Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the subject about which the Senator from Maryland speaks is a subject of enormous gravity to this country. We have been laboring with this issue in the Intelligence Committee. The issue is coming to a head with regard to this nomination for Attorney General. Clearly, the policy of this country has to be, clearly: There can be no torture. At the same time, we have a world out there with a great deal of bad guys who are trying to do harm. It is important for us, when they are in our custody, that we get their cooperation in order to get the information in order to protect our country. How to strike that balance with no torture while still able to adequately get the information in the debriefing sessions--or interrogation, if you will--is the delicate balance this country must face and answer that question. America is a beacon of light to the world. We have to be different. The people who crafted that Constitution of ours said we are going to be different from the rest of the world, and we are going to protect freedom of speech and of religion and of assembly and of the press. We are going to protect our citizens from intrusion into their privacy by the Government, unless there is a check and balance of a separate branch of Government, a judge in the judicial branch, granting an order called a warrant so the Government can invade the privacy of the citizen. All of these things are under assault because of the abuses we have seen in this administration in the last 6 years. Normally, there would not be the abuses, but there are. That is what brings a lot of necessarily delicate issues into the open, issues we would much prefer to be deciding privately, without the full glare of sunshine, if, in fact, the Government was obeying the law. But that has not been the case. Thus, again, as the Senator from Maryland points out, we are coming to another very delicate situation; this time with regard to the nomination of a very good man, as the Senator says. But will he act unlike the previous Attorney General did? Will he act as the lawyer for the people instead of the lawyer for the President? Therein it makes it all the more difficult in some of the decisions we are making. global warming I came here to speak about another subject, that is another one that is exceptionally important to the future not only of America but the future of planet Earth. And that is whether this delicate environment that surrounds this planet in an atmosphere is going to go into cardiac arrest which is going to be irreversible unless we do things now. There is a step in the right direction, and I wish to thank Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for their efforts and their hard work in introducing the climate change legislation called America's Climate Security Act. I am a cosponsor of this act. I am because it is acts such as this that will start us on a path to try to reverse the greenhouse effect that is happening to the planet. What is the greenhouse effect? It is simply when we start putting greenhouse gases in excess into the atmosphere, gases such as carbon dioxide, CO2; such as nitrous oxide N2O. Particularly it is the carbon, carbon dioxide. They come from a variety of sources. Maybe 30 percent of the excess carbon dioxide is coming from our personal modes of transportation. Another 40 percent is coming from our electrical utilities plants. What happens is, if you get too much of these gases, such as CO2, in the air, as the Sun's rays come in and hit the Earth and bounce off the Earth, that heat that radiates out into space, these gases act like the glass top of a greenhouse and trap in the heat, a greenhouse that stays perfectly warm during the winter because of the Sun's heat coming in and cannot escape once inside. That is exactly how these greenhouse gases work. So if you get too much of a concentration high in the atmosphere, then the heat cannot radiate into space and the Earth starts to warm. So we have to go at the root cause of the problem--lessening the amount of those gases that act as this greenhouse top surrounding the Earth. That means cutting emissions from powerplants, from manufacturing plants and from transportation and cutting it significantly. This bill calls for cutting the levels, cutting back to the levels that were emitted in 1990 by 2020. Then it further says, 30 years after that, we would cut those emissions from the 1990 level another 65 percent. That is the way we are going to avert a catastrophic global warming catastrophic event. Then the seas are going to continue to rise, the Earth is going to continue to warm. As the Earth warms, the pestilence increases, the storms become more frequent and more ferocious, and if you live in a State as do I, a land we call paradise, but paradise is a peninsula called Florida, sticking down into the middle of oceans on both sides, then you have the greater frequency of the storms, the higher intensity of the storms, and all the greater pestilence that comes along with the storms. So what this bill does is it sets an overall cap on the greenhouse gas emissions, that would, a matter of law, have to be met over that period of time, 2020, then 2050. The way you would enforce it, the mechanism would be the buying and selling of credits that companies would have to have in order to get the amount of emissions down to what is the reduced cap. Now, there has already been a similar plan that has been tried, and that was way back almost two decades ago, the plan on reducing acid rain. It was buying and selling these credits--in some cases auctioning them, under the new bill--and it worked. So we have to get something into law and get on with the process of saving our planet. Earlier this year, I went with the chairman of the Environment Committee, Senator Boxer. She took Senators on the committee, she was kind enough to allow folks such as myself who were interested in this subject to go. We went to Greenland. Greenland is the place that has the biggest glacier. Why? It is an island that is 1,200 miles long from south to north, it is 500 miles wide. Hundreds of thousands of years ago it was a piece of rock. Then what would happen each year is the water in the Earth would evaporate, it would form clouds, the clouds would be cooled, the clouds would turn, instead of to rain, to snow; the snow would fall, and it would form a layer. The next year the same thing would occur. When you do that over hundreds of thousands of years, the snow is packed each year, and that layer that is 2 miles thick now becomes a glacier. What is happening, and what we saw with our own eyes, is that within a few years, already 6 miles of the glacier at its edge is receding. How it recedes is, it breaks off, and in the particular fjord or river we went to, we could see these big chunks of ice falling off the glacier into the fjord, floating down the fjord, and out into the Atlantic Ocean. When they get into the Atlantic Ocean, they are what you have always heard, an iceberg. What we saw as we went around these icebergs in a little boat, huge mounds of ice, but that is only 10 percent of it above the surface of the water. Ninety percent is underneath. Then they get on out into the Atlantic and they melt. The long and short of it is, if that entire glacier on Greenland were to melt--this is going to surprise you--the seas of the entire planet would rise 21 feet. Now, obviously that is going to take a long period of time. But you can imagine if we do not reverse what, in fact, is happening--and do not give me this stuff that one person says global warming is true and another person says it is not true and the press treats it as if one is balancing against the other. No; 99.99 percent of the scientists say global warming is a fact. A de minimis amount say it is not. Let's recognize the science, and this is where you have seen that major committee in the United Nations receive one-half of the Nobel Prize, along with the former Vice President of the United States. Global warming is a fact. You can imagine if seas start to rise. Suppose they rise, not 21 feet but 3 feet. Do you know what would happen to the coast of Florida? To the coast of Louisiana? To parts coming in around Hilton Head and Charleston and Houston and even all the way up the eastern seaboard? The stakes are too high. That is why I am cosponsoring this bill. This bill made some progress last week when it was approved by a subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The full committee should be taking it up soon. I hope we get action and we can get out on the floor of the Senate and debate it. I hope to be able to bring to this debate the information of a bunch of us, led by Senator Boxer, who are going to go to Bali, Indonesia, for a global conference for world climate change to get the input of the other nations of the world that have shown they are a lot more concerned about this than the United States has been in the last few years. I wish to thank our colleagues, all who have been involved. I wish to thank Senator Boxer for her leadership. I wish to thank Senator Warner, who did not have to do this; he is retiring from the Senate, the senior Senator from Virginia. He is a conservative Republican, but he knows that planet Earth is in peril. I wish to thank Senator Lieberman, who has been at the forefront of these environmental issues for years. I am glad to add my voice to their clarion cry for immediate action before it is too late. