Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the amendment as modified is within the provisions of the funding in the underlying bill, because the bill would authorize an additional $315 million to increase or accelerate several near-term missile defense programs that are specifically designed to protect our forward-deployed forces, our allies, and our friends, for example, the Patriot PAC-3, the Aegis BMD program, and the THAAD system. So it is entirely consistent. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, with regard to the Sessions amendment, it would establish a U.S. policy concerning defense against Iranian ballistic missiles stating that the United States will develop and deploy effectively defenses against Iranian ballistic missiles as soon as technologically possible. I think everyone agrees with that idea. I would suggest that this is effectively our policy today, and, indeed, is the policy of the bill and is so stated in the bill before us, that we are already developing and deploying a number of missile defense programs to provide such effective defenses. For example, the United States has already deployed the Patriot PAC-3 system to the region to provide defensive capability for our forward- deployed forces in the region. We are also developing and deploying the AEGIS BMD system, and we are developing the THAAD system. All of these systems will provide effective defense capability against Iran's existing and near-term missile capabilities. However, we do not have sufficient capability today with these systems to provide the level of protection that our combatant commanders need. Our senior military commanders readily acknowledge that fact, including the combatant commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, General Cartwright. He is responsible for global integrated missile defense. He readily acknowledges that fact. For that reason, the bill before the Senate authorizes an additional $315 million to increase or accelerate these three crucial near-term missile defense programs. And what they do is to provide increased protection for our forward-deployed forces, our allies, and our friends in the region. In other words, we are already putting this policy in effect. That is the true measure of our determination to provide effective defenses against Iran's ballistic missiles. Now, I understand the Republican leader wants to make a statement.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. After the Senator.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Alabama has an amendment.

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, why don't I suggest to the Senator that I continue with my statement until the Senators arrive.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I commend Senator Hagel and Senator Webb. I was serving as a lieutenant and a captain in the U.S. Army during Vietnam. I was not sent to Vietnam but clearly dealt with all of its aftermath in the duties I did carry in the military. I support the Webb amendment and appreciate his statement and the heartfelt statement of Senator Hagel. Earlier, Senator Hagel had joined me in being an original cosponsor of an amendment the two of us will be offering later having to do with widows and orphans. Senator Hagel is a longtime supporter of the effort to repeal this offset to the Survivor Benefit Plan by the dependent indemnity compensation. What we have is Active-Duty servicemembers who pay for an insurance plan called the Survivor Benefit Plan. If they are killed in active duty, their families have some subsistence to carry on which they have provided for because they did that additional paying for what is in effect an insurance plan. In another part of the law under the Veterans' Administration, there is something known as the dependent indemnity compensation, and it, too, takes care of survivors and families. The problem is, the two offset each other and, as a result, particularly with some of the privates and the corporals and the young sergeants who have provided for their families when they are deceased, those young widows are having difficulty making financial ends meet. We have to correct this. Isn't it interesting all this goes back to statements made by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. In his second inaugural address, he said that one of the greatest obligations of war was to take care of the widow and the orphan. If we look at the cost of war-- guns, ammunition, tanks, trucks, airplanes, body armor, all of that is a cost of war. Transportation, logistics, all of that is a cost of war. Well, there is another cost of war, and it is the cost of war in taking care of the survivors. The U.S. Government ought to plan on, as a cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking care of our veterans and their widows, widowers, and orphans. So as we get into this Defense authorization bill, we are going to have the privilege of honoring the men and women and families who have given the ultimate sacrifice in service to this Nation. We are going to have the opportunity to remove the injustice facing our veterans. That injustice is this offset which offsets the indemnity compensation--a benefit from the Veterans' Administration--with the Survivor Benefit Plan, which is paid for by our veterans. So when a veteran, as an Active-Duty military member, has paid out of their own paycheck into the Survivor Benefit Plan--it is similar to an insurance program--they do not get the full benefit because of the surviving spouse's and the children's eligibility under the Veterans' Administration program, the Dependent Indemnity Compensation program. Now, to offset those two is not right. So this amendment, No. 2000, is going to end that injustice. Senator Hagel and I will be offering it later on, as we get on in this next 2 weeks, down the road on this Defense authorization bill. But for 7 years, this Senator has been trying to pass this legislation that will remove this offset. Last year, we passed it in the Senate by a whopping vote of 92 to 6, only the leadership in the conference down in the House whacked it out last year. We are going to try to prevent that from occurring. The objection to it is it costs $8.2 billion over 10 years. But isn't it an obligation of the U.S. Government to take care of the families of their loved ones? I believe it is. When the Senate passed this amendment that left out some beneficiaries and required repayment of funds in the past, it was even more. It was $9.6 billion. Well, it has now been calculated right at $8 billion. So that is coming down the road, and I am looking forward to getting into it. I am looking forward to getting a lopsided, whopping vote again in the Senate that will send a strong message to the conference committee to reconcile the House-passed and Senate-passed versions. Now, I rise in my capacity as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This overall bill is a good, balanced bill, and it works to ensure the troops are trained, equipped, and supported. The bill was reported favorably to the Senate with a unanimous vote by our committee. It is a good indicator of the bipartisan support for the bill and a reflection of the manner in which this committee has been led by Senator Levin, the chairman, Senator McCain, the ranking member, and Senator Warner, the immediate past chairman, who has stepped in so often for Senator McCain, as he is right now but 7 or 8 feet from me in overlooking and managing this legislation. I wish to discuss the work of the subcommittee. The Strategic Subcommittee had a good year, and it has been a considerable pleasure for me to work very closely with Senator Sessions of Alabama, as the ranking member. Last year it was reversed. Senator Sessions was the chairman, and I was the ranking member. So we have worked together for several years with very difficult issues, sometimes contentious, but they did not become contentious this year. We worked out almost all of them. We held five hearings and several briefings on a wide range of