Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Certainly.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following article be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about simple fairness and equity in this highway bill. I commend the chairman and managers of the bill for working hard to get it to the floor. Now that it is here, I have some serious concerns with the bill, as reported, that I would like to share with my colleagues. This bill is not fair to the States called donor States that send more of their Federal gas tax dollar and get less of it in return. Those are called donor States. We donor States--and Florida is one of them--are, once again, being cheated out of our fair share of highway dollars. Florida and roughly 20 other donor States deserve true equity, not simply what the donee States think we should be happy with. They send in a dollar of gas tax but they get more than a dollar in return. Our States, called the donor States, send in a dollar of gas tax money, and we receive less than a dollar of gas tax money in return. In the case of Florida over the years, it has been down in the seventies. Presently--although it is scored at 90 cents--return on the dollar, in reality, when all the formulas are plugged in, is more like 87 cents. So in Florida we send a dollar of gas tax money to Washington, and we get only 87 cents of that dollar back. That is not fair. The argument I am making is not a new argument. These are arguments that the ones who send in a dollar and get back less of their gas tax money are pitted against the donee States. Approximately 30 of the donee States get back more than a dollar of the gas tax money. So there are 20 States that get less and approximately 30 States that get more. I am tired of hearing we should be happy with what we get. I am not happy with the formula on the redistribution of the gas tax money in the highway bill. Last year's bill that we passed in the Senate got us a lot further toward equity than this year's bill. I was disappointed, even in that bill, because although we had a target to get us from 90 percent, which is really 87 percent, return on our gas tax dollar, all the way up to 95 percent, we did not get that 95 cents back on the dollar until the very last year of the 6-year authorization of the highway bill. Florida is in the category with other States such as Arizona, California, and Texas. We were not going to get 90 cents on the dollar, boosted to 95 cents on the dollar, until the very last of 6 years in the bill. Those States that I just mentioned, mine included, are named superdonor States. In reality, it means we are the last in line to get our fair share. As I look back at last year's bill, I yearn for it because that is not what this bill does. This bill gets the States only to 92 cents on the dollar, and large States such as Florida, California, Texas, and Arizona only get there, again, at the end of the 6-year authorization on the highway bill. So what am I forced to look at? I am looking at we were getting it up to 95 cents on the dollar last year, and under this bill we are only getting it up to 92 cents on the dollar. Well, this is unacceptable. There is clearly a push from both sides of the aisle to add more money to the bill. I support more money in the bill. What we passed in the Senate last year was $318 billion for highway construction authorized over a 6-year period. What is in this bill is $284 billion over a 6- year period. If we want to add more money to the bill for highways, I am certainly for that, but I support more money if there is an increase in the rate of the return for States that are giving more money than what they are getting in return. It simply does my State and these other States no good to grow a pot of money if we are not getting our fair share of the pot. I have been told by the 30 donee States--remember, those are the States that get more on their dollar of gas tax than they put in--I have been told by those States to look at how much money, in actual dollars, Florida will receive and how much Florida will grow in an overall percentage from the last authorization bill. I am happy to know Florida, under the chairman's proposal, gets more dollars in this bill than it did in the last authorization, but Florida should be getting more money this time around because it is putting more money in. The number that is important, and the number that only donor States want to focus on, is the rate of return on our gas tax dollars. What percentage of Florida taxpayer dollars are actually being returned to Florida to build up our infrastructure, our highways, our bridges, and our transit? I asked that question not only for my State but for 20 other States that are not getting their fair share. Why is this particularly sensitive to me? Look at all the folks that come to Florida and use our roads. The Orlando area is the No. 1 tourist destination in the world. We have a $50 billion-a-year tourism industry that, in large part, is as a result of our pristine and clear waters on the beaches. People go by car. What other reasons? Florida is now one of the major growth States also because we are a destination during the twilight years of retirement. That means not only is our population growing at a rapid rate--1,000 people a day net growth in Florida--but on top of that, we get 80 million tourists a year, and they are all using those Florida roads. We desperately need those roads expanded and improved. I can take anyone to parts of Florida and show that if you think traffic jams are big in Washington, DC, they cannot hold a candle to some of the traffic jams in Florida. States such as mine are the States with the greatest need and we are the States that continue to get the least back on our highway tax dollars. Our populations are increasing by leaps and bounds, yet our highway rate of return is staying relatively the same in order to pay for the other States to invest in their roads, and those are States that are not growing like Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, and 15 other states. Florida is the third fastest growing State behind Nevada and Arizona. We will grow by 80 percent in the next 25 years, becoming the third largest State in the country behind California and Texas. Florida will bump New York into fourth place by 2011. We have to have help on our highways. We need, but we also deserve, our fair share. States such as mine have, for the last half a century, given more than our share of highway funds. The