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today, joined by Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007. As we enter the month of November, next year's national election is just one year away, and we must act now to ensure that the next time Americans go to the polls nationwide, they have the chance to cast their vote and have their vote counted as intended. Our bill will require all voting machines--beginning in the 2008 election--to produce a paper record of each ballot that can be verified by the voter before a ballot is submitted to be counted. This also is the first bill to propose a nationwide ban, by 2012, on the use of touch-screen voting machines in Federal elections. We are introducing this bill to address the problems that have plagued the accuracy and integrity of our voting systems. We know all too well the problems that have occurred in Florida--in the 2000 election and, most recently in the 2006 congressional election in the 13th Congressional District--but my State is not alone. Recent studies in California and elsewhere have demonstrated that touch-screen voting machines are unreliable and vulnerable to error. The bottom line is we have to ensure that every vote is counted--and counted properly. Citizens must have confidence in the integrity of their elections. Florida, under the leadership of Governor Charlie Crist and Secretary of State Kurt Browning, has acted decisively, and on a bipartisan basis, to require the replacement of paperless touch-screen voting machines throughout the State with optical scan equipment. By using op- scan machines, voters will have the opportunity to complete a paper ballot that will be verified by the voter before it is electronically counted. By 2012, touchscreen voting machines will be a thing of the past in Florida. Using Florida's model, the bill I am filing today will phase out touch-screen voting machines in Federal elections nationwide by 2012. This morning I met with Secretary Browning to discuss my intent to file legislation modeled on Florida's initiative. Secretary Browning indicated his support for a ban on touch-screen voting machines. In addition to banning touch-screen machines by 2012, and requiring a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote that is cast, beginning in November 2008, other highlights of the bill are as follows. It will require and fund routine random audits to be conducted by hand count in 3 percent of precincts in all Federal elections. If the vote is very close, that percentage goes up to 5 or 10 percent. On the other hand, if the winning candidate received more than 80 percent of the vote, no audit of that race will be necessary. The bill will authorize adequate funding--$1 billion--for replacing and upgrading voting equipment. Our legislation will require that every voter has the opportunity to vote by paper ballot if the voting machine in their precinct is broken, and beginning in 2012, for any reason. Finally, the bill will establish an arms-length relationship between test labs and voting machine vendors, to prevent any efforts, malicious or otherwise, to compromise the accuracy and integrity of voting machines. A companion version of our bill was introduced in the House by Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, and was passed out of Committee. The bill now awaits a vote by the full Chamber. I hope my colleagues in the House will act to pass this important legislation, and I invite my colleagues in the Senate to join me by co-sponsoring our bill in the Senate. Florida not only provides a model for what can be done to increase our confidence in the integrity of elections, it provides a model for how to do it--on a bipartisan basis, with the support of election officials, voting integrity groups and, most importantly, the millions of voters in my state who have a constitutional right to vote and want to be sure that their votes are counted--and counted accurately. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today, joined by Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007. As we enter the month of November, next year's national election is just one year away, and we must act now to ensure that the next time Americans go to the polls nationwide, they have the chance to cast their vote and have their vote counted as intended. Our bill will require all voting machines--beginning in the 2008 election--to produce a paper record of each ballot that can be verified by the voter before a ballot is submitted to be counted. This also is the first bill to propose a nationwide ban, by 2012, on the use of touch-screen voting machines in Federal elections. We are introducing this bill to address the problems that have plagued the accuracy and integrity of our voting systems. We know all too well the problems that have occurred in Florida--in the 2000 election and, most recently in the 2006 congressional election in the 13th Congressional District--but my State is not alone. Recent studies in California and elsewhere have demonstrated that touch-screen voting machines are unreliable and vulnerable to error. The bottom line is we have to ensure that every vote is counted--and counted properly. Citizens must have confidence in the integrity of their elections. Florida, under the leadership of Governor Charlie Crist and Secretary of State Kurt Browning, has acted decisively, and on a bipartisan basis, to require the replacement of paperless touch-screen voting machines throughout the State with optical scan equipment. By using op- scan machines, voters will have the opportunity to complete a paper ballot that will be verified by the voter before it is electronically counted. By 2012, touchscreen voting machines will be a thing of the past in Florida. Using Florida's model, the bill I am filing today will phase out touch-screen voting machines in Federal elections nationwide by 2012. This morning I met with Secretary Browning to discuss my intent to file legislation modeled on Florida's initiative. Secretary Browning indicated his support for a ban on touch-screen voting machines. In addition to banning touch-screen machines by 2012, and requiring a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote that is cast, beginning in November 2008, other highlights of the bill are as follows. It will require and fund routine random audits to be conducted by hand count in 3 percent of precincts in all Federal elections. If the vote is very close, that percentage goes up to 5 or 10 percent. On the other hand, if the winning candidate received more than 80 percent of the vote, no audit of that race will be necessary. The bill will authorize adequate funding--$1 billion--for replacing and upgrading voting equipment. Our legislation will require that every voter has the opportunity to vote by paper ballot if the voting machine in their precinct is broken, and beginning in 2012, for any reason. Finally, the bill will establish an arms-length relationship between test labs and voting machine vendors, to prevent any efforts, malicious or otherwise, to compromise the accuracy and integrity of voting machines. A companion version of our bill was introduced in the House by Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, and was passed out of Committee. The bill now awaits a vote by the full Chamber. I hope my colleagues in the House will act to pass this important legislation, and I invite my colleagues in the Senate to join me by co-sponsoring our bill in the Senate. Florida not only provides a model for what can be done to increase our confidence in the integrity of elections, it provides a model for how to do it--on a bipartisan basis, with the support of election officials, voting integrity groups and, most importantly, the millions of voters in my state who have a constitutional right to vote and want to be sure that their votes are counted--and counted accurately. