Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of this resolution. The flag is a sacred symbol to this country and its citizens. Men and women have given their lives to protect the ideals embodied in the flag, and it's a unifying representation of America and all that we value. I believe it is a symbol worthy of protection. This resolution will give Congress the ability to consider legislation that will protect the flag and prevent its desecration.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Senate's debate on U.S. policy with respect to the war in Iraq has been healthy. There is no question but that every Member of this Chamber is deeply proud of America's men and women in uniform and the magnificent job they have done and continue to do to bring peace and stability to that troubled land. Like all my colleagues, I want them all to come home to their loved ones and this grateful Nation as soon as possible. But our departure from Iraq must not leave a greater risk of terror taking hold there. We cannot afford to leave Iraq in a condition that terrorists could take over the country, as they did in Afghanistan before September 11. I have given the views of my colleagues on all sides of today's votes careful consideration. I have concluded that I cannot support any policy that would set an arbitrary timeline for the start, rate, or conclusion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The decision to drawdown American forces must be based on the application of our military commanders' professional judgment assessing actual security conditions on the ground. Withdrawal of U.S. forces must be based on the objective criteria of local stability and the capability of Iraqi forces. Setting a timeline for withdrawal limits our Commander in Chief's strategic options and denies our local commanders the operational flexibility necessary to sustain progress to stability and reduce the risks of the insurgency taking any tactical advantage. We all pray for the safe return of every one of our men and women in uniform, as soon as the mission of leaving Iraq in the hands of a stable government can be accomplished.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 includes a provision that would repeal section 5062(2), title 10, United States Code that requires the Navy to keep a minimum of 12 operational aircraft carriers in the fleet. As many of my colleagues know, I oppose this repeal. I am convinced that as a nation at war, we should not increase our strategic risk by reducing our ability to place U.S. naval aviation anywhere and at any time as may be required to respond to crises around the world. Although this bill would repeal the 12-carrier minimum requirement, the Armed Services Committee was clear that we should not allow our carrier fleet to fall dangerously lower than 11 ships. I believe strongly that the size and capability of our carrier fleet is a matter of highest national concern. Once mothballed, scrapped, or a combat loss, a carrier is extremely difficult and expensive to replace. The Nation needs 12 carriers for worldwide presence and crisis response. Congress should support a funding program to ensure that we achieve and sustain that level as soon as practical. As concerned as I am about reducing the size of our carrier fleet, I am equally concerned about the risk of failing to adequately disperse them. Stationing all our Atlantic coast carriers in a single port only compounds the challenges we will face with a smaller fleet. I am not alone in that assessment. The former Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Vernon Clark, told the Armed Services Committee in February 2005 that in his view, ``overcentralization of the [carrier] port structure is not a good strategic move . . . the Navy should have two carrier- capable home ports on each coast.'' Admiral Clark went on to say, ``. . . it is my belief that it would be a serious strategic mistake to have all of those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.'' As recently as March this year, Deputy Secretary of Defense and former Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England, testified to this committee that the Navy needed to disperse its Atlantic coast carriers saying, ``My judgment is that [dispersion] is still the situation . . . a nuclear carrier should be in Florida to replace the [USS John F.] Kennedy to get some dispersion. `` Secretary England explained that, ``the concern there was always weapons of mass destruction. Even though carriers were at sea, the maintenance facilities, et cetera, are all still there and the crews . . . so having some dispersion would be of value to the Department of the Navy.'' At the same hearing, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Edmund Giambastiani, shared his own judgment that we should disperse our carriers. He illustrated his sense of risk to the Nation's east coast carriers when he recalled his own visit to Norfolk one Christmas, ``where we had five aircraft carriers all sitting next to one another, and that is not something we'd like to routinely do.'' I am opposed to cutting our Nation's aircraft carrier fleet as a matter of strategic necessity during time of war. The risk, in my view, is unacceptable. As a matter of protecting our smaller carrier force, I am convinced that the Nation must establish a second Atlantic coast nuclear carrier base as quickly as possible. An environmental impact study in 1997 found Naval Station Mayport, FL, current home of the USS John F. Kennedy, suitable to permanently station a nuclear aircraft carrier. The Navy should complete its update of that study as quickly as possible. Additionally, in order not to lose any time once the study is complete, the Navy should include funding in its fiscal year 2008 Future Years Defense Program to begin building the maintenance and support facilities necessary to stationing a nuclear aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport. Availability of these funds should naturally be contingent upon but timed in the budget's outyears to coincide with the completion of an updated environmental impact study. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both these vital issues.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I congratulate Our Lady of Lourdes Academy for its success in the national final of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. This competition is designed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am pleased to announce that Our Lady of Lourdes Academy from Miami, FL placed fourth in the competition. It is fitting that I make this statement just as we celebrate my friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who has spent a lifetime talking about the need for our kids to learn about our Constitution. The We the People national final is a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which the students ``testify'' before a panel of judges on constitutional topics. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they debate positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Mr. President, the names of these outstanding students from Our Lady of Lourdes Academy are: Nicole Azzi, Marta Bakas, Heidi Balsa, Caroline Buckler, Victoria Cabrera, Tatiana Estrada, Christi Falco, Monica Font, Gabrielle Gonzalez, Patricia Herold, Kristina Infante, Janine Lopez, Vanessa Mallol, Christina Martinez, Nina Martinez, Alina Mejer, Natalie Mencio, Natalie Perez, Gabriela Rosell, Anita Viciana, and Erica Watkins. They are taught by Rosie Heffernan. Additional recognition goes to Annette Boyd Pitts and John Doyle, who help coordinate the program in the great State of Florida. Mr. President and my colleagues in the Senate, please join me in congratulating these young constitutional scholars for their outstanding achievement.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is a happy occasion for Floridians that the Miami Heat won the NBA championship last night, having now won four games in a row after having lost the first two games in Dallas to the Dallas Mavericks. Naturally, we Floridians have a great deal of pride in this championship coming to our State of Florida. I can tell you that the city of Miami is absolutely going bonkers, they are so happy. I think it is also noteworthy that two national basketball championships have now been won by teams in the State of Florida within the same year. Earlier this year, in the playoffs of the NCAA, the national champions are the Florida Gators. And then followed by a couple of months, now we have the national NBA champions, the Miami Heat. Congratulations to Miami, to the University of Florida, congratulations to the State of Florida, and congratulations to the sport of basketball.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would the Senator agree, given the fact that the Senate position is often described as amnesty, that indeed amnesty is the current situation of the law--a law that passed in the 1980s that is not enforced by the Government, that is not obeyed by the people nor the employers of this country and which, in effect, grants amnesty to 12 million people who are illegally in this country and that the whole point of the Senate bill is to remove this amnesty under the present condition and return those who are going to be here working in a legal status? Would the Senator think that is a fair characterization?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I respect that. This Senator respects the goals that the Senator from Virginia is stating but I am looking at the four corners of the McConnell amendment to wonder if this is something that the Senate wants to vote for when, in fact, in the sense of Congress that is expressed in the McConnell amendment starting on page 2 at line 15 and ending on page 3 at line 9, there is not any statement in the sense of Congress with regard to the policy of not supporting the Iraqi Government if it gives amnesty to people who kill Americans.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am quite surprised. Sadly, on a day in which two more Americans have been mutilated, sadly, on a day in which the CNN story is quoting a claim posted on a Web site that our soldiers were slaughtered ``in accordance to God's will,'' and given the fact that it is pretty clear the amendment of this Senator sets forth the policy that it is the sense of the Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons who kill Americans, I think it is self-evident. I thank the Senator for sharing these thoughts.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. An objection is heard to a closing in which I just granted part of my time to the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in light of the fact that this Senator only had 2 minutes to close, I ask unanimous consent that each side have 1 additional minute.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are bringing this in for landing. I ask the distinguished chairman of the committee, had there been discussions on the floor during this debate about the clarification of the McConnell amendment by the words ``in accordance with their own wisdom''?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how many minutes remain for the majority and minority?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is exactly correct. The amendment by this Senator, for which the majority has already said that they are urging a vote, will further give specific action; that is, that the President of the United States should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States? So we clearly set it out in the amendment offered by this Senator. We want to have time for Senator Menendez to speak. How many minutes does this Senator have remaining?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is in the findings as set forth on page 1 but not in the sense of Congress. Is it the Senator's feeling that the McConnell amendment clarifies the language that says with respect to the exercise of sovereignty we must respect the exercise of sovereignty in accordance with their own wisdom? Does that clarify it?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is true, in the understanding of this Senator, what the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has said. Over the course of the weekend, as he represented it to this Senator, that he wanted to wait and see what further clarification has happened on this matter since there was such a disturbance about the language put forth on the amendment by this Senator from Florida. Indeed, over the course of the weekend, a number of additional things have occurred that have made it quite clear what very likely is the policy of the Government of Iraq. This Senator quotes from the Los Angeles Times publication over the weekend: The Iraqi government has crafted a far-reaching amnesty plan for insurgents. It goes on to say: The amnesty plan, which apparently would include insurgents alleged to have staged attacks against Americans and Iraqis. . . . That doesn't sound to me like the Government of Iraq is disclaiming this, that this is not their policy. To the contrary. The Senator from Florida is quite appreciative of the majority whip when he says they are going to support the amendment of the Senator from Florida. I would certainly hope so, given the fact of the tragedy that has been revealed today. I quote directly from CNN: The bodies of two U.S. soldiers found in Iraq Monday night were mutilated and booby trapped, military sources said Tuesday. If you turned on the television in the course of the last couple of hours, you have heard described in gruesome terms the condition that the bodies of these two young Americans were found in, which was unrecognizable because of the mutilation. Is this the kind of stuff that we in any way, in setting forth the sense of the Congress, want in any way, any misunderstanding of what the sense of the Congress is, that the policy of the Iraqi Government should not be to grant amnesty to those who would do harm to Americans, and have done harm, as witnessed by this most recent tragic example of how people treat prisoners of war? Sadly, I think the facts speak for themselves. Sadly, we could have dispensed with this at the hour of 2 o'clock on Thursday, after this Senator had offered his amendment. Yet we went on for 2 hours on that day and subsequently the next day. It brings us to the following Tuesday, now, with the comments that have been made, saying that the majority will accept this Senator's amendment. I am grateful to the majority, and I think the majority has come to the right place. I thank you for recognizing this is the statement that should be the policy, as enunciated by the sense of the Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a clarification?