issues. These issues cover everything from space and intelligence, strategic systems, such as bombers, submarines, ground-launched ballistic missiles, the nuclear weapons programs, the missile defense program, and the bulk of the Defense-funded activities of the Department of Energy. In the last several days, I have had the privilege of visiting our three major National Defense Labs that concentrate on Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs: first, Sandia and then Los Alamos-- both of them in New Mexico--and then on to Lawrence Livermore in California. I would commend to all Senators to go and see the work and be briefed on the extraordinarily important stuff that is going on in these national labs, being done by extraordinary people. In the area of missile defense, this committee, our subcommittee, has continued implementing a policy we established last year, placing a priority on the development, testing, fielding, and improvement of effective near-term missile defense capabilities, particularly to protect forward-deployed U.S. forces and allies against existing threats from short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles. Where are the threats? The threats the ballistic missile defense is being developed for now are different than what was announced 20 years ago by President Reagan. After President Reagan and Gorbachev was--well, then he was the head of the Communist Party, and I do not remember if his title was President. But he was, in effect, the leader of the Soviet Union. After their meeting at Reykjavik, Iceland, they started to bring down the numbers of these strategic systems, such as the missiles and the warheads. Later, President Reagan offered to Mikhail Gorbachev: Well, we will develop this system of national missile defense and we will give it to you and we can both then have, in effect, two systems that assure mutually assured destruction because of so many thermonuclear warheads that we can have to blunt each other. Well, things changed along the way. The Soviet Union crumbled. But the bulk of all that capability in the Soviet Union is retained by Russia. Happily, there has been the continued progress on the dismantling of the warheads in both the United States and Russia. But as to the ballistic missile defense program, which had fits and starts, the technical requirements are exceptional, and it has been very difficult to achieve. The requirements of using it changed, and so, in effect, it is being developed now to protect against missiles that may be launched by North Korea against us or against any allies-- and Iran. Looking into the future, Iran does not have this real capability today, but we are concerned they will in the future, particularly if their nuclear program continues as they are threatening it will. So the ballistic missile defense program has considerably shifted over the last two decades into a different kind of program. Now it is facing a crucial test coming up this next month. We will see if all it has been advertised to be able to do, in fact, is done through this test that is going to try to calibrate if, with kinetic energy, with an incoming missile warhead, we can have a ballistic missile defense system that can hit in outer space that incoming warhead and/or warheads--you can imagine what kind of accuracy that has to be--in the midcourse phase in outer space or in the reentry phase, as it is coming back through the Earth's atmosphere. In order to provide protection against these existing or near-term missile threats, our committee, in the bill, has authorized an additional $315 million to increase or accelerate work on the near-term missile defense capabilities. That includes $255 million for the Aegis BMD, the Patriot PAC-3, and the THAAD systems, which I will describe in a minute. It also authorizes an additional $60 million for the joint Israel-U.S. work on the Arrow missile defense system and on the short- range missile defense. These increases are offset by reductions in far- term and lower priority programs. With respect to the overall funding, our committee authorized a total of $10.1 billion for the ballistic missile defense programs. That is a net reduction of $231 million below the budget request for the Missile Defense Agency. That is a 2-percent reduction. Let me summarize what is in the bill. The bill is going to authorize the entire Army funding request for the Patriot PAC-3 program, including funding for its ``Pure Fleet'' initiative. The committee also authorized an additional $75 million to procure 25 additional PAC-3 missiles. The Patriot PAC-3 system is our only ballistic missile defense system that has already proven to be effective in combat, and we do not have enough PAC-3 units or missiles to provide the capabilities our combatant commanders need today. The committee authorized an additional $75 million for the Aegis ballistic missile defense program to increase the production rate of Standard Missile 3 interceptors, procure 15 additional SM-3 missiles, and accelerate the work on the Aegis BMD single processor and open architecture program. Now, in a unanimous consent request I previously made to go into executive session at 4:30, since I am not through with my statement, what is the pleasure of the Presiding Officer?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Aegis BMD program provides an important and improving missile defense capability of $105 million, and that is to increase the missile production rate. The THAAD system has shown good success in its testing program thus far. The bill offers $25 million new for the coproduction of the Arrow system and $10 million to study the suitability of the THAAD missile to serve as a follow-on to Israel's Arrow system. We also have an increase of $25 million for the accelerated joint development of short-range ballistic missile defense, and that is for Israel. In our bill we had a budget request, and it included $310 million for the proposed development of long-range missile defenses in Europe. That was 10 interceptors in Poland and a large radar in the Czech Republic. The U.S. is just starting negotiations with those nations, and it appears unlikely there are going to be any final agreements before 2009. The proposed interceptor has not yet been developed and is not planned to be tested until 2010. As a result, the proposed construction and deployment activities are premature. So what we do in the bill is reduce the request $85 million for construction activities, and we fence the remaining 2008 funds requested for deployment until two things happen: No. 1, that the host nations have approved any missile defense deployment agreements; and No. 2, that the Congress receives an independent assessment examining the full range of options for missile defense in Europe. Let me tell my colleagues about the airborne laser. This is a program that has been in some difficulty. What we did was reduce the funding of $548 million requested by $200 million. We discussed it at length in the markup. The airborne laser is a very expensive, high-risk technology demonstration program of a chemical laser, and you have to take huge quantities of chemicals and put them in a 747. There is excellent technology that is being developed on a solid-state laser system, which would fill the volume only from me to Senator Warner. It could easily be put into an airplane, but we think the cost of this program is exceptionally high. It is going to cost $5 billion; $3.5 billion has already been spent. We felt to hold back on this development by only $200 million out of $548 million would be wise. I will go into more detail at a later time. We also authorized provisions to improve acquisition and oversight of ballistic missile defense programs, and I won't go into the details on that. I will tell my colleagues, in conclusion, on our strategic forces with regard to the B-52 bomber modernization program, we had unanimity. With regard to the space programs where there has been difficulty with a number of them, we had unanimity on that in the