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues, our two distinguished Members of the Senate who are of Cuban origin and who proudly bear that moniker of ``Cuban American,'' one of the most distinguished groups in our society in America today. I wish to say that at the time Fidel Castro was beginning his takeover on the island of Cuba, as a young boy I had the opportunity of representing the youth of America and going to the Iron Curtain at the German-Czechoslovakian border and speaking over Radio Free Europe to the young people behind the Iron Curtain. Of course, at age 17, what I saw that day made a lasting impression, for standing there at the German-Czechoslovakian border in the little village of Tillyschantz, seeing the machine gun nests, the guard towers, the concrete dragon's teeth to prevent anyone from breaking through the fence, the mine fields, the ground raked very clean so that any footprints could be seen, seeing the dogs patrolling back and forth, that, of course, made a significant impression upon a young mind that had some appreciation for the enslavement of people. Now, what happened to the Iron Curtain is happening to Cuba. That iron curtain around Cuba is starting to fall, and it is for exactly these same things that are happening now: 70 young people walking around with white wristbands that say ``cambio''--change--that the dying Communist, repressive, totalitarian regime is continuing to lash out and arrest them. It is the inevitable march of history that ultimately freedom is going to win, just as it did in Eastern Europe with the fall of the Iron Curtain that I saw at age 17. It has taken a lot longer in Cuba because of its island barrier, because of its extraordinary repressive regime. So whenever we get a chance to speak out for change--``cambio''--we in this Senate need to do it. I am delighted to join my colleagues, Senator Martinez and Senator Menendez, in unifying our voices in calling for cambio in Cuba.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I commend our leadership for working out the fact that we can start to bring some closure on children's health insurance. We have had experience in Florida of doing a health insurance program before the Federal program ever started, 10 years ago, and it was tremendously successful and popular in getting to families who were just over the income level of Medicaid but who were still too limited in their income to provide health insurance for their children. As a result, thousands of children in Florida, before CHIP ever came along, were provided for. But then the Federal program came along and made it available to so many more. Yet even today, with Florida's program and the Federal program, there are still 700,000 children in the State of Florida who do not have health insurance. What we are hoping is that with the expansion of the CHIP program, we will be able to include 400,000 of those 700,000 who do not have health insurance. (The remarks of Senator Nelson of Florida pertaining to the introduction of S. 2295 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. Nelson of Florida. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today to inform colleagues of both parties that there is a monumental legal issue that has arisen between the Democratic National Committee and the voters of the State of Florida, specifically the 4\1/4\ million registered Democrats. The Democratic National Committee, the DNC, has exacted punishment upon Florida Democrats because the State legislature of Florida moved its Presidential primary from March to January 29. Both parties said they would bring about retribution on any one State, other than four privileged States--the Nevada caucus, the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primary, and the South Carolina primary--if any other State moved ahead of February 5, earlier than February 5. The Florida Legislature, in its wisdom last spring--last May, May of this year--decided to make the move to January 29. This is a legislature that is two-thirds Republican. That legislation, setting the date of January 29, was signed into law by Governor Crist, who himself is a Republican. In the course of deliberation of the legislation, the Democratic leader in the State senate offered an amendment to move the primary later, from January 29, 2008, to February 5, thus to comply with the request and rules of the DNC. That amendment was voted down. Thus, a duly called election, pursuant to State law, is, in fact, going to be conducted by the machinery of the government of the State of Florida and paid for by the government of the State of Florida-- estimated to the tune of some $18 million of taxpayer money--in order to have this Presidential primary. Because Florida law set the date of January 29, municipalities have now moved all of their elections to concur with January 29. Indeed, also on the ballot is expected to be a major constitutional amendment for the voters to decide upon having to do with a different subject matter, a matter of great import to the people of Florida, and that is the amount of their real estate taxes. In other words, it is expected to be a big turnout on January 29. That is Florida law. But the DNC took great umbrage at the State of Florida and said: Under the rules we are going to penalize you by taking away one-half of your delegates. Concurrently, the Republican National Committee likewise took away one-half of the delegates at the quadrennial nominating conventions to be held later this year. Then the DNC decided it was going to exact additional punishment and took the punitive measure of taking away all of Florida's delegates. But that is not all. The DNC then further decided that it would penalize Florida further by prohibiting the Presidential candidates from coming into the State and campaigning. Campaigning was defined under the rules of the DNC as talking with voters, having any kind of communication, hiring staff, opening an office, having any kind of advertising, whether in print or electronically, or holding press conferences; in other words, to muzzle the Presidential candidates so they could not go into the State of Florida--with one huge exception: that they could go into the State of Florida to raise money. They couldn't campaign, couldn't talk to ordinary voters, but they could come in to raise money. The net effect is the only way a Florida Democrat could have interaction with a Presidential candidate one on one is to have to pay for that participation. This was further enhanced by the four States that I mentioned that want to go first--the Iowa caucus, the Nevada caucus, the New Hampshire primary, and the South Carolina primary--those four States exacting a pledge in writing from the Presidential candidates who said they would not have any campaigning in a State that moved its primary earlier than February 5--except those four States. This is a little sensitive for us in Florida, naturally, as I have just come from the State Democratic Convention where not any of the major Presidential candidates have appeared. But, of course, they come and go from time to time into Florida to raise money. Of course, what a contrast that is, since the only penalty by the Republican National Committee was to take away half of Florida's Republican delegates. They did not stop their candidates from coming in. Indeed, 1 week ago--a significant contrast with the State Republican Convention--all of the Presidential candidates were there, and indeed they ended up, the State Republican Convention, with a televised debate of all the Republican Presidential candidates. This should concern not only Floridians, and it should concern not only Democrats, it ought to concern all voters because it is the principle of one person, one vote. That is a principle that has long been established in law and established by the Supreme Court of the United States. In order to enforce that principle, I, along with others, including the chairman of our Florida Democratic delegation, Congressman Alcee Hastings, have filed a federal lawsuit in Federal District Court against the political party bosses in