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, to answer your question-- parliamentary inquiry: Under the previous order, I understand 15 minutes were allocated to the majority and 15 minutes to the minority. So under the previous order, is that how the Senator from Florida is being recognized?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for his concern. He knows my affection for him as chairman of the committee. Indeed, CNN is reporting that it is even worse than we had described out here on the destruction of the two soldiers. CNN sources said the two men had suffered ``severe trauma.'' My question to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is, in evaluating the McConnell amendment, I am confused by the language under the sense of Congress, paragraph 1, the last sentence in the paragraph. I quote: ``We''--meaning the United States-- ``must respect the exercise of the sovereignty''--meaning of Iraq--``in accordance with their own wisdom.'' The Senator from Florida asks the chairman of the committee: Would we respect their sovereignty if their wisdom said it was their policy to have amnesty against those who would kill Americans?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

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

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this supplemental appropriation provides funds that are urgently needed by our Armed Forces to sustain the global war on terror and our operations to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. The $70 billion provided in this appropriation for military operations brings America's investment in this fight to over $445 billion since September 11, 2001. Included in this appropriation are funds necessary to keep our Guard strong and ready and to ensure that our reservists have access to essential medical coverage for themselves and their families. With respect to domestic assistance in this bill, while it is not perfect, because it removed funding for port security and veterans' health care, and greatly reduced the amount of agriculture assistance that was originally included in the Senate passed bill, it does provide immediate aid to the people of the gulf coast to help in their continuing effort to recover from last year's hurricanes. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran of Mississippi and Senator Byrd of West Virginia, for their leadership and even handedness in crafting this supplemental measure. They have been very kind towards my constituents and I am most appreciative of their efforts. This supplemental addresses three areas critical to the continued recovery and vitality of Florida. Florida was hit by eight hurricanes in 15 months and the recovery continues, even as Tropical Storm Alberto traversed the State yesterday. I know that my colleagues from the gulf coast are also well aware of the long-term challenges facing their States and are bracing themselves for another active hurricane season. We all learned valuable lessons from the disasters of the past 2 years and we will face the coming months together. I am pleased that this supplemental includes some relief for the State of Florida's hard hit agriculture industry. In 2005 as in 2004, the Florida agriculture industry sustained more than $2 billion in losses. One of the hardest hit industries was the sugar industry, so the $40 million in assistance this bill provides to the sugar producers will be critical. Our specialty crops and nursery growers also will receive a much-needed share of the $95 million provided in the bill. The measure also provides the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, with emergency funding. I cannot emphasize how important the work of this agency is to Florida. It includes the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, that plays a key role in Florida because of our significant fishing industry--both recreational and commercial. And the National Weather Service whose hurricane forecasts many times mean the difference between life and death for Floridians. This emergency supplemental provides $150 million for mapping for debris removal, oyster bed and shrimp ground rehabilitation, the repair and reconstruction of the NOAA science facility on the Gulf of Mexico and a replacement emergency response mapping aircraft to provide information about hurricane damage--all desperately needed. Additionally, the conference report maintains the Senate funding level of $5.2 billion for the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program. The President's original request was for $4.2 billion to address the utter devastation caused by Katrina in Louisiana. Yet unmet needs from the previous Gulf of Mexico hurricanes still remain in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. This level of CDBG funding will ensure that all States harmed by last year's hurricanes will receive an adequate level of continued support so that they may continue to invest in long-term recovery efforts, provide housing and business assistance, perform infrastructure reconstruction, and undertake mitigation efforts. Specific to Florida, additional CDBG funds will greatly help Panhandle communities impacted by Hurricane Dennis, who were not eligible for the last round of disaster CDBG funds, and the heavily populated areas of South Florida where insured damages from Wilma were estimated at $7.4 billion. Hurricane Wilma was a major hurricane, the final major storm of last season, causing the highest amount of insured losses to southeast Florida since Hurricane Andrew over a decade ago. Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Murray included a provision in the bill that will help address the backlog of emergency highway repairs. I thank them for their efforts, as this provision is vital to Florida's Panhandle which was pummeled by Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and then by Dennis in 2005. It includes language lifting the mandatory cap of $100 million in spending per state. Florida has about $118 million in damages left over from Dennis, most of it concentrated along US-98, which runs along the coast of Florida from Tallahassee to Pensacola, a distance of over 200 miles. The assistance contained in the supplemental will go a long way towards the recovery of the gulf coast and I will support this measure.