committee, and we bring that forth in the report. I will provide those issues later. Then on nuclear weapons issues, the reliable replacement warhead, we continue unanimously through the next year in what is called the phase II activities. Then an evaluation can be made as to whether to go forward in phase III. But there is a great deal of promise that is shown in the reliable replacement warhead, which has a great deal of promise of being safer and more secure and less explosive power, more geared to today's targets. So that is the report from our committee. Mr. President, following the bloodiest of America's wars, President Abraham Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, said that one of the greatest obligations in war is to take care of the widow and the orphan. The U.S. Government ought to plan, as a cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for taking care of our veterans and their widows, widowers, and orphans. Over the days ahead, this body will have the privilege of honoring the men, women, and families who have given the ultimate sacrifice in service to the Nation. We will have the opportunity to remove the last injustice facing our veterans. That injustice is the one that offsets dependents indemnity compensation, a benefit from the Veterans' Administration, with the Survivor Benefit Plan, which is paid for by our veterans. Those who pay out of their own paycheck into the Survivor Benefit Plan, which is like an insurance program to which survivors would be entitled, don't get the full benefit because of the surviving spouses' and children's eligibility under the dependents indemnity compensation through the Veterans' Administration. I have filed amendment 2000 to end that injustice. I am pleased that Senator Hagel will join me in this endeavor as an equal cosponsor. For 7 years I have been trying to pass this legislation that will remove this offset to take care of the widows, widowers, and orphans who have lost a loved one to combat- or service-connected injuries. Last year, this body passed a similar amendment by 92 to 6. I hope that all of my fellow Senators and the majority of the House will pass this amendment to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. Some who object to this amendment will say the cost is too high, $8.2 billion over 10 years. But to those who object, isn't it an obligation of the Government to take care of the families affected by the loss of their loved ones? This Senator passionately and firmly believes it is. Last year, when the Senate passed this amendment that left out some beneficiaries and required repayment of refunds, the cost was $9.6 billion. Now, the cost is lower, all beneficiaries are covered, and the beneficiaries will not have the burden of repaying refunds that should not have been required in the first place. There should never have been an offset. However, because of the offset, airmen, seamen and privates will find it difficult to make financial ends meet. I say that the families of the men and women who do not return home from Iraq and Afghanistan, who have already lost so much, should not have to endure financial hardships because of this benefits offset. Now, the Senate has an opportunity to change this injustice as we debate the National Defense Authorization Act. If we respond as we did last year, passing this legislation with overwhelming support, then when it gets down to a conference committee, we must insist that the House support this provision in conference. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Senate Armed Services Committee bill being considered by the Senate, S. 1547, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Overall it is a good, balanced bill that works to ensure the troops are trained, equipped, and supported. The bill was reported favorably to the Senate on a unanimous vote of the committee, a good indicator of the bipartisan support for the bill and a reflection on he manner in which the committee operates under Senator Levin's leadership, and Senator Warner's leadership before that. Specifically, however, I wish to discuss the work of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which I have had the privilege of chairing this year. The Strategic Subcommittee had a good year and it has been a real pleasure to work with Senator Jeff Sessions and his staff. We have worked together to resolve a number of difficult issues. The committee held a total of five hearings and several briefings covering the wide range of issues under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. This includes space and intelligence programs, strategic systems such as bombers, and submarine and ground-launched ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons programs and issues, the missile defense program, and the bulk of the defense-funded activities at the Department of Energy. In the area of ballistic missile defense, the committee continued implementing the policy we established last year--placing a priority on the development, testing, fielding, and improvement of effective near- term missile defense capabilities, particularly to protect forward- deployed U.S. forces and allies against existing threats from short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. In order to provide protection against existing and near-term missile threats to our forward-deployed forces, allies, and friends, the bill would authorize an additional $315 million to increase or accelerate work on near-term missile defense capabilities. This includes $255 million for the Aegis BMD, Patriot PAC-3, and THAAD systems, which I will describe shortly. It also authorizes an additional $60 million for joint US-Israeli work on the Arrow missile defense system and on short- range missile defense. These increases are offset by reductions in far- term and lower priority programs. With respect to the overall level of funding, the committee authorized a total of $10.1 billion for the ballistic missile defense programs of the Missile Defense Agency and the Army. That is a net reduction of $231 million below the budget request for the Missile Defense Agency, just barely 2 percent. In terms of specific budget actions, let me summarize what is in the bill. The bill would authorize the entire Army funding request for the Patriot PAC-3 program, including funding for its ``Pure Fleet'' initiative. The committee also authorized an additional $75 million to procure 25 additional PAC-3 missiles. The Patriot PAC-3 system is our only ballistic missile defense system proven to be effective in combat, and we do not have enough PAC-3 units or missiles to provide the capabilities that our combatant commanders need today. The committee authorized an addition of $75 million for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, BMD, program to increase the production rate of Standard Missile-3, SM-3 interceptors, procure 15 additional SM-3 missiles, and accelerate work on the Aegis BMD Signal Processor and Open Architecture program. The Aegis BMD program provides an important and improving missile defense capability to our regional combatant commanders to defend against existing short- and medium-range missile threats. But our senior military leaders responsible for missile defense have acknowledged that we need more of the SM-3 interceptors. The committee approved an increase of $105 million for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, system to increase the missile production rate, begin the upgrade of the evolved THAAD interceptor, and to conduct an additional test. The THAAD system has shown good success in its testing program so far, and it holds significant potential to defend many regions against most ballistic missiles. But again, the Department has not planned or budgeted for enough THAAD missiles or systems to provide the capability our combatant commanders need. The bill would add $25 million for co-production of the Arrow missile, and added $10 million to study the suitability of the THAAD missile to serve as a follow-on to Israel's Arrow