgment, and my judgment is based on something I can't say here on the Senate floor, because it is not only highly classified; it is highly compartmented. I have read the documents. I have a problem with that. At the end of the day, if it means we have to pass the bill and it has immunity in it, I am going to vote for the bill, because it is much more important that we go ahead and have a procedure set out by which we can try to protect ourselves from the bad guys and at the same time protect the civil rights, the right of privacy of our citizens. That is contained within the committee bill, and that is the way I voted in committee. I voted against the immunity, but that amendment only got three votes. When it came to passage of the final bill, I voted for it, because that is in the interest of the country. If that is what I am confronted with here, that is the way I am going to vote and support the chairman and vice chairman of our committee. Maybe it doesn't have to be as stark as Senator Feingold has said, that it is either immunity or no immunity. Maybe what the issue ultimately ought to be is somewhere in between. That is the Feinstein- Nelson amendment that will be offered later in which it will put a review of the telecommunications carriers' actions squarely under the jurisdiction of the special Federal court set up to handle these top- secret matters called the FISA Court. The court would review all aspects of the telecommunications carriers' involvement and make a decision on immunity based on three criteria. No. 1, if the court decided that the telecommunications carrier did not provide the assistance as alleged, then, of course, the court would dismiss the lawsuit against the company. No. 2, if the assistance was provided, the court then would determine whether the documentation sent by the U.S. Government to the companies met the requirements of the law and was adequate. This law that would have to be met states that a telecommunications carrier needs a court order or a written certification from the Attorney General that no court order is required. It further has to state that all statutory requirements have been met. So then this FISA Court, in other words, would, in fact, judge that. If the conditions of the statute had been met, then the companies would be shielded from the lawsuit and the lawsuit would be dismissed. Or the third criteria the court would look at: If the special Federal court, the FISA Court, found there was no certification given to the telecommunications company, then the court would examine whether the company acted in good faith and with an objectively reasonable belief that it was legal. If the court determined that, then the immunity would be provided. That seems to be a way in which the companies would be protected, and at the same time we can get to this issue of this third year, fourth year, and fifth year that the United States Government is saying this is legal without a court order, when, in fact, it seems to me that the CEOs of those companies and the general counsels of those companies ought to have been jumping up and down saying: Wait a minute. We want additional information. The amendment to be offered by the Senator from California and me creates a series of three requirements that must be met in order for the telecommunications companies to receive immunity. It is going to preserve the rights of private citizens to make their case in front of a judge without jeopardizing these highly sensitive kinds of not only top-secret but compartmented material that need to be classified for the protection of the country. Practically speaking, what is going to happen? We can't pass anything around here unless you get 60 votes. That is a huge threshold. As this comes before the Senate, I doubt the Feingold amendment is going to get 60 votes to cut off debate. I doubt the Feinstein amendment is going to get 60 votes. That brings us right back to the Intelligence Committee bill which is before us right now, in which case, on final passage, I am certainly going to vote for that. But there is another opportunity to address this specific issue. It is unlikely that the House of Representatives is going to pass this legislation with the immunity for the companies. Therefore, there will be a huge difference between the Senate bill and the House bill, as the clock continues to tick down toward the deadline in which agreement is going to have to be reached. It seems to me the Feinstein-Nelson approach is a reasonable compromise at that point. I hope in time we are going to be able to pass this, that we will pass it before the deadline which, to my knowledge, is in a week or so, maybe a week and a half. The majority leader says he is going to keep us in all weekend in order to get this passed. If I were he, I would do the same. It is so critically important to our country that we pass this legislation. So on we go. Let the legislative process work itself out. Hopefully we will get this thing passed. I yield the floor.