Washington. Our lawsuit is about the right of every American to have access to the ballot box and to have their ballot counted and to have their ballot counted as intended. In this lawsuit we are fighting for every person who takes time to stand in line in the rain or in the cold, at the local church or the precinct house, to vote and to come outside from that precinct house feeling as if they did their part in this grand American process. Those of us who filed this lawsuit believe there is no reason that can excuse the denial of this fundamental right to vote. Certainly, as we see by this fracas that has erupted by members of the DNC saying: Go on and have your Presidential primary vote, Florida, on January 29, but just make it a beauty contest because it is not going to count--it certainly points to the fact that this Presidential primary system is broken, and it desperately needs to be reformed. But the answer is not to deny people the right to vote and to have that vote count. For 2008, there is an easy, short-term fix. This Senator suggested this fix last summer to Howard Dean in writing, in person, and over the telephone; that is, if you had the States that want to go early to move up a little early, then everyone has the same order, and the law of Florida is complied with since there is nothing we can do about it. It is the law. The election in the Presidential primary process is going to be January 29 in Florida. No one would pay any attention to that easy, short-term fix, but that is in effect what is happening right now because, as of yesterday, Iowa Democrats joined Iowa Republicans and moved the Presidential caucus up to January 3. It is expected that the New Hampshire secretary of State--who has sole authority to set the date of New Hampshire's primary election--will move the date of the primary in New Hampshire to something within a week of Iowa's January 3 caucus. What was suggested as a compromise last summer, without all of this punishment that has been levied, in effect is starting to happen. For the long term we can fashion a solution that takes into account the larger States as well as the small States. Let all of them have a fair say in a system rotating regional primaries, similar to the ones Senator Levin and I have introduced in the Senate. But in the process of exacting this punishment on Florida, it is equally troubling that the average citizen in Florida can no longer see their candidates for President because, as I explained, the party bosses have barred them from campaigning in Florida--except for the private fundraisers. This is unacceptable. Paying for political participation is unacceptable, and in a bygone era--one that we do not want to return to--that was called a poll tax. Just recently we saw a measure of Florida voters overwhelmingly agree, regardless of their party affiliation, that they do not think this is right. A just-released Quinnipiac Poll says by a margin of 62 to 16 Florida voters--that is, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats--believe it is wrong to strip us of the delegates to the nominating convention. That same poll also shows the delegate ban may be hurting our own Presidential candidates. In this latest Quinnipiac Poll, it has been basically neck and neck between Presidential candidate Giuliani and Presidential candidate Clinton. As Clinton was in the lead, now Giuliani has suddenly gone into the lead. Very significantly, in that same Quinnipiac Poll of independent voters, 22 percent of those independent voters said they are less likely to consider voting for the Democrat for President in the general election because of the DNC's shenanigans. Mr. Chairman, Howard Dean, I hope you are listening to our plea. If you are not going to listen on the merits of the case, that polling data is certainly why, Mr. Chairman Dean, you should lift the ban because you are giving an additional opportunity, an advantage to the Republicans in the general election in the State of Florida. I have today formulated a motion for summary judgment to be offered in the next couple of days in the Federal District Court where the lawsuit has been filed. Today is the last day upon which the defendant, Chairman Howard Dean, and the defendants, the members of the Democratic National Committee, have to answer the lawsuit. Upon the basis of their answer, it is my intention and the intention of the other plaintiffs to this lawsuit of filing a motion for summary judgment that sets out the legal and constitutional arguments of why the judge should, in fact, stop this travesty of taking away votes from more than 4.25 million registered Democratic voters in the State of Florida. It does not have to be this way. If, in fact, the DNC recognizes that all these other States are moving forward to earlier dates, then the sequence is preserved for those who wanted to be first. Whether that is justified, their sequence is preserved, and we can go on about getting our eye focused on the November 2008 election, instead of going through all of this rhubarb that is now engulfing the election apparatus. It is my hope that now the other States are jumping to an earlier date, the DNC will see the wisdom of putting this all behind us, of joining together as the family we are, stop the family squabbles, unite, and then start focusing later on the 2008 November election. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I wish to speak as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is 5 years ago today that we lost one of the most articulate, most energetic, and brightest lights of this Senate when our colleague from Minnesota, Senator Paul Wellstone, and his family were killed in an airplane crash as he was campaigning in Minnesota for reelection. Paul sat at that desk right there, and from that desk he would pace back and forth with his speeches, like a caged lion, because the energy was bursting from him as he would speak with such passion about the poor and the downtrodden and the dispossessed. It was such a voice that was snuffed out that when they had the memorial service for him, it is amazing the number of Senators who went to Minneapolis for that memorial service; Senators from both sides of the aisle, who had tremendous respect for this Senator who spoke with such passion. I wanted to add my voice to those who have recalled the life of Senator Paul Wellstone and what he meant to America and to the Senate.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, following the majority leader's comments and admonitions about the coming telecommunications surveillance intercept bill, otherwise known as the FISA bill, I think what the majority leader said was absolutely essential, that the work product that comes out of the Intelligence Committee and then the Judiciary Committee be bipartisan in nature. We do not want to repeat what happened in the first week of August, in which there was so much misinformation and mistrust on both sides of the aisle. It was very difficult to cobble together a bill, which the intelligence community told us was essential because of the increased traffic, which is otherwise defined as increased communications of some indication that there might be the planning stages of an additional attack upon the United States. In that atmosphere of warnings, we were told we had to pass a bill. It was in that crisis atmosphere that a piece of legislation was cobbled together in the midst of mistrust and misinformation on this floor. But the safeguard was put on it that what was passed and ultimately signed into law by the President was only good for 6 months. In other words, it sunsetted or ceased to exit at the end of 6 months. Therefore, in now constructing the permanent law, we need to come together. Now, this Senator, a member of the Intelligence Committee, has been quite firm in my insistence to both of the leaders of our committee-- Senator Rockefeller, the chairman, and Senator Bond, the vice chairman--that they come out with an agreed-upon, bipartisan piece of legislation to protect the rights of American citizens, their civil liberties, their privacy and, at the same time, to be able to utilize instruments of the Government of the United States to be able to go after the people who want to do us harm. I believe that the agreement has pretty well been reached between Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond. What is potentially going to hold up an agreement is the question of what kind of immunity should be given to the