system. The bill authorizes an increase of $25 million for accelerated joint development of a short-range ballistic missile defense, SRBMD, system for Israel. This is intended to provide a capability to defend against the type of short-range missiles and rockets that were fired at Israel last summer from Lebanon. I mentioned that the funding for these additions was offset by reductions in funding for lower priority, high-risk, or far-term programs. I want to describe two of these reductions in the bill. The budget request included $310 million for a proposed deployment of long-range missile defenses in Europe: 10 interceptors in Poland and a large radar in the Czech Republic. The United States is just starting negotiations with those nations, and it appears unlikely there will be any final agreements before 2009. In addition, the proposed interceptor has not yet been developed, and is not planned to be tested until 2010. As a result the proposed construction and deployment activities are premature. In the bill the subcommittee reduced the $85 million requested for construction activities and fenced the remaining fiscal year 2008 funds requested for deployment until two things happen: 1) The host nations have approved any missile defense deployment agreements; and, 2) The Congress receives an independent assessment examining the full range of options for missile defense in Europe. All other activities could continue, such as studies, planning, and design activities, and negotiations. The bill would reduce funding for the Airborne Laser Program by $200 million from the $548 million requested. This is an issue we discussed during the markup, and I want to provide some background on the committee's decision to reduce ABL funding. The Airborne Laser is a very expensive, high-risk technology demonstration program that is not scheduled to provide an operational capability before 2018. So everyone should be clear that it is NOT a near-term system. The cost of the ABL program is very high, and the capability it might be able to provide--if the technology can even work--appears rather limited. The program has a history of cost overruns and schedule delays. Since the program started, the total cost of the development program to complete the first ABL shoot-down test in 2009 has ballooned to be $5 billion. And the Congressional Budget Office has an initial cost estimate that the ABL program could cost as much as $36 billion to develop, build, and operate a fleet of just seven Airborne Laser aircraft. For that huge sum of money, we could fund a very robust set of missile defense capabilities with near-term programs like PAC-3, Aegis BMD, and THAAD. The funding reduction in the bill would not terminate the ABL program, but it would cause some delay in the program. There have already been four delays in the planned date of the first shoot-down test, and this would probably mean an additional delay. The policy we established in law last year makes it clear that our priority is on near-term, effective missile defense systems that can provide needed capabilities against existing and near-term threats. The bill authorizes additional funding for exactly such systems, and reduces funding for systems like the Airborne Laser to offset the increases. The committee considered this matter during our markup, and defeated an amendment to restore the $200 million to the ABL program. I anticipate that we will consider the ABL again and at some length. The committee also authorized provisions to improve acquisition and oversight of ballistic missile defense programs. For example: The bill would extend by 5 years the requirement for the Comptroller General to assess the ballistic missile defense program annually. The bill would require the Department of Defense, starting in fiscal year 2009, to submit the budget request for the Missile Defense Agency using regular budget categories (research and development, procurement, operation and maintenance, and military construction), and make certain acquisition and oversight improvements. Until now, DOD has requested and Congress has approved MDA's use of exclusively RDT&E funds for all MDA activities, including fielding, operating, and building of missile defense systems. This is the only program for which this exception has been made, and it is no longer necessary. The bill would also ensure that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has full access to missile defense test and evaluation data, just as is the case for all other major defense acquisition programs. In the area of strategic forces, the bill includes additional funds to continue the B-52 Bomber modernization program and consolidates funds for prompt global strike into a single defense-wide account. Moving the money from the Navy and Air Force lines to the combined line for prompt global strike should allow a more focused approach to the technology challenges, such as thermal protection, and allow more options to be explored, such as the Army's approach to prompt global strike, which is currently not funded. In addition, consolidation should allow the Strategic Command to have a more balanced program that more closely meets the command's requirements. The bill also includes a 3-year extension of the annual prompt global strike report. The space programs continue to be one of the more difficult areas for the subcommittee. Although there has been improvement in the management of most of the many space programs, the scope of the programs continues to challenge both the services and the contractors. All of the communication; missile warning; position, navigation, and timing--GPS; and weather satellite systems have simultaneous modernization programs under way. In some instances the move to the next generation of programs is occurring before the current modernization program is in place, and in some cases the current modernization program is being terminated early to start the next one. All of this activity serves to exacerbate financial, technical, and schedule pressures on all of the programs. The Transformational Communications Program, T-Sat, the Global Positioning Satellite III and the Space-Based Infrared Satellite program--SBIRS--are all systems that fall into the category of multiple upgrade programs. The bill includes additional funds for several satellite programs that are being terminated early and where there is very high risk that the follow-on program might not be ready on time. To alleviate the risk of these programs' gaps, funds are included to buy a fourth Advanced Extremely High Frequency communications satellite to ensure that there is no communications gap if there is an issue in the T-SAT program, and for the third SBIRS missile warning satellite program, to ensure that there is no gap in missile warning capability. The T-SAT program itself is fully funded. While there is hope that the first T-SAT will launch on time in fiscal year 2016, I would note that there hasn't been one satellite to make its scheduled launch date 8 years in advance. The bill also terminates the space radar program and provides funds for alternative approaches for space radar capabilities. For the past several years the subcommittee has addressed a variety of contentious nuclear weapons issues. Again this year, the subcommittee is faced with a difficult decision. The Departments of Defense and Energy, through the Nuclear Weapons Council, have approved the start of a Reliable Replacement Warhead, RRW, program. This new warhead could eventually be a replacement for the current W-76 warhead in the reentry vehicle for the Trident D-5 missile on ballistic missile submarines. The Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, budget request for fiscal year 2008 includes a request for funds for the RRW for phase 2A and phase 3 activities. At the time the budget was submitted, the NNSA thought that it would be further along with phase 2 activities than it is, and considered the possibility of moving to phase 3 in fiscal year 2008. The bill includes funding for the RRW, consolidated