Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, from the gravity of the terms with which the senior Senator from Ohio has spoken, I know the Senator speaks from his heart. This Senator certainly concurs it is of the utmost importance of the interests of the United States that we are successful in Iraq because of the threat to the security interests to our country in that region of the world. If someone will look at a map, we have the Persian Gulf, and on the eastern portion of the Persian Gulf is the Strait of Hormuz, which is only 19 miles wide, through which most of the super oil tankers of the world have to flow out of the Persian Gulf, or if you are from an Arab country, the Arabian Gulf into the great oceans of the world to an oil- thirsty world. That is clearly one interest. Another interest is clearly the fact that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon. What an enormously destabilizing situation that would be to put in a rogue nation's hands that is not unaccustomed to peddling things to itchy fingers that like to exact mischief on the rest of the world. You put a nuclear weapon in those itchy fingers, and we have a whole new kind of threat to the stability of the civilized world. But there are other reasons--the reasons of countries that have been in enormous strife, countries that have been very favorable to the United States, as the country of Jordan and all of the internal turmoil they have. I could go on and on, but there are so many reasons why it is very necessary that the United States have success in that part of the world. But what we are coming down to is a momentous decision tomorrow, at 1:45 p.m., on whether we are going to continue a policy of this administration of stay-the-course or whether we are going to change that course. This Senator believes we should change that course and that the President's decision to put additional troops into Baghdad is not changing the course, it is more of the course. It is putting more American lives into a sectarian violence caldron where the temperature is so high that we see the reports every day of more and more killings. Now, this violence did not just start. This violence started 1,327 years ago, when, after the death of Mohammed, the prophet, there was a power play, and his grandson was eliminated as one of the natural heirs to the Prophet Mohammed, and the power was controlled within the clerics who had succeeded Mohammed. It was in that grandson's clan that they then started a resistance born out of revenge, and that then started the separation of the Shiites from what are today the Sunnis. And that has happened for 1,327 years. In the midst of that full-scale civil warfare, this Senator does not believe it is in the interest of our country to put in an additional 17,500 American lives. This Senator believes we ought to force the Iraqis to stop killing each other and to start working out their differences. Now, at the same time, as recommended by the Iraq study commission, it is clearly important that we have a vigorous international diplomatic initiative to engage all the countries in the region to help bear upon Iraq and that sectarian warfare to get them to try to come to their senses, to try to start striking peace instead of warfare, because all of the countries in the region clearly understand that is in their interest. You take a country such as Saudi Arabia. One of the worst things in the world would be if Iraq was just completely enveloped in chaos; the same with Jordan--two of our friends in the region. It is in the interests of the United States to conduct this diplomatic initiative in a way that it has not been done in the last 4 years: engaging people whom we have refused to engage, listening and learning in the process, instead of always imposing or giving the perception of imposing ourselves on everybody else, and at the same time letting the forces that are there stabilize instead of putting more American lives at risk. So we come to a momentous decision that will come tomorrow afternoon: Do we keep the same course or do we start changing the course with new and fresh ideas, with ideas that have clearly been laid out in the Iraq study commission? It is the conclusion of this Senator that we ought to send a very strong message to the White House that the time for changing the stay-the-course policy is now. Tribute to Dan Shapiro Mr. President, I want to make note, in the presence of my longtime, very faithful staff member, Dan Shapiro, who has served me so ably for over 6 years as legislative director, that the needs of providing for his little family have called upon him to leave the public sector, where he has been engaged for years, to enter into the private sector. I want to say on behalf of the people of Florida and the people of the Nelson office that we are grateful for his public service. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, two Senators from Florida rise to lend our support to Judge Howard, who is currently a magistrate judge and is an excellent choice. It is the privilege of Senator Martinez and myself to support the outstanding choice of Judge Howard to be a Federal district judge. Judge Howard is a graduate of Vanderbilt University and the University of Florida Law School. I want to make reference to a note I received from Judge Howard telling a bit about something unusual, because her parents arrived here from Cuba. This is what she writes: My parents arrived here with very little other than an education and a willingness to work. Their success and my nomination are truly a testament to the opportunity that exists here simply by virtue of being an American. My parents never let my brother, my sister, or me forget how fortunate we were to be in a country where we could be whatever we wanted to be or that we had a duty to give back to our country. That is the kind of person who will be a successful Federal district judge.