telecommunications companies who had, at the request of the U.S. Government, after September 11, 2001, allowed their databases to be used for the purposes of trying to determine who the bad guys were. Everything I am saying has all been out in the press. It is well established. The House has taken a position of not wanting to have any immunity for the telephone companies on a retroactive basis. They already have immunity on a going-forward basis as a result of what we passed in August, and that is now law. It is my hope that the two leaders of the Intelligence Committee will be able to get agreement on what that immunity should be, and that will be a large part of the discussion that is supposed to take place in the markup in the Intelligence Committee tomorrow. As the majority leader, Senator Reid, said, it is very important we get this right and that we get this done soon in order that it can then go from the Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee and that it can come out of the Judiciary Committee, come to the full Senate and then a conference committee can iron out the differences between the House and the Senate versions and then get a final product to the President for him to sign into law. It is important it be done now in a timely manner, instead of waiting until the last minute, when the clock is going to strike 12 on the tolling of the time of the 6 months that the law will cease to exist. This ought to be done under the cool deliberation of making it right instead of being forced into decisions at the last moment because time is running out. It is my hope, and it is certainly going to be my intent, to try to help this process along as a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Alabama is going to speak. He was kind enough to let me make these comments since we are on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill in the field of health. There are a lot of provisions in this appropriations bill that are absolutely necessary. On the subject of health, we have a critical vote that is being taken tomorrow in the House of Representatives. It is on the question of the override of the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is a plan that was established about 10 years ago, recognizing that there are children whose health care needs are not paid for by Medicaid because their parents earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid but whose family incomes for those children are such that they are not high enough for the family to afford health insurance for their children. What is the cost to society down the road if children's health is not addressed in those early years and medical complications are manifest in later years? Ultimately, the cost to society overall is much greater. So it makes good common sense, even good common financial sense, that we try to address health care needs for children, and that is an appropriate role for the Federal Government to assist if the parents of those children cannot afford that health care. That is what the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, is all about. There are different people who handle it different ways in different States. In my State of Florida, we recognized this was a problem, and we set up what was called the Healthy Kids Program under Federal law, of which there was a program to expand health insurance distributed through the schools so we had a point of contact--with an eligibility of the child according to their eligibility in the School Lunch Program--which was a determination of whether the child met that family income level. It was a tremendously successful program before this Federal program was ever set up 10 years ago. Now we are at the moment of truth of whether we are going to reauthorize this program and whether we are going to expand it. There are, for example, in my State of Florida, 700,000 children who are not covered by health insurance. This new program of expansion to cover the 6.6 million currently enrolled kids, plus another 3.2 million kids--a modest increase--is only going to cover about 350,000 to 400,000 more in my State of those 700,000. It is not going to get all the kids, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Back in that early program, before this Federal program was set up, I was the chairman of the board of the Healthy Kids Corporation that reached these children. Time after time, we would have parents come to us in tears to what this program had done for that child who had this or that malady and that because they had health insurance, in a lot of cases, through preventive care, they diagnosed that malady and got the proper treatment for the child. There is nothing like the agony of a parent who cannot provide the health care for their child because they cannot financially afford it, and that is what this program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, set out to do. In the course of the debate on this legislation, and if the House of Representatives tomorrow overrides the veto, it is going to come to us. I think we have the number of votes in the Senate to override. There will be a lot of speeches about the legislation. It is amazing to me the number of misstatements that have been made about this bill and the likes of respected Senators, such as Senator Grassley of Iowa and Senator Hatch of Utah, have come to this Chamber and pointed out that misinformation and those misstatements about this bill. There are misstatements even coming out of the White House in the veto message. This legislation does not try to substitute adults for children. The whole program is about providing insurance for children. Of the 6.6 million children who are currently enrolled under CHIP, 91 percent of them are in families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the poverty level. That is approximately at or below $40,000 of income for a family of four. It simply does not provide--and I will not go into the details--this is not a program for adults. About the only adults who are going to get some care under this legislation are pregnant women. It will allow the States the option of providing coverage to pregnant women, but the pregnant women are the very women who are about to have the child, and we want to make sure she has the help in order to deliver a healthy baby. These scare stories people throw up about this being for adults--as a matter of fact, the reform legislation cracks down on a lot of the potential eligibility that the States were allowed to get waivers in order to cover adults. This stops a lot of that practice. Contrary to what I have heard other people saying, this legislation does not provide insurance for families that make over $80,000 a year. It becomes clear, it seems to this Senator, that it is common sense that when it comes to children's health, that is in everybody's interest. No matter whether you come from a red State or a blue State, whether you sit on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle, healthy children is the commonsense interest for us to have for all of America. I certainly look forward to the House providing an override, and if, for some reason, they do not provide that override of the President's veto and we get it, that we can do the override, and then we are going to have to continue to work to ensure that we achieve a reauthorization of this bill that puts the health of our children ahead of partisan politics. 