in a single line, but $43 million less than the $238 million requested. The bill clearly limits the work by the NNSA and the Navy to activities for RRW to phase 2A activities. Let me explain what I mean by limiting activities to phase 2A activities and why we took this action. The nuclear weapons acquisition process is organized in a phased approach from phase 1 to 7, with 6 being deployment and 7 being dismantlement. Any decision to manufacture or deploy an RRW, which would occur at phases 5 and 6 respectively, will no doubt be very controversial. Over the course of the next 4 to 5 years significant policy and technical discussion and debate will surely take place on the RRW. To begin the discussion, however, the bill recommends a cautious first step, recognizing that many questions need answers before any final decisions are made. The bill does not decide the fate of the RRW. That is a decision for a future Congress and a future administration. The bill also includes a requirement for new nuclear posture review and a sense of the Congress to help frame the nuclear policy debate for the next administration. To ensure that weapons dismantlements continue, the bill includes an increase of $20 million to the budget request of $52 million to support nuclear weapons dismantlement. I would like to note that last night I returned from an extensive 4- day visit to all three of the Department of Energy nuclear weapons laboratories. While I discussed many issues with the laboratory directors and their staff, including nonproliferation issues, we spent a considerable amount of time on the RRW. Most of the discussions were highly classified, and so I cannot go into substantial detail here. But I want to ensure my colleagues that the progress made by the laboratories under the Stockpile Stewardship Program is remarkable and that there are many new opportunities to improve the safety, security, and reliability of nuclear weapons, which in turn should lead to very substantial reductions in the overall size of the stockpile--without a return to nuclear weapons testing. Wrapping up the balance of the Department of Energy issues, the bill includes two provisions that would task the GAO to review two significant areas of concern at DOE. The first study is on the structure and management of the protective forces at DOE sites, and the second one on the future plans for the environmental restoration programs. In closing, the Strategic Subcommittee has a broad area of responsibility, much of it controversial, but working with Senator Sessions, we have been able to resolve the issues so the national security interests of our country are foremost. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is my understanding Senator Hagel wants to speak on an amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30, the Senate proceed to executive session; that there be 1 hour for debate equally divided between Senators Leahy and Specter or their designees; that at 5:30 p.m., the Senate vote on Calendar No. 138, followed by 20 minutes for debate on Calendar No. 140, equally divided between Senators Leahy and Brownback; that at the conclusion or the yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on Calendar No. 140; that if Calendar No. 140 is confirmed, the Senate then vote on Calendar Nos. 139 and 154; that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hagel as a cosponsor to my amendment No. 2000 to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, why don't you, since I am in mid sentence, let me take about 5 more minutes and complete my statement.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 more minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, July 9, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Excessive Speculation In The Natural Gas Market.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to tell a story that is quite disturbing that happened in the Appropriations Committee yesterday. The Appropriations Committee, as reported to this Senator, had quite a row yesterday in the full committee in inserting a provision that will call for seismic exploration for oil and gas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. It was such a row yesterday because it breaks the agreement that was made on the floor of the Senate last year in which the two Senators from Florida, this Senator and my colleague Senator Martinez, had agreed to a plan by which there can be additional oil drilling and gas drilling in a lease sale 181 that would not be what was sought--about 2 million acres--but it expanded 8.3 million acres in an expanded lease sale 181, but that kept it away from the coast of Florida and away from the military mission line which is the boundary protecting the largest testing and training area for the United States military in the world. Virtually all of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico off the State of Florida are this testing and training area. It is where we test our sophisticated weapons systems. It is where we test newly developed weapons systems. It is where we test weapons systems that have to go hundreds of miles, all of which these systems employ live ordinance under battlefield conditions in order to see that the equipment and the systems and the ordinance are all going to work. Over and over, we have had letters from the Secretary of Defense to the Senate saying we cannot have oil and gas rigs on the surface in the Gulf of Mexico in the area where we are doing all this testing and training. One wonders why, in the last round of the base realignment and closure, did the pilot training for the new FA-22 stealth fighter come to the Gulf of Mexico at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City. It is because that system now, in all pilot training, does dogfights at 1.5 mach. That is 1\1/2\ times the speed of sound. That is twice as much as the systems we have now, the F-16 and the F-15, twice as much that they do, the speed of air-to-air combat. As a result, they have to have so much wider area in which to have that turning radius as that weapons system is doing its practice in the dogfights shooting live ordinance. Is it any wonder why, in the development of the new joint strike fighter, the F-35, that the F-35, once it is developed, all the pilot training for the Navy, for the Air Force, and for the Marines will take place on the gulf coast and it will take place at Eglin Air Force Base. Why? The same reason. We have that restricted airspace in the largest testing and training area in the world, and now we have a breaking of the agreement as a result of yesterday's Appropriations Committee action, a breaking of the agreement that we had last year when this Senator and my colleague from Florida agreed we would have the expansion of lease sale 181 when it would not intrude into the military mission area. Now the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, want to propose seismic exploration and inventorying of oil almost all the way up to the coast. Why do they want to do an inventory for oil unless they want to drill? This is exactly the situation that the oil industry will not give up. They want to drill, drill, drill, and that has been part of our problem for five decades as we have gone through this drill, drill, drill mentality without going to alternative energy sources. That is what has led us to the point we are today--so dependent on oil--and even to the point of now importing 60 percent of our daily consumption of oil is coming from places such as the Persian Gulf, Nigeria, and Venezuela, all very unstable parts of the world. Back to the breaking of the agreement. It was broken with regard to what we agreed to last year, that it was over and done with. We were going to protect the military mission area. That was broken yesterday in the Appropriations Committee. Another thing that was broken in the Appropriations Committee was the fact that in our agreement, the two Senators from Florida had clearly tried to protect a $57 billion a year tourist industry that