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as we introduce the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2007. The bill would enhance America's health care infrastructure by expanding the number of Medicare-supported physician residency training positions in States with a shortage of residents. Over the past several years, a number of studies have concluded that this country is facing, or soon will face, physician shortages. The Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recently issued reports, which concluded that our Nation will likely lack an adequate number of physicians to meet patient demand by the year 2020. By expanding the number of Medicare-supported physician residency training positions in our Nation's teaching hospitals, we can help stabilize America's health care infrastructure and alleviate physician shortages. Unfortunately, in 1997, the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) ``capped'' the number of residents that each teaching hospital could claim for Medicare payment purposes. In general, Medicare does not reimburse hospitals for residents they train that are above the capped number of residency slots. There are no exceptions that allow hospitals to permanently adjust their caps. For example, the cap on physician training positions does not adjust for population growth. In many States, including Florida, populations continue to grow both in size and age and physician shortages are occurring or soon will occur. Ten years ago, Florida's ratio of physicians to population was above the national average. Today, Florida is among the States seeing the slowest growth in physician supply. A major reason for the slow growth in Florida is the lack of physician residents. A recent study by the AAMC ranks Florida 44th among States with federally funded medical residency positions, with 16 residents per 100,000 people. This problem will worsen over time because Florida's population continues to grow and Federal funding for graduate medical education slots has been capped and cannot grow to reflect the need. Because physicians tend to remain in the region where they complete their medical training, increasing the number of residency cap positions in States with a shortage will help to ensure an adequate physician workforce. According to a study by the AAMC, 47 percent of physicians are practicing in the State in which they did their training. Florida's record of retention is even better than the national average. The same study shows that approximately 60 percent of physicians who trained in Florida stay in Florida to practice medicine after their residency. Today we are introducing the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2007 to enhance America's health care infrastructure by expanding the number of resident physician training positions in States with a shortage of resident physicians. Specifically, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to increase the cap on the number of Medicare-supported residency training positions at teaching hospitals in States where there are shortages of resident physicians. A State is considered to have a shortage of resident physicians if its ratio of resident physicians per 100,000 population is below the national median level. Under our bill, teaching hospitals in approximately 24 States would be eligible for increases in their resident caps. We believe this legislation is a critical first step towards ensuring an adequate supply of physicians in our health care system. We urge all of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join us in this effort. 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 ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to clarify an issue of concern to communities in my home state of Florida, particularly to those who have been affected by natural disasters in recent years. The continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 20, contains a revision to the formula for funding the critical section 8 tenant-based rental assistance voucher program. Inefficiencies in the voucher funding formula in place since 2004 have resulted in the loss of vouchers for an estimated 150,000 families nationwide. My understanding is that the revised formula will provide sufficient funding for the number of families assisted last year, and provides a $100 million pool to assist agencies who experience unusual circumstances during the transition. However, due to the devastating hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, several of our Florida communities helped unusually low numbers of families last year. This is because the hurricanes devastated their housing stock they simply did not have the apartments and houses to rent. In some areas, the amount of need did not decline; there was simply a shortage of affordable housing options. I rise to confirm my understanding that the section 8 funds for housing assistance payments already allocated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to a local housing authority will remain accessible. If my understanding is correct, housing authorities may continue to use the funds in their possession, along with their fiscal year 2007 funds, to lease up to the authorized level of units under contract. This will ensure that our hurricane damaged communities and others who have seen losses in recent years due to unforeseen circumstances or the dislocations that have occurred since 2004 will be able to recover. As our communities rebuild, I want to make sure that our housing agencies will continue to have access to the available resources needed to serve low-income families.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are in the posture of having to pass an appropriations bill that is to none of our liking because the Congress is not fulfilling its responsibility in the budgeting and the appropriations process. It goes back to the fact that albeit the Senate and the Senate Appropriations Committee were responsible in producing all 13 appropriations bills, the leadership in the last Congress decided they did not want to pass 11 of those 13. To the best of my recollection, it was the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security appropriations bills that were passed, leaving all the others without funding. Each time we have continued emergency stopgap funding. The particular law that is in effect now goes until midnight this Thursday. That is no way to run a railroad. It puts us in the posture of having to take something instead of nothing which would shut down the Government. That is not a logical way to do it. The entire Federal budgetary