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. Presdient, I actually came here to talk about a different subject, and that is the fracas that is now engulfing the National Democratic Party with regard to the selection of its Presidential nominees. Florida is right in the middle of this because an order was set up under the rules of the Democratic National Committee that allowed four States to go before any other State, and those four States, they set out an order and said it would be first a caucus in Iowa, then a caucus in Nevada, then an election, a primary election in New Hampshire, and then a primary election in South Carolina. Those were going to be representative of the country and all of those four had to occur before any other State could start its primary or caucus in the selection of the Presidential nominees and that the date they could start was February 5 of next year. Over the objection of Democratic State legislators in the Florida legislature--indeed, with the Democratic leader of the Florida Senate offering an amendment to keep Florida's election from violating the Democratic National Committee rules and, therefore, to be on February 5, over his and others' objections--the Florida legislature changed the date of the Florida Presidential primary from March to January 29. The Florida legislature is basically two-thirds Republican, one-third Democrat, in both Houses of the legislature. Governor Crist, a Republican, signed the legislation, setting the Florida primary date as January 29, and signed it into law. The Democratic National Committee took great umbrage at this and under its rules said it was going to strip Florida of half its delegates. That is what the Democratic National Committee rules provide. In the Democratic National Committee Rules Committee's deliberations, they went further. Unlike the Republican National Committee, which said they would take away half of Florida's delegates for the Presidential nominee, the DNC said: We are going to punish Florida completely by taking away all their delegates to the convention. What is more, we are going to enforce a part of the DNC rules that say, unless Florida backs up and ignores that election, makes it a ``beauty contest'' that has no meaning and selects their delegates sometime from February 5 or later, Florida was going to receive additional punishment, which was that no Presidential candidate could go and campaign in Florida, and campaigning was defined as speaking in Florida, interacting with voters in Florida, hiring campaign staff in Florida, opening an office in Florida, having a press conference in Florida, except--oh, by the way, you can go into Florida to raise money. This is as violative of the constitutional right of freedom of speech as anything I have ever heard. It conjures up that you can't come to Florida so Florida Democratic voters can interact with Presidential candidates unless you pay a fee at the door in order to gain entrance because it is a fundraiser. Doesn't that remind you of something that was held unconstitutional called a poll tax? It was because of this kind of punishment that was inflicted on the 4.25 million registered Florida Democrats that this Senator, with a heavy heart, joined with his colleague, Congressman Alcee Hastings, also with a heavy heart, and filed suit in Federal District Court in Tallahassee, the seat of government of our State, against Howard Dean, the chairman of the DNC, and the Democratic National Committee. A defendant was also named, Kurt Browning, the secretary of state of Florida, purely for functionary purposes since he is the one authorized under Florida law to conduct the election. As a result, that suit had been filed 2 weeks ago alleging the violations of the Constitution in the 1st, 5th, and 14th amendments, as well as violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A Federal court will ultimately determine that issue of whether the party has the right to prohibit people, in a duly called, State-run, State-sanctioned by State law election, whether that national party can take away those constitutional rights of people to see and hear and interact with the Presidential candidates, as well as taking away all of their ability to be heard at the national convention by stripping away all of the elements. That is the issue in front of the court. It should not have come to this. For the last 6 months, I and others, like Congressman Hastings, have offered compromises on three different occasions, three different compromises on how we could get out of this box. It would be a win-win situation, but the DNC and its rules committee said ``nyet,'' they are going to sanction Florida. Why am I making this speech this day, Mr. President, when the suit was filed 2 weeks ago? Because there is a news article in this morning's papers saying that the Iowa Republican Party has announced that it is bumping up its caucus, not where it was previously prescribed--somewhere in the middle of January of next year--but instead moving it up to January 3. And South Carolina Republicans, some time ago, had a joint press conference with the secretary of state of New Hampshire, who under New Hampshire law is the sole authority to determine what date New Hampshire's primary, both Democratic and Republican, will be held, and the South Carolina Republicans announced that they were moving their primary up some 10 days earlier--it might have been 8 or 9 days, but it was earlier than the prescribed time of January 29--to which the New Hampshire secretary of state said he would move New Hampshire's primary up early. So the question that is begged today, Wednesday, the middle of October, is, if all of these parties are jumping early and the order that the Democratic National Committee wanted to preserve is being thwarted, does the DNC intend only to punish Florida Democrats or will, in fact, they punish the Democratic parties in New Hampshire and Iowa if they, in fact, jump forward from what the DNC rules had prescribed? So I bring to the floor of the Senate something that involves only a few States. Yet it has enormous implications for the entire country because this is the process by which we select the Presidential candidates of the two major parties, one of which is likely to be the next President of the United States. Because of all this fracas and I think just the news of today that indicates the Iowa parties are jumping much earlier, we will probably now see all of the others start to jump, and as a result there will be increased turmoil. It is certainly my hope that reason will prevail and the Democratic National Committee, which has taken out its frustration on Florida, will suddenly realize there is no reason to continue that frustration on Florida because, at the end of the day, if everybody else is doing it, why just try to punish Florida? And because of this fracas, this turmoil, will reason prevail that there is a better way to do this? It is regional primaries spaced out in a logical order over one in March, two in April, two in May, and one in June, that would give the candidates plenty of time to get around to these regional primaries, which order could be determined by lot, and in that primary one State from each region in the country could have an election, so no particular part of the country is favored. In the favored first status, all of this fracas should point to that goal. Let's bring order out of this chaos in the way we select the next President of the United States in both of these great political parties that participate in American politics. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to oppose this amendment. What we have, thanks to the two Senators who are leading this bill, is emergency funding for NASA to replace the funds that NASA had to expend as a result of the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia. These are funds that normally would be provided, as they were over two decades ago in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger, out of emergency funds. Instead, this time, NASA has had to take it out of its hide, out of its own operating funds. Therefore, all the plans of what NASA is doing to complete the International Space Station, as well as prepare for the new vehicles, Orion and Ares, in the stack called Constellation, in a program to take us into human orbit again and eventually to the Moon, as well as all the scientific research that is going on, it is all coming out of these funds instead of out of emergency funds. The two Senators have offered the leadership to make NASA whole. This little agency which is being starved of funds, they have restored these emergency funds. And now here comes Senator Ensign wanting to penalize NASA again. I understand my time is up, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3294