depends on pristine beaches. Our tourism economy depends on those beaches not having oil slicks slapping up onto those pristine white sands. Naturally, the Senators from Florida are going to protect that interest. People say: Oh, no, the spills that occur don't come from the oil rigs out there, they come from tankers. But isn't it interesting that we have so many photographs of oil rigs and oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of Katrina raging across the Gulf of Mexico and ultimately hitting Mississippi and Louisiana? We have pictures of oil rigs that are up-ended on the shore. We have pictures of pelicans, hundreds of pelicans that are dying, covered in oil slicks as a result of that storm causing the spills from those oil rigs. Now, we don't want that in Florida. We want to protect our beaches. It would be one thing if the geology showed there was a lot of oil and gas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. But for the past 50 years, in the exploratory wells that have been there, there have been dry holes. The geology shows there is not that much oil and gas. Yet the oil industry never gives up, regardless of the agreements that have been made and were broken yesterday in the Senate Appropriations Committee. So it leaves no choice--no choice to the Senators from Florida. Senator Martinez and this Senator will employ every available rule to us under the Senate Rules Committee to block the progress of that Energy appropriations bill as it comes to the floor. There were representations made yesterday to this Senator and to Senator Martinez that the leadership of the appropriations subcommittee will, in fact, strip out that part of the bill when it comes to the floor. I take those Senators at their word. If that is the case, we will not have a big fight on the floor of the Senate, and we can proceed and go about appropriating the monies that we need in an energy and water appropriations bill--much needed funding for so many projects. Mr. President, it is with a realistic heart that I have to make this speech today. So it comes to this. I will take the word of those Senators, and I will rely on their word that we won't have to engage in all kinds of parliamentary maneuvers. But if that be necessary, it will be done. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I say to the Senator, Mr. President, that the young corporals and privates who are not returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, who leave widows and children who are paying today out of their own paycheck into that survivor's benefit plan, of which in that insurance program their survivors are entitled, that, in fact, because of the current law of the offset, they don't get that which has already been paid for by the active-duty military member because of the eligibility of the widow and the children under the indemnity compensation through the Veterans' Administration. The current law offsets one against another. What is so sad is that the survivors, the widows and children of these young corporals and privates, are finding it very difficult to make financial ends meet as a result of that offset. This Senator is going to give the Senate an opportunity to change that in 2 weeks when we are on the DOD bill. If the Senate responds as we did last year and the year before in passing it, then we are going to have to insist when it gets down to a conference committee with the House it doesn't get stripped out like the House leadership last year and the year before did in stripping out what the Senate has passed. I share that with my friend from Virginia.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while the junior Senator from Virginia is here, I wish to commend him. I wish to say, first of all, he is an exceptionally passionate and knowledgeable source of valuable information to us on the Armed Services Committee. The proposal he has outlined, which will be in the form of an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, has exceptional common sense attached to it--that you don't deploy troops unless they are trained and unless they have enough time to reevaluate, reequip, rearm, and retrain. I thank the Senator for his contribution. I am certainly inclined to support his amendment. This Senator from Florida will have an amendment that we have been trying for 7 years to pass to take care of the widows and orphans. Even President Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, said that one of the greatest obligations in war is to take care of the widow and the orphan. The U.S. Government ought to plan as an expense of the cost of a war taking care not only of the veterans but of their widows, widowers, and orphans. What we have done in law is, where we provide for a survivor's benefit plan that the military member pays for out of their check, that plan, in fact, is offset by the disability compensation that family member gets from the Veterans' Administration. This Senator is going to continue this quest until we finally prevail to get that offset removed. Of course, the objection to it is it costs $9 billion over 10 years. But is it an obligation of the Government to take care of the widow and the orphan as a result of war? This Senator passionately and firmly feels it is. I wanted to lay that out as a marker, along with my congratulatory comments to the Senator from Virginia for his wonderful service in the Senate, his insightful service as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and his very commonsense approach to this DOD authorization bill and the amendment he will be offering. I will yield to the Senator if he wishes to make any followup comments. I wish to share with the Senate something that occurred in the Appropriations Committee yesterday that is quite disturbing.

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 had the privilege of listening to the Presiding Officer in his role as the Senator from Colorado give a very detailed and very comprehensive overview of a lot of the personalities and the intrigues, as well as the substance, that went into this whole debate on immigration. It was interesting that when we failed to get the necessary 60 votes today to cut off debate on a motion of cloture, all the Senators stayed on the floor and listened to the majority leader. I thought the tone that the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, set was not one of bitterness; it was one expressing a good deal of frustration in the fact that so much effort had been made and we didn't get to the 60 votes. As a matter of fact, I think we were some 11 or 12 votes short of the 60 votes. He did not point fingers. He didn't say whose fault it was. He said there will be another day, that this is one of the great issues of our time, and that America was better off for having had the debate. Harry Reid comported himself with great dignity and great leadership because there will be another day. There has to be another day on the issue of immigration, simply because what we have now on the books is a law this Senator voted for in 1986 as a Member of the House of Representatives; a law that has never been enforced by the U.S. Government and never has been obeyed by the people who were supposed to obey the law. What was estimated back in 1986--21 years ago--to be 2 million, maybe 3 million illegal folks in this country, because the law was never obeyed, in many cases by employers who were supposed to be the fulcrum of enforcing the law, that they would only hire legal entrants into this country, and on top of it was never enforced by the U.S. Government, created a condition that so many people have blasted the very legislation we have been considering of amnesty. What we have now is amnesty: That 2 million or 3 million 21 years ago would grow to 12 million illegal aliens today. That is amnesty. Amnesty is what we have today because the law was never enforced or obeyed. That is what we have to correct. Now, sadly, because of the experiences we have had over the last 21 years, not only on the question of