process ought to be revamped. In the old days, back in the 1970s, the Budget Act was enacted because it was giving the new tools available for the Congress to discipline itself on spending, to hold down spending. Over 22 years, we have seen the Budget Act become not an economic process but a political process in which budget documents are submitted--for example, the one submitted by the President, completely unrealistic--so that political goals can say they are going to be achieved; in other words, moving the budget toward balance. The President has pointed that out over a 5-year period. When, in fact, the reality is that a lot of the President's assumptions in his budget he has sent to the Congress are not realistic. In fact, they are fiction. For example, there is a tax that is called the alternative minimum tax. It was designed years ago so that people with higher incomes that had huge deductions couldn't offset all of their income. They would have to pay some tax. It was designed to go to that higher income group so that they would still pay their fair share. If that alternative minimum tax is not allowed to be applied in the future--and I can't tell you the technicalities--it comes down and it swoops in a great deal of the middle class, which it was never intended to do, middle- income people, with the result that much higher taxes would be paid in the very income levels that the alternative minimum tax was never designed to hit. Naturally, a Congress in the future is not going to let that happen, for that additional tax to go on the middle class. Yet the President's assumptions in the budget he has sent are that that alternative minimum tax is going to go away and, therefore, the increased revenue is going to be coming into the Federal Government from the middle-income taxpayers. Therefore, it makes it look like his budget deficit is getting smaller and smaller and moving toward balance. The same thing is true with the tax cuts that were enacted back in 2001. Over the next several years, a number of those tax cuts expire. Those tax cuts that affect the middle class are not going to expire because the Congress is not going to let that happen. If it did, as the President has proposed in his budget, the revenues to the Government are going to be greater and, therefore, the annual deficit is going to be less. But that is not realistic. So what we have is a document of political fiction. This isn't the first time. This has been going on over the last couple of decades. But when it leads us down the path of fiction, sleight of hand, a head fake on what the budgetary condition of the country is, as the country, indeed, ought to make its staggering steps toward balancing the budget, at least down the line in the next 5 to 7 years, when that is all a political fiction, it undermines confidence. It undermines the entire system. In large part, it leads to where we are today. We are going to pass what is known as a continuing resolution, which is an end-of-the-day budget that is pared down, that doesn't address priorities as it should. And are the American people served best by this kind of process? No. This Senator thinks it is time for us to have some major overhaul of the Budget Act. There are a lot of other things in the Budget Act that could be reformed, many of which are technical in nature and very extensive. I will not take the time to go into them today. But when are we going to learn? When are we going to stop using the budget of the United States as a political tool instead of moving us in an economic way toward a sound economic plan to bring our fiscal house in order? I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, VIVA, of 2007. The time has come to ensure that the vote of each American is counted and counted as they intended. VIVA will get us closer to that goal by mandating the use of voter- verified paper ballots in any election with Federal candidates. It was President Johnson who helped Black Americans win the right to vote, who said, ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man . . .'' Indeed, it is the ability of a nation, like ours, to hold free and fair elections, which guarantees our government is based on consent of the governed; and, majority rule with minority rights. It is the guarantee of a ballot that cools the impassioned hearts of many in the electorate, even when a majority of citizens disagree with their government over a war, court decision, or action by lawmakers or the executive branch. For any democracy to long withstand these external and internal conflicts, it is vital that the governed have unwavering faith that their votes will be counted. Ever since the 2000 Presidential recount in Florida and, more recently, the disputed congressional election in Sarasota, an increasingly high number of Americans have come to lack confidence in the way our States record, tally, and verify votes. If this Congress doesn't act to restore voter confidence, I fear our democracy--in the words of philosopher and educator Robert Maynard Hutchins--could suffer ``a slow extinction from apathy, indifference and undernourishment.'' VIVA authorizes $300 million in Federal funding to assist in the implementation of the requirements in this bill. This bill establishes mandatory security requirements for voting systems used in Federal elections. It also will provide for routine, random audits of paper ballots and make it illegal for a chief State election administration official to take an active part in a political campaign. With another Presidential election on the horizon, we need to fix this--and fix it now. Let us never have another election after which citizens are left to doubt its legitimacy.