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I understand that H.R. 2828 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I now object to any further proceedings at this time.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we are observing the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite that was launched by humans. In that time, 50 years ago, it shocked the entire world that the Soviet Union had become sufficiently technologically proficient that they could suddenly seize the high ground--a high ground that heretofore had not been achieved but that mankind had always longed for--to soar into the heavens. As a result of that significant technological achievement, the United States got shocked out of its lethargy, out of its willingness to just go along with the thinking that we were that good, but in fact we were falling behind. As Senator Shelby said, we suddenly became shocked at the fact that we were falling behind in math, in science and technology, and that, lo and behold, with the symbolic value of the Soviet Union--at that point our mortal enemy in the Cold War--having achieved that first. Finally, we got Explorer into space, the first American satellite, and we started to take comfort that this Yankee ingenuity of America would suddenly screw up its determination to achieve and that we would not be passed by. And then, lo and behold, as we are preparing Alan Shepard to go into space--not into orbital space, really, but only into suborbit--suddenly the Soviets surprised us again and they sent Yuri Gagarin into one orbit to achieve what no earthbound nation had done. I remember years ago, Madam President, as a Member of the House of Representatives--and I had already flown on the space shuttle--as I was sitting on the floor of the House, the then-Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, beckoned me over. He said: Billy, I want to tell you a story. He said: When I was a young Boston Congressman, I remember I was down at the White House-- President Kennedy was the President--and I had never seen the President so nervous. He was just pacing back and forth like a cat on a hot tin roof. He said: I leaned over to one of his aides, and I asked what in the world is wrong with the President? What was happening was we were getting ready to launch Alan Shepard on the Redstone rocket, which only had enough lift power to go into suborbit. Here we were, 3 weeks behind the Soviet Union, which had just put up Gagarin into one complete orbit. And, of course, we know what happened. Alan Shepard made that first suborbital flight successfully. We didn't even have a rocket at that point that would get us into orbit with that mercury capsule. We flew a second time in suborbit with Gus Grissom. In the meantime, the Soviets now send another cosmonaut, Titeuf, and he goes into several orbits, and here we are struggling to get up for the first time in orbit. Well, they said, we are going with that Atlas rocket, which was an intercontinental ballistic missile. And so there, among those first seven astronauts, they chose John Glenn. We knew that we had a 20-percent chance that rocket was going to fail. It is hard for me even to tell this story without getting a lump in my throat, but John Glenn is in orbit for three orbits when there is an indication that his heat shield is loose, which would mean, upon reentry, that John Glenn and the capsule would burn up. And on that de- orbit burn, as he is starting to plunge back into the fiery reentry of Earth's atmosphere, before we lost radio contact, John Glenn was heard humming the ``Battle Hymn of the Republic.'' Of course, his flight was successful, and we continued on. But because that President said we were going to go to the Moon and return within the decade, and because the Nation put its mind to it and put the resources to it, we achieved what was almost unbelievable--sending 12 Americans to the Moon and returning them safely, including the crew of Apollo 11, which was one of the greatest rescue ventures ever in all of mankind, with Jim Lovell and his crew, when they lost all of their power en route to the Moon on that crippled Apollo 13 spacecraft. They shut down the Apollo Program in the early 1970s, with massive layoffs, and it was a long time from that last flight in 1972 to the Moon and a follow-on 1975 flight linking a Soviet Soyuz with an American Apollo. And for days, in the midst of the Cold War, two mortal enemies, two cosmonauts and three Americans, were docked together in space, lived and worked and enjoyed each other and communicated to the world as peaceful partners. Because of the disruptions in the space family, it was not until 1981 that we got back into space, with humans, in the space shuttle. Now, there is a lesson in what I have just discussed about our history in space that would teach us not to repeat that now. What is that lesson? First of all, one of the great lessons of that era is the fact that we got excited about science and technology and mathematics and engineering and space flight. We produced a generation of exceptionally talented and educated young people who were told to go to their limit. As a result, we had, in a space program that had to have limited volume, light in weight, and highly reliable systems, a technological revolution of micro-miniaturization that had come directly out of the space flight. This watch is a direct spinoff of the space program. So many of the modern medical miracles and medical techniques are a direct spinoff of the American space program. In fact, one example in our daily lives is the communications we take for granted. We can go anywhere on Earth and know precisely where we are by the global positioning system, GPS, which is now in our cars, and we can have a hand-held unit and go out on a boat, and if we get lost or stranded, with no motor in the ocean, the Coast Guard knows exactly where to come because we have a GPS to tell us exactly where we are. So, too, spinoff after spinoff: enhancement of our Nation's economy; the educated workforce. About that workforce, need I remind you now that China is graduating five times the number of engineers that the United States is and India is graduating three times the number of engineers? I want to return to that era, where we can get young people excited again about science and technology, and there is nothing like the space program that will rivet and ignite those little imaginations. Right now we are at a critical point because NASA has been starved of funds. That is part of the reason why Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby have brought this amendment to the floor. It is not like the loss of Challenger over two decades ago, when emergency funds funded the recovery to flight, the investigation, the designing of new systems, the repair of old systems that got us into safe flight again-- not this time. NASA had to pay for this out of its operating expenditures, to the point of $2.8 billion. It was already a tight budget to begin with, not helped by the inability of us last year in the Congress to meet agreements, and we had to operate under an appropriation called a continuing resolution, that left us at last year's funding levels--not the increase. As a result, what we have is that NASA is desperately short of funds, to the point that when it shuts down the space shuttle in October of 2010, with the paucity of funds, the next vehicle, called the Constellation System, with a capsule called Orion and a rocket called Aires, will not be able to fly with humans until after a 5-year gap. That is not good for our educational system. It is not good for our technological prowess and achievements. The amendment of Senator Mikulski will help correct it; not with the $2.8 billion NASA lost but only a third of that, that we are asking that this Senate will appropriate out of emergency funds. There is not a young person in America who does not get excited about space flight. There is not an old person in America whose heart does not quicken when they think of the daring adventures and the exploration. There is not a scholar or academic who does not appreciate what manned and unmanned space flight has done by putting up the Hubbell Space Telescope, which has opened up the vistas into the beginnings of the universe and understanding where we came from and how all of it came about and what is the order in the universe. Yet we only know 4 percent of all that we can know about the universe. We still have 96 percent, still to learn. That is what our space program can do for us. It can ignite the imaginations and the desire to achieve in those young people. It can quicken the hearts of all Americans. It can lead to great new technological achievements that will spin out and affect our daily lives. It will open the new areas of knowledge about what we are as a people who populate a planet called Planet Earth in a solar system that revolves about one star that we call Sun, in a galaxy that is ours in a universe that is so large our human minds cannot even contemplate it. These are the worlds we want to explore. It is our nature, it is our character as Americans that we are, by that nature and that character, explorers and adventurers. At the beginning of this country, we had a frontier and it was westward. The great leaders of our country at the founding of the country said: Go and explore. Today those frontiers are different. Those frontiers are upward and those frontiers are inward. The great leaders of today ought to be saying: Go forth and explore. I am hoping the great leaders in this body called the Senate will support Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby in approving this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the time I have used not be charged against the majority's time.