immigration, but then from the lessons of September 11, 2001, we realize there is another reason we must control our borders, so desperately necessary to the welfare and the protection of this country, the protection of the homeland. Because of those two main reasons, we will live to see another day, and we will pass an immigration law to bring us into order out of the chaos which is the current condition. I commend the Senator from Colorado as he gave a personality profile of so many of these wonderful Senators here, and it is a Senate family. You get to know each other on a personal basis, and you see how on occasion a Senator will rise to an occasion. All of the people whom the Senator from Colorado mentioned certainly merit that distinction. But what the Senator from Colorado didn't do is he didn't talk about himself. The Senator from Colorado has done one of the most remarkable jobs of acclimating to the Senate within a short period of time and becoming so effective, and especially on an issue such as immigration, for which he has great passion and compassion. So I wanted to add my little comments to all of those the Senator mentioned who have so wonderfully stood tall under very difficult circumstances. It is quite unusual when a subject will touch a nerve that will create such passion on both sides--passion that gets so heated that the sides won't talk to each other. We cannot make law like that because, as the Good Book says, you have to come and reason together. When the passion gets so hot that you cannot come and reason together, you cannot come together and build consensus, that is when the legislative process in a democracy breaks down. These Senators, in the midst of all of that passion, stood tall, comporting themselves extremely well and serving in the best tradition of the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that my staffers, Neal Higgins and Matt Nosanchuk, be allowed to stay on the floor of the Senate throughout the duration of the debate over S. 1639, the immigration bill.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Feinstein for her quest over a number of years and thank all of our colleagues on the Commerce Committee, Members and staff, for bringing this possibility about. It came about as a result of the other side not having the votes. All they had to get was 41 votes. Fortunately, that did not occur. It allowed us to come together and massage the bill a little bit more with these amendments. Thus, we get the end result. This Senator has filed an amendment for 40 miles per gallon. It simply wasn't practical. We weren't going to have the votes for that because we were trying hard enough to get the votes for 35 miles a gallon in 13 years, in 2020, and then with the compromises that were made, instead of thereafter being at a 4-percent increase in miles per gallon per year, which would compound, leaving it to NHTSA, with the criteria of what is practically feasible. That is a reasonable compromise. Then totally apart from that, on a separate issue, flex-fuel vehicles, wherever we can encourage that, it is certainly to our advantage because the more we can have a fuel that is something other than derived from oil, the better off we are. If we have the vehicles that use E85, then the question is, Do we have the gas stations that have the ethanol distributed to them in order to get E85? We have to start working on that. As a matter of fact, in my State of Florida, we have one company that is seriously thinking about ethanol plants all over the State so that it could then have the ability to get the ethanol distributed to the gas stations. While the chairman of the Commerce Committee is here, I wanted to say, in handing out all of these congratulations, under his leadership, under his tutoring, under his mentoring, and under his encouragement, he has allowed the committee to come forth with this work product that is a signal achievement. Now if we can get the Energy bill passed on final passage and then if we can survive the process, if the House can pass an energy bill, in conference committee, then, of course, if we can survive not having a veto by the President, this is all doable now because we are where we are thanks to the leadership of the chairman of the Commerce Committee. I wanted to make another comment on another subject in response to my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Craig from Idaho. Senator Craig puts up a chart there as if all the oil in the United States is in the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. That is not what the geology says. To the contrary, over the last 50 years where they have drilled, they have come up with a number of dry holes. That was why last year this Senator was willing to compromise for those who wanted a lease sale called 181 that basically had boiled down to about 2 million acres, to be able to expand that to 8.3 million acres but to keep it away from the coastline of Florida, where we happen to have a $50 billion-a-year tourism industry that depends on pristine beaches, but equally as important, that kept it away from the military mission line, which is the edge of the largest testing and training area in the world for our military. It is there where we are doing significant testing of weapons systems and new sophisticated technology, often with live ordnance. Over and over, the Secretary of Defense has issued letters and said: You can't drill in this area because oil rigs are incompatible with live fire and testing of live ordnance on new weapons systems. Senator Craig in his comments would have us believe the answer is drill, drill, drill. By his chart, he was suggesting drilling off the coast of Florida. That simply is not true. It is interesting that he said that at the very time in which we are on this Energy bill through which we are now doing something about lessening the consumption of oil by the amendment we just adopted, an amendment that goes to the very heart of where we consume most of our oil, and that is in the transportation sector. Where in transportation is it most consumed? It is in our personal vehicles. Thus, we are doing something about that tonight. I wanted to add these comments while we are still on the Energy bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the moment of truth is coming on this Energy bill very shortly as to whether we will stick with the bill which requires the meeting of cars and light trucks to be 35 miles per gallon not for another 13 years, until 2020, and thereafter the mileage standards to improve by 4 percent a year. There is a great deal of consternation going on here, particularly by the automobile industry that does not want to comply with these standards. I was prepared to offer an amendment that I think 35 miles is too low. We have the technology. The question is, Do we have the political will? We have the technology to go to 40 miles per gallon. I have filed an amendment. But apparently, because of the dynamics of the Senate taking up this issue, we are struggling to get the votes in order to keep the 35-miles-per-gallon standard in the bill. There are all kinds of side discussions going on in the corridors and anterooms of the Capitol as to whether there will be any offer, particularly by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, as to reduced standards. Originally, he was proposing a standard of 36 miles per gallon but not to be achieved until the year 2025, with other trucks exempted from that. So you see the battle, the choice that is basically set. Why should we do this now? Let's look at history. I came into public office in 1972, now 35 years ago. At the time in the early 1970s, we had an embargo by the oil-producing countries, particularly in the Persian Gulf region. There was a panic. There were long lines at the gas stations. The price of oil shot up from a low price of something less than $10 a barrel back then, it shot up considerably and everybody was concerned. Americans were impatient. The Persian Gulf region became a target of our disaffection. Then