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, VIVA, of 2007. The time has come to ensure that the vote of each American is counted and counted as they intended. VIVA will get us closer to that goal by mandating the use of voter- verified paper ballots in any election with Federal candidates. It was President Johnson who helped Black Americans win the right to vote, who said, ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man . . .'' Indeed, it is the ability of a nation, like ours, to hold free and fair elections, which guarantees our government is based on consent of the governed; and, majority rule with minority rights. It is the guarantee of a ballot that cools the impassioned hearts of many in the electorate, even when a majority of citizens disagree with their government over a war, court decision, or action by lawmakers or the executive branch. For any democracy to long withstand these external and internal conflicts, it is vital that the governed have unwavering faith that their votes will be counted. Ever since the 2000 Presidential recount in Florida and, more recently, the disputed congressional election in Sarasota, an increasingly high number of Americans have come to lack confidence in the way our States record, tally, and verify votes. If this Congress doesn't act to restore voter confidence, I fear our democracy--in the words of philosopher and educator Robert Maynard Hutchins--could suffer ``a slow extinction from apathy, indifference and undernourishment.'' VIVA authorizes $300 million in Federal funding to assist in the implementation of the requirements in this bill. This bill establishes mandatory security requirements for voting systems used in Federal elections. It also will provide for routine, random audits of paper ballots and make it illegal for a chief State election administration official to take an active part in a political campaign. With another Presidential election on the horizon, we need to fix this--and fix it now. Let us never have another election after which citizens are left to doubt its legitimacy.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I just want to say a word about my friend, Thad Cochran. What a terrific gentleman and fellow legislator he has been over the years. When I have gone to him to work out an appropriations problem, particularly with regard to the 2004 hurricanes we had--and you will recall we had four hurricanes within the span of 6 weeks in Florida, and we so desperately needed that assistance coming in to FEMA--Senator Cochran was there ready to help. Mr. President, if I could get Senator Cochran's attention. Senator Cochran, I am saying some good things about you, and I just want to say what a gentleman you have been to this Senator, particularly with regard to that time we had such difficulty in Florida during the 2004 hurricanes. When I came to you asking for appropriate help, you were there. And then, lo and behold, the next year is when you had your set of hurricanes, and it was my privilege to try to help return the favor. You are a real gentleman, and passing the 10,000 vote mark is quite an achievement. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will speak on the President's decision to escalate by 21,000 troops into Iraq and whether it will be effective. If we determine the likelihood of success is not going to be effective, and we put 21,000 more troops in harm's way in the middle of sectarian violence, then it doesn't seem to me to be a wise policy if it is not going to be effective. It is naturally legitimate to debate whether it is effective. The President's plan specifically is among the 21,500 to take about 17,500 to put into Baghdad and another 4,000 into the western part of Iraq, Anbar Province. I happen to agree with the latter part because I was convinced by the Marine generals that an increase of our forces would help them augment the success they have had, since all of that area is almost entirely Sunni and the problem there has been al-Qaida and the al-Qaida insurgents. I agree with that part of the President's strategy. However, most of the troops--some 17,500--are scheduled to go into Baghdad, in the midst of the sectarian violence, and that is where I disagree. I point out to the Senate, the President's strategy is predicated on the fact of the Iraqi Army being reliable. Now, will it be reliable? If the President's strategy is predicated on that fact of the Iraqi Army being reliable, one would think the administration has come to the conclusion the Iraqi Army will be reliable. The fact is, they haven't. In testimony after testimony by administration witnesses, not one witness in any of the hearings that have been held in the committees upon which I have the privilege of serving--the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Intelligence Committee--not one witness has been able to state that the Iraqi Army will be reliable. To the contrary. The Secretary of Defense, the new commander of American forces in Iraq, the new combatant commander for the United States Central Command--every one of them has been unable to answer in the affirmative that the Iraqi forces are going to be reliable. As a matter of fact, a few days ago the Secretary of Defense said to the Senate Committee on Armed Services that we will have to wait and see if they are reliable. The very underpinning of the President's strategy for success is an unknown. I bring to the Senate's attention what has been released 2 days ago. This is the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate. This is the best estimate by our intelligence community. Listen to what they have to say on exactly this subject. I am reading from the unclassified version. Despite real improvements, the Iraqi security forces, particularly the Iraqi police, will be hard pressed in the next 12 to 18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities, and particularly to operate independently against the Shia militias with success. Sectarian divisions erode the dependability of many units. Many are hampered by personnel and equipment shortfalls and a number of Iraqi units have refused to serve outside of areas where they have been recruited. That is word for word the National Intelligence Estimate, unclassified version, that says the same thing as Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, Admiral Fallon, and the soon-to-be new Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, who served for the last 2\1/2\ years in Iraq. I come back to the question I continue to ask. If the President's plan for success by an escalation of troops in Baghdad is predicated on the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi security forces being reliable--since they are to take the burden of the clearing and then the holding of an area--and if no one can state they are reliable, why are we pursuing this plan of an escalation of forces into Baghdad? We hope they are going to be reliable. We hope for the success of our forces. The stakes are high, unquestionably, of stabilizing Iraq. But is this the wisest course, putting 17,500 more American forces in Baghdad at high risk? In this Senator's opinion, the very underpinning, the foundation of the President's plan, is undermined by virtue of the fact that none of the administration principals can answer the question that they are reliable. They can't answer that question. Therefore, I do not think it is in the best interests of our country or of our troops to escalate these forces into Baghdad. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Missouri for being so understanding. I will make my comments quite brief. The entire success of the President's plan of escalation is predicated on the fact that the Iraqi Army is, in fact, reliable. Therefore, in every one of our hearings in our committees--be it the Armed Services Committee, be it the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be it the Senate Intelligence Committee--I have asked that question of the various witnesses, most of whom are representatives of the administration or representatives of our U.S. military. Up to this moment, not one of the administration witnesses can tell us that the Iraqi Army is, in fact, reliable in a plan that is essential that they are, which is to clear the area, hold the area, and then rebuild the infrastructure. In the clear phase, it is not only the Iraqi Army and the U.S. military--by the way, not in a single unified command but in dual commands of which the Iraqi Army will be the most force in personnel--and I have heard that 60/40 is the ratio; maybe it is more than that--60 percent Iraqi Army and 40 percent U.S. Therefore, it is essential that the Iraqi Army is reliable. Yet every witness has not been able to tell us that, including up to today's witness, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, who I think is doing an excellent job. But when I laid this out to him in front of our committee--in this case, the Senate Armed Services Committee-- today, his answer was, as of this morning, that we have to wait and see. Well, I am just a little country lawyer, but doesn't it seem logical that if the President's whole plan is predicated on the reliability of the Iraqi Army, and at this moment we still have to wait and see on the reliability of the Iraqi Army, then is that reason for us to escalate our troops in Baghdad out of 21,000, with some 17,500 going into Baghdad, on a plan that we do not know is going to work? It is on that basis that this Senator from Florida opposes this troop increase. I have said on this floor several times that the Marine generals in the west of Iraq, in Anbar Province, convinced me that an escalation of troops there would help them, since that is all Sunni, and since the main enemy there is al-Qaida. But that is western Iraq; that is not Baghdad where the sectarian violence is. Mr. President, I will just conclude my remarks by saying that I think it is our only hope of stabilizing Iraq, that it depends on three successful initiatives: No. 1, an aggressive diplomatic effort led by the U.S. with Iraq and its neighbors to quickly find a political settlement between Iraq's warring factions; two, Iraqis taking responsibility for providing for their own security; three, a massive and effective international reconstruction program. With regard to the first of these initiatives, an intense diplomatic effort aimed at helping Iraq with a political settlement has been discussed many times by most of our Senators. This Senator believes it must include sufficient autonomy for Iraq's various regions and communities but a stake for all in the central government; an oil revenue sharing law; a reversal of debaathification--partial reversal-- and a revised constitutional amendment process. The lack of a major diplomatic effort to build an international coalition to support a political settlement is truly baffling. Iraq is in a full-blown crisis. So we need at least one, if not several, high-level special envoys empowered by the President and endorsed by congressional leadership. Working together, they need to be on the ground every day, throughout the Middle East, in Europe and Asia, and at the United Nations. The goal should be--within a month--to assemble an international conference at which all of Iraq's neighbors and other key nations would endorse the framework of a political settlement. It became painfully evident to me during my last trip to Iraq that Prime Minister al-Maliki either lacks the will or the nerve to take on the Shiite militias on whose backing he depends for power. For example, his rushed execution of Saddam Hussein--certainly justified, but horribly carried out--spoke volumes about his insensitivity to the concerns of the Sunnis. Initiative No. 2: As for Iraqis taking responsibility for their own security, this will only take place if U.S. troops begin to pull back from the primary combat role they now play and shift to an advisory capacity. Where are those words ringing familiar, Mr. President? From the Iraq study commission, Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton's commission. They offered this recommendation. Rather than increasing our forces in Iraq, as the President has proposed, we should be transitioning the troops to training and advising Iraqi troops, training and advising antiterrorism missions and border security. Finally, the third initiative: The massive reconstruction effort requires a reconstruction czar, a person of the highest integrity who will cut through the redtape, demand our agencies produce the results working together and deliver construction assistance quickly and directly to Iraqi communities. Concurrently, this official should convene a donors conference to elicit pledges of assistance from our international partners and to hold them accountable for delivering this aid quickly. In short and in summary, the cost of failure in Iraq will be catastrophic in growing threats to us and to our allies and in more American and Iraqi lives lost if we do not awaken to the reality that diplomacy, not a military solution, is what is needed to end the sectarian violence in Iraq. I wish to paraphrase what the President of the United States, when I was a student in college, President Kennedy, said in 1961: We must always be ready and willing to bear arms to defend our freedoms, but as long as we know what comprises our vital interest or our long-range goals, we have nothing to fear from diplomacy. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in November, General Abizaid told our Senate Committee on Armed Services, when asked did he need any more troops in Iraq, he said ``no.'' Admiral Fallon, who has been chosen by the administration to succeed General Abizaid, when asked did he think by the Senate taking a position in opposition to the President's determination to put 21,000 new troops in Iraq that was undercutting the military forces in Iraq, Admiral Fallon deferred and would not answer that, as some others had been quick to answer in the affirmative. When General Casey was in front of our committee last week, when asked how many additional troops do you think should be put into Baghdad, he said two brigades--not the five brigades the President has determined. What we have is a majority of Members in this Senate feel there should not be any increase. We have General Casey, the commander for the last 2\1/2\ years, saying there should only be a two-brigade increase. So there is, in fact, conflicting opinion. If we are going to have any increase in troops in Iraq, the Marine generals in Anbar Province have convinced this Senator that an increase in Anbar Province would be helpful, but the conclusion of this Senator was that putting more American troops in the middle of Baghdad, in the middle of that sectarian violence, was not going to do any good; it was going to put more Americans in harm's way, particularly in the limited numbers the President is talking about. If we wish to make a difference in Baghdad in the midst of all that sectarian violence, where it has been going on for 1,327 years, since the year 688 A.D., after the death of Mohammed, when the grandson was assassinated because he broke off and that became the Shiite branch and the Sunnis and the Shiites have been at it ever since, if you want to make a difference in Baghdad with all that sectarian strife, put in 50, 100, 200 or 300,000 troops. But 21,000--17,000 of which are going into Baghdad additionally--in this Senator's opinion, is not going to do the job. As the Senator from Virginia knows, this Senator is one of his cosponsors. I support his resolution. I think it is very important there be truth and openness. In this Senator's position on the Foreign Relations Committee, on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and on the Intelligence Committee of the Senate, I have been hammering away at correct information over and over because what we have been dished out over the last several years has been incorrect information. That leads us to this point where we have to make a judgment. We are a coequal branch. We are part of the formulation of policy, and it is intended that way by the U.S. Constitution that the people speak through us as well as through the President. It is my privilege to say I support the Senator from Virginia in his resolution.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the life and achievements of Senator George Smathers. I delivered remarks at his memorial service on January 29. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the remarks.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues and cosponsors Senators Jay Rockefeller and Richard Lugar as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2007. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2007 has a simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end of life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living will stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just that. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2007 would encourage new Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by including a physician consultation on advance directives in each ``Welcome to Medicare'' physical exam. This initial consultation would cover the importance of preparing advance directives, when these documents are most likely to be used, and where to find additional resources and information. The conversation will also enable physicians to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too often unaddressed. Another part of our bill would provide funds for the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where consumers could receive State-specific information and consumer- friendly documents and publications. The bill also contains language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one State to another. If an out-of-State directive is presented, it will be presumed valid unless the health care provider can reasonably demonstrate that it is not an authentic expression of the individual's wishes concerning his or her health care. We all know about the tragic situation that occurred in Florida with Terri Schiavo and her family. She was a young woman who was the subject of a debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a debate that was a court case and a legislative quagmire. Most experts agree that if she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy, there would have been no question as to who could decide the course of her care. One of the great legacies of Terri Schiavo's life will be that she began a national dialogue about end-of-life care and got people discussing living wills. Regardless of our views on the ethical, legal and constitutional issues surrounding her case, we all can agree that more people now than ever know the importance of having end-of-life discussions with their family, doctor, clergy or attorney. This bill would build upon this national dialogue and encourage more Americans to learn about and fill out advance directives. This body is a legislative institution, not a medical one. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can participate in improving end-of-life care. If we can do that, we will have done a great deal.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues and cosponsors Senators Jay Rockefeller and Richard Lugar as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2007. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2007 has a simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end of life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living will stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just that. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2007 would encourage new Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by including a physician consultation on advance directives in each ``Welcome to Medicare'' physical exam. This initial consultation would cover the importance of preparing advance directives, when these documents are most likely to be used, and where to find additional resources and information. The conversation will also enable physicians to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too often unaddressed. Another part of our bill would provide funds for the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where consumers could receive State-specific information and consumer- friendly documents and publications. The bill also contains language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one State to another. If an out-of-State directive is presented, it will be presumed valid unless the health care provider can reasonably demonstrate that it is not an authentic expression of the individual's wishes concerning his or her health care. We all know about the tragic situation that occurred in Florida with Terri Schiavo and her family. She was a young woman who was the subject of a debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a debate that was a court case and a legislative quagmire. Most experts agree that if she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy, there would have been no question as to who could decide the course of her care. One of the great legacies of Terri Schiavo's life will be that she began a national dialogue about end-of-life care and got people discussing living wills. Regardless of our views on the ethical, legal and constitutional issues surrounding her case, we all can agree that more people now than ever know the importance of having end-of-life discussions with their family, doctor, clergy or attorney. This bill would build upon this national dialogue and encourage more Americans to learn about and fill out advance directives. This body is a legislative institution, not a medical one. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can participate in improving end-of-life care. If we can do that, we will have done a great deal.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, for a week now we have had this speculation, the rumors, and then finally the deliberations in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of a resolution disapproving the President's increase of the forces by 21,000 in Iraq. A resolution was passed out on a vote of something like 12 to 9 yesterday. It was bipartisan in the passing, but it was basically a partisan vote. Save for one member of the minority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all of the minority voted against the resolution. But almost to a person, all of the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both sides of the aisle, had expressed their dissatisfaction, individually in their statements in front of the committee, with the President's intention to increase the number of troops, which is already underway, as we know, as we have been reading the commentary in the press. So we have that resolution. Then we have a resolution introduced by Senator Warner. This Senator from Florida looks at these two resolutions, and they are almost identical. So this Senator is one of several Senators who has cosponsored both resolutions. This Senator is one of several Senators who has been trying to bring the two together to be folded into one, since it basically, in substance, is the same thing in both of them. Yet for one reason or another, that has not been accomplished. Therefore, next week, we expect both of those resolutions to come in front of the Senate. At this moment, it looks as if it will be the Senate Foreign Relations Committee product that will then be amendable and I suppose with a substitute amendment. Then we go through all the amendatory process. Now, that may be the way the Senate will work its will, but it is not necessarily the way it could be done the easiest, if we could have great minds come together in a bipartisan way on two resolutions that virtually say the same thing. I bring this up simply to say we get so wound around the axle and so worked up over the particular number of troops when, in fact, looking at the underlying conditions in the Middle East and in Iraq, where there is so much at stake for our country: The oil and gas in that region, the east-west trade routes that go through the area, all of the international capital investment that is in that region of the world, and all of the capital that is produced that flows out of that part of the world--all of that instability in the region, brought about as a result of instability in Iraq, is going to have a major global impact. The former commander, the former combatant commander of the U.S. Central Command, General Tony Zinni, a now retired 4-star Marine general who served as the head of Central Command back under the Clinton administration, has written extensively on this, and he points out that there is a complexity we have unleashed by going into Iraq that is not only the Sunni-Shiite conflict but also the Arab-Persian conflict. General Zinni, in his upfront, blunt-talking way says: There are three options in Iraq: Fix it, contain it, or leave it. And he doesn't feel, and this Senator doesn't feel, that we can take the third option of picking up and leaving it because of the enormous consequences. And if we can't fix it, we have to contain it, but then you are going to have to own that containment and have a containment strategy executed by the United States because the region can't do it for itself. And containment, according to General Zinni, is very messy and is probably much tougher in the long run. So perhaps as we discuss next week these two resolutions over the issue of 21,000 troops, let's remember that in the long run, for us to be successful in stabilizing Iraq, we have to look to additional issues that