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to say thank you to my colleagues. I am so grateful. We have worked this thing pretty hard. It is right that NASA be given some of these funds they had to expend on an emergency basis for the recovery to flight of the Space Shuttle Columbia. I want the chairman and the ranking member to know how profoundly grateful I am for their leadership in making this happen. Now we have the challenge of going to the conference committee to make it stick. I am so grateful for your leadership. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is my privilege to start off this session by making some comments about our guest Chaplain, who has been a personal friend of mine in Orlando for the last three decades. He has pastored over those three decades the very significant and very dynamic First Baptist Church of Orlando, just recently handing over the reins to his successor after a transition period of some number of years which have seen that particular church become one of the dominant institutions in the State of Florida; among spiritual institutions, one of the giants. Jim Henry is, indeed, a great leader in the church, not only among his flock, which was Orlando, but having risen to the position as the head of the Southern Baptist Convention. All of us in this political realm know the enormous tensions that have been raised in the religious community over various doctrines, the interpretation of the Scriptures, differences that arise and cause strife. As the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jim Henry was the great healer, the great reconciler, bringing together the various sides to, in effect, emulate what Jesus of Nazareth taught. It is interesting, in Jim's prayer this morning, he asked that we all become servant leaders. Isn't that true about the role model that was set by Jesus of Nazareth, a servant leader who said that if you want to be first, you should be last; if you want to be the master, you should be the servant? That principle, laid out in the Scriptures, is one of the greatest principles for us to follow as public servants. What is our obligation? To serve as servants of the public we represent. It is with great privilege that I welcome my dear friend and one of the great spiritual leaders of America, Pastor Jim Henry, and thank him for his service as the Chaplain in the Senate for the day.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to pick up on the earlier debate on the Sessions-Nelson amendment, No. 3141, that was offered by Senator Vitter, and just say I do not think this will be controversial because it is bringing the appropriations bill in conformance with exactly the provision that is in the Defense authorization bill on the Aegis BMD Program with an additional $75 million. This Aegis system has extraordinary effectiveness and promise, going after weapons, particularly in the boost phase. It is a sea-based system. I want to explain what it does and why it is important. In the Senate Armed Services Committee fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill that was recently adopted by the Senate, there is an authorization for an additional $75 million for the Aegis BMD program, in addition to authorizing the full budget request for the Aegis BMD program. That increased funding authorization came from our committee markup of the budget request, which was initiated in the subcommittee that handles missile defense. I have the honor to serve as the chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and I am pleased to have Senator Sessions as the ranking member of that subcommittee. For the Armed Services Committee markup of the Defense authorization bill, our Strategic Forces Subcommittee prepared a proposal for the portion of the defense budget within our jurisdiction, which includes ballistic missile defense. The subcommittee proposal included an additional $75 million for the Aegis BMD program, which was allocated as follows: $20 million for an increase in the production rate of the interceptor missile for the Aegis BMD system, known as the Standard Missile-3, or SM-3); $45 million for long lead of an additional 15 SM-3 interceptors; and $10 million to accelerate development of computer software for the Aegis system. This amendment mirrors exactly the additional funding authorized by the Armed Services Committee, and approved by the Senate this last Monday. It recognizes that the Aegis BMD system provides an important capability against the existing threats by short- and medium-range ballistic missiles to our forward deployed forces overseas. It also recognizes that the President's budget request did not provide enough funds for this capability. So we are proposing to add more funding to build additional near-term and effective capability against existing threats. Last year, when Senator Sessions was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the subcommittee initiated legislation to make it U.S. policy that our priority in missile defense should be on effective near-term capabilities. That legislation was later enacted into law and is now our national policy. This amendment would take an important step to implement that policy. The Aegis BMD system has had an impressive development and testing program, with a commendable track record of successful and operationally realistic testing. I would note that the Navy is a critical component of the success of this system, since it has operated the Aegis weapon system and its standard missile variants for many years on its ships. The Navy has ensured that this missile defense capability works well with its existing systems and procedures, as is necessary to ensure the system would work in real-world combat operations. I would note that the Aegis BMD system is planned to improve its capability significantly over the coming years, especially with a larger and faster interceptor we are developing cooperatively with Japan. The improved version of the Aegis BMD system is expected to be able to defend against intermediate-range missiles and some long-range missiles, as well. This amendment does what I believe the administration should have done. It would place greater emphasis and greater resources into an effective, near-term capability to defend our forward deployed forces, as well as our allies and friends overseas, against existing and near- term threats. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Senate has just witnessed one of the most insightful analyses by the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on the present-day changes on planet Earth and how the United States should adapt to it by virtue of the fact of recounting history. This Senator is grateful to his chairman for that statement.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator a question, but first I want to thank him for his very thoughtful and almost scholarly exposition of an examination of the situation in which we find ourselves in Iraq. I thank him for the service to his country, first in State government, rising to the position of Governor of his State, and now these many years as the Senator from West Virginia. The question I want to ask the Senator is, in his statement about the antipathy between Sunnis and Shiites--and he noted the historical antipathy as it goes back, he said, to the time of Muhammad. Indeed, we saw that first erupt from--I guess it was Muhammad's grandson at the Battle of Karbala in 680 A.D., and as a result of the murder--or the defeat of the grandson at that point, it was that group that was defeated that went on, out of revenge, to become the Shiites--a minority among all Muslims but nevertheless one that was potent and built on revenge. Is this the understanding of history the Senator from West Virginia recalls in his statement and why it is so difficult for us as an outside power to come in, in the middle of that sectarian strife, and try to bring about reconciliation?