the spigot was turned on. The oil began to flow again. The embargo was released. The price started to recede. America went back to sleep. It happened again in the late 1980s, about the time I was elected to Congress. Again, there were long gas lines, the cost of gasoline shot up, the enmity toward the Persian Gulf region nations, the double whammy that interest rates soared upward of 15, 16 percent. All of that was a real crunch on Americans. But the spigot was turned on again. The oil flowed. The price receded a little bit--not nearly as much as it was back in the early part of the decade of the 1970s--and America went back to sleep again. All the time at each of these moments, the alarm was sounded that from a defense posture, the United States did not want to be dependent on foreign oil. Yet each time dependence increased and the amount of foreign oil imported into the United States increased to the point that today we are importing 60 percent of our daily consumption of oil. Where is it coming from? It is coming from places such as the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Nigeria, and Venezuela. I have mentioned four parts of the world that are relatively unstable. Yet this is what is supplying us with 60 percent of our daily consumption of oil. So we come to the moment of truth which may occur this afternoon, if an alternative amendment is offered to the miles per gallon required in this Energy bill. The moment of truth is, is America ready to have the political will to change its gas-guzzling ways? We are talking about reasons of energy. We haven't even said anything about what the excess carbon dioxide as a result of the burning fossil fuels is doing going into the air, creating the greenhouse effect and heating up the Earth. That is another complete story. But it is all as a result of this. People say: Another part of this, we are going to talk about renewable fuels for electric utilities. That is an important part too. But when you look at where do we consume most of the oil, the petrol, it is in the sector of transportation. Within transportation, where is most of the oil consumed? It is consumed in private vehicles. So we are coming to the moment of truth. Are we going to finally require, without many exceptions, the automobile industry to do what technology easily allows us to do--but not even do it tomorrow, phase it in over a 13- year period to the year 2020, requiring that we have greater miles per gallon and, therefore, what does that mean? Less consumption of oil. That means less dependence on foreign oil. This is where the greatest consumption of oil is, our private vehicles. The moment of truth is here. There is clearly a defense reason we ought to explore as to why we ought to do this as well. Can you imagine the different posture of the Armed Forces of the United States if we did not have to be the protector, almost the sole protector, of the sealanes upon which the great supertankers of the world steam in order to satiate an oil- thirsty world? Thus, who do you think defends and protects the sealanes coming out of the Persian Gulf, coming through one of those chokepoints, a military chokepoint called the Strait of Hormuz, 19 miles wide, on one side Iran, on the other side of the 19 miles, Oman, through which narrow passage the supertankers of the world have to flow to get out into the Indian Ocean? Who protects that? The United States. Wouldn't it be different from a defense posture with a Latin American President such as Hugo Chavez, who continues to thumb his nose at the United States because he can since he has petrol dollars, since he supplies 12 to 14 percent of our daily consumption. And, by the way, his company, which has been nationalized by the Government of Venezuela, the oil industry called PDVSA, did you know that they own all the Citgo stations in the United States? So his threat of cutting off is more hollow than real because he would be, to use the old expression, ``cutting off his nose to spite his face''--if he were to suddenly shut down the oil supply going into all of his gasoline stations around the United States. Nevertheless, he has made that threat. In the process, with his oil wealth, because we do buy half of his oil production, he can buy friends around the region. Happily, he has not been totally successful. But he can buy friends and buy influence with his petrol dollars, either in the form of direct financial remuneration or in the form of oil and gasoline supplies to oil- and gasoline-thirsty countries, such as the little countries in the Caribbean, the little countries in Central America. That is another thing we are facing. The moment of truth has come. I had an automobile dealer, one of the very best from my State of Florida, sit with me yesterday and tell me the automobile industry could not make this adjustment. But that is what the automobile industry has been saying for the last 35 years, ever since we had that first major oil disruption in the early 1970s. In his particular case, he has tried, within the industry, to get the industry to be willing to reform itself and use the technology we have to do much higher miles per gallon. I thanked him profusely and congratulated him on his efforts. But Mr. Automobile Industry, backed up by Mr. Oil Industry, don't come tell me we don't have the technical capability and the American people the capability of buying automobiles that will take us from what is now, on the average, about 22 miles per gallon on vehicles--they have a different standard; it is something like 27, but in reality it is only 22--don't tell me we don't have the technology in 13 years to get us to 35 miles per gallon. I wish it were 40. But if we can get this, we are all the better off. I wish to share one more thing, as we are coming to the moment of truth. Two weeks ago, during the break, I spent it going around on an intelligence mission in Africa, and it became quite apparent in one of those countries, Nigeria--we get 12 to 14 percent of our daily supply and consumption of oil from that one country, Nigeria--it became very apparent to me those facilities were defenseless. At the same time, it was very apparent to me that al-Qaida is on the rise in Africa. They are coming out of Arabia, into the Horn of Africa, there at Somalia, in all the midst of that chaos, and they are moving across the Sahel and the Sahara of Africa. They have even changed some of the names of the terrorist groups there in Africa to be AQIM, al- Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. That is the group that just tried to assassinate the President of Algeria a couple months ago, and they got close. They got a big truck bomb, suicide bomber, next to the Presidential palace. It killed a dozen people, but they did not get the President. But it is on the rise. Guess what one of their targets is going to be. The oil facilities in Nigeria. The only way we are going to stop that, since the Nigerian Government cannot protect them, is through the cooperative arrangement we have with African nations' intelligence services cooperating with our intelligence services. That cooperation is going on and has saved some of the terrorist strikes elsewhere in the world. That is the only way we are going to interdict--to find out ahead of time and stop it; otherwise, it is going to happen. When that happens, right there, with 14 percent of the daily supply suddenly cut off, we are going to rue the day if, on this day, this moment of truth, we have not set ourselves on a mandatory course of higher miles per gallon in order to force less consumption of oil, particularly foreign oil. That is the message. I do not see how any Senator can ignore this message. Yet we are scrambling for 60 votes to close off debate to get to the end of this bill because of that provision in it. Senators, the moment of truth is coming, portending enormous consequences for the future of our country and for the future of the free world, and it is going to happen today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.