have to be solved, such as the economics there, the diplomacy, the security--a lot of what the Iraq Study Commission has come forward with in their plan. And let's also understand that as we talk about what we want to do to stabilize Iraq in getting the Iraqi security forces able to provide their own security, that getting them provided with guns and other equipment isn't going to provide the security that you need because, the Iraqi security forces need civil affairs and psychological operations and counterintelligence and intelligence forces. They are going to have to have civil affairs moving in behind their military operations in order to paint buildings and create infrastructure so there will be something positive left behind. Remember, the doctrine under Secretary Rumsfeld was ``clear, hold, and build.'' The problem was, they cleared an area, but they never held it. They never got around to the point of building. General Petraeus said yesterday in our committee we were going to go in and clear, hold, and then we have to be able to build. Whether we talk about 21,000 troops or not, you cannot build in the midst of sectarian violence of Shia, Sunnis, and the overall Arab-Persian conflict. Until we address these issues, at the end of the day, Iraq is not going to be stabilized. In a destabilized society, a priority has to be in rebuilding institutions in social, economic, and political areas. One of the things the United States may consider increasing its emphasis on, since we have so many agencies of government there all doing their own thing, is an interagency coordinating mechanism to help bring everything together so, indeed, ``clear, hold, and build'' has an opportunity to be executed and then, hopefully, an opportunity to succeed. I wanted to offer some additional ideas, a lot of which have been inspired by General Zinni, someone who understands how to operate in that part of the world as we debate next week the resolutions over whether we would indicate our approval of the President's plan. Maybe when we debate that, we can debate the deficiencies of not only what has been done in the past but what we have to do in the future in order to give that country an opportunity to stabilize. I hope it is not too late. I must say, this Senator feels at times it is too late, particularly with these almost 1,500 years of sectarian violence that occurred after the death of Mohammed in the 600s A.D., that it was the rebellion started by his son-in-law that ultimately led to the Shiite sect which was born out of rebellion and wanting to get revenge. We have seen that play out over centuries and centuries. Again, we are seeing it play out now in Iraq. But we must be optimists and we must try, for the stakes are exceptionally high.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, on Monday I have the great privilege of delivering the eulogy at the funeral for Senator George Smathers in whose office I had the privilege, as a college student, of interning. As I greet each of our interns in our Senate offices as they rotate, I always tell them the story of being an intern, how it had a profound influence on my life because that summer, interning for Senator Smathers, I met his son Bruce. Bruce and I then became college roommates. After law school and the military, Bruce introduced me to my wife, and I returned the favor and introduced Bruce to his wife. And his son, little Bruce, is my godson. So over the years, I have had the privilege of having my life intersecting with the Smathers family, so much so that when I came to the Senate, I requested that I have the desk of George Smathers. It is with that background that, indeed, it is a great honor for me that the family has asked me to deliver the eulogy. It will be a great privilege for me, next Monday, to recall the great life and times of this great American and great Floridian. I will just mention a couple of things in his career. I will elaborate at greater length and will introduce that eulogy into the Record of the Senate after I have given it. I wish to mention that was a Senate which had giants with whom all of us in my generation grew up--Symington of Missouri and Johnson of Texas and Dirksen of Illinois and Mansfield of Montana and, from my State, Smathers and Holland. Johnson really relied on Smathers--so much so that when there was a vacancy as the assistant majority leader, he asked Smathers to fill in temporarily. And when Senator Johnson, the majority leader, ended up having his heart attack and was out of work for 7 months, George Smathers stood in as the acting majority leader. Upon Senator Johnson's return, he asked Senator Smathers to be his permanent assistant majority leader. LBJ was not someone who was accustomed to having someone tell him no, but his friend from Florida told him that he should not do it. I will just mention one other fact. George Smathers, as a young Congressman, met Fidel Castro in 1948. Fidel Castro told him that he was going to take over Cuba. That was 11 years before Castro ousted the hated dictator Batista. Smathers was always leery of Fidel Castro, and he often warned people, before Castro took over and, in fact, after Castro was in. When so many in the world thought he got rid of the hated dictator Batista, Smathers said: Watch out, he is going to consolidate power and he is going to become a problem. He was prophetic. That is exactly what happened. That was the kind of leadership we had. It is the passing of an era. America has lost one of her great leaders, and Florida has lost one of its great sons. It is my privilege to bring these remarks to the Senate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9 a.m., Friday, January 26; that on Friday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 1, the nomination of LTG David H. Petraeus; that there be 45 minutes for debate on the nomination, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senator Levin and the Republican leader or his designee; that upon the use or yielding back of time, without further intervening action, the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination; that upon the conclusion of the vote, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session and resume consideration of H.R. 2, the minimum wage legislation.