interstate system is complete now. It has been for some time. This formula has been operating for over 50 years. It is past time that donor States get justice and equity and fair shares. We deserve to get 95 cents return on each one of our highway dollars. I yield the floor and 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 express my personal appreciation to the senior Senator from Virginia, who has, just like the old Navy man he is, risen again to the call to duty of what he thinks is in the best defense interest of this country. It is one thing for the senior Senator from Florida to make this argument when it is perceived as an argument in this Senator's parochial interest because the John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier is stationed in Mayport in Jacksonville. I could argue all of the specifics Senator Warner has, and it would still be interpreted that it was the position of the Senator from Florida looking out for his constituency. Certainly, that is a part of my motivation. But a part of my motivation also is that in my title is ``United States Senator,'' and a very fortunate and proud member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am trying to make decisions that are in the best defense interests of our country. That defense interest is clearly that we, the United States, must have a carrier homeported in Japan. We simply do not know, since it is not a decision of the central Government of Japan--it is a decision of the local municipal governments that influence the decision--whether they will be receptive to a nuclear-powered carrier. If some time between now and 2008, when the conventionally powered carrier, the Kitty Hawk, that is residing in Japan, is scheduled to be decommissioned, if at some time in that time period Japan says no to a nuclear carrier, suddenly we are without an aircraft carrier homeported in Japan. I remind the Senate what the Chief of Naval Operations, the four-star chief admiral of the Navy, testified to before the Senate Armed Services Committee: With the rising threat of China, one carrier in Japan is worth a great deal to him as opposed to other carriers that are stationed elsewhere around the world. If I could get the attention of the Senator from Virginia, I want him to hear my appreciation because he has, in his independent and expert judgment, come to this conclusion. He has stepped forth and offered this amendment so it would be led by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and many of his bipartisan membership who have joined with him. Mr. President, I say to all Senators, listen to the chairman. He knows what he is talking about. Then on down the road, if because of new capabilities of ships we are able to lessen the carriers from 12 to 11, we will be in a position where we will not have this window of vulnerability for projecting our force structure in the Pacific area of operations. I plead with the Senate. This should not be a fight. We ought to be listening to the chairman of the committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is absolutely correct; just 30 minutes ago from the admiral.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to underscore so Senator Stevens can hear what Senator Warner said. The funds were provided in the 2005 Defense appropriations bill. There were funds in excess of $300 million in that bill. To the best of my recollection, it was $317 million for the purpose of dry dock. Some of those funds have already been expended for the planning of the dry dock. However, there are approximately $288 million already appropriated in the 2005 bill for the drydocking of the John F. Kennedy. This is not the expenditure of moneys in the supplemental bill. I want to underscore also what the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has said in quoting Admiral McCollum, the battle group commander of the John F. Kennedy, which has just returned from operation, and what he quoted from the written testimony of the admiral. I was at that committee meeting. I just came from a committee meeting. I said: ``Admiral,'' and I read the statement the chairman just read to the Senate, ``are you saying that the John F. Kennedy is seaworthy?'' He said: Yes, sir. Thirdly, I emphasize what the distinguished chairman has said, and that is, this all boils down to a matter of defense of our interests with a rising threat from China in the Pacific area of operations. It is clear, in testimony after testimony by four-star admirals, we have to have a carrier homeported in Japan so they can get to an area of conflict quickly. Between now and when the Kitty Hawk is going to retire in 2008, we do not have any assurance the municipal government in Japan is going to say: We will accept a nuclear-powered carrier. Therefore, out of prudent and conservative planning for our projection of forces in the Pacific region, we should keep this conventional carrier alive.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, because Senator Leahy is waiting to speak, I will make very brief comments. The comments to which the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has referred is the Chief of Naval Operations saying it is absolutely essential that he have a carrier home ported in Japan. The fact is, as he projects his forces in the defense of our country in the Pacific area of operations, he needs a carrier in that region so if it has to respond to an emergency, say, off of the coast of Taiwan, it is within a day and a half of sailing to respond to the emergency instead of a week's sailing from a port on the west coast of the United States. Now, how all this ties in to the John F. Kennedy is that we do not know at this point that the Government of Japan--since so much of this decision is influenced by the municipal government in the region of the port--is going to receive a nuclear carrier. Therefore, when the present, conventionally powered carrier, the Kitty Hawk, in Japan, is ready to go out of service in 2008, if Japan's posture is they will not accept a nuclear carrier, then we do not have another one that could replace it. So what the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is suggesting in this amendment that many of us are sponsoring with him is to keep alive the John F. Kennedy through its drydocking, with the funds that have already been appropriated, the $335 million, of which there are some $287 million left, to go on through the overhaul process so we have it as a backup. This, of course, also keeps us then with two major ports for carriers on the east coast so that all of our east coast carrier assets are not in one port. In this era of terrorism, that clearly is one of the lessons we should have learned way back in December of 1941 in the experience of Pearl Harbor: Keep your assets spread out. I am very grateful to Senator Warner, who has offered this amendment for the sake of the defense of our country. And for the sake of those of us who have been working this problem, we are very grateful in order to get this in front of the Senate so a policy decision can be made. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have had the pleasure of working with the Senator from Arizona in the finest tradition of the Senate, in bipartisanship. We are working together on an issue that is of great concern to the country, and that is the estate tax and whether it should be eliminated; if not totally eliminated, we are working on the prospect of having a significant exemption and doing something about the balance of a taxable estate as to what would be the actual rate at which the remainder of the estate would be taxed. I raise this issue, although this is not the subject of my statement to the Senate, because I am following the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona. It has been my privilege to work with him in trying to achieve a bipartisan consensus. What I wish to talk about is achieving consensus in a town that is increasingly polarized by excessive partisanship and excessive ideological rigidity. This is a town in which it has gotten to the point, as told by Lesley Stahl, the CBS reporter, the other night, of an experience she had at a dinner party with nonelected officials--just normal folks at a dinner party in New York. The discussion turned to matters having to do with the subjects we are dealing with here in the Congress, and all of a sudden the mood in that salubrious dinner party turned hostile. People were starting to shout at each other, and any sense of civility was suddenly gone. I worry about that here in the most collegial of all parliamentary bodies in the world--this one, right here, the Senate. It has been such a great privilege for me to be a part of it. Yet, as I see, as the debate is approaching, everything is so partisan and everything starts to take on the tinge of ``it's either my way or the highway.'' That is not only not how this Nation has been governed under the Constitution for 217 years, that is, indeed, the very birthright we have had in this Nation--compromise, compromise, and bringing together consensus in order to have a governing ability to function. That was how we came out with the Constitution that we did in that hot summer session of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia back in 1787. Yet I wonder if we are losing some of that glue that brings us together and has us start drawing up consensus by reaching out to the other Senators and molding our ideas together in order to govern a very large country, a broad country, a diverse country, a complicated country. You can't do it with just one opinion. I have heard some of the statements when I have been interviewed on programs such as CNN and FOX. There were other Senators on these programs with me. I shake my head, wondering how someone could say those things. It is this question this Senate is going to face, whether the rules of this body are going to be changed in order to cut off the ability of a Senator to stand up and speak for as long as he or she wants on a subject of importance to that Senator, and whether that ability, known as a filibuster, is going to be taken away from us. What is the history of the filibuster? If you think about how the filibuster works in the Senate, 217 years ago there was no limitation on a Senator being able to stand up and speak. For over a century, the rules provided a Senator could not be cut off. Early in the last century, that was changed so that if 67 Senators voted to cut off debate, then the debate would be closed. That was a supermajority. Later on--sometime, I believe, in the 1960s--that threshold of 67 was lessened to 60. That is the rule we operate under now. A Senator can stand up and talk and talk and talk. The ability to speak in this body is such that the filibuster helps to encourage compromise. It is saying to the majority that because they have an idea, they can't force that idea unless they get 60 votes, and that causes the majority to have to listen to the minority. It brings about encouragement of compromise. I don't think we ought to do away with the filibuster. Yet that is what the Senate is about to do, if the rules are amended. Interestingly, the rules of the Senate say it takes 67 Senators to amend the rules. But we all have been told of a plan whereby the Presiding Officer, the Vice President of the United States--and the majority leader would make a motion and the Chair, the Vice President, the President of the Senate, would rule, and a 51-vote majority would change the rules of the Senate. It is my understanding that the Parliamentarian of the Senate has in fact stated you can't change the rules that way. Yet it looks as though the majority leader, encouraged by the majority, is going to try to change the rules--not according to the Senate rules. In other words, it seems the majority is breaking the rules in order to change the Senate rules. I don't think that is right. I don't think we ought to be changing the rules in the middle of the game. I don't think it is right to overrule the Parliamentarian of the Senate, who is not a partisan official. I think this starts to verge on the edges of riskiness, if we start operating this Senate under those kind of rules, rules that are breaking the rules in order to change the rules. Another way you could put it is that we talk about the majority is threatening to break the rules to win every time. Is that what the Senate is all about? Isn't the Senate about the majority having to consult the minority, because under the rules of the Senate, minority rights are protected so the majority cannot completely run over the minority? Isn't that what is the history and precedent of 217 years in the Senate? I think the history of this body would show that is the case, especially if we get to the point that this body is going to overrule the Parliamentarian. I think that is verging on an abuse of power of the majority. Remember also a truth--that today's majority will be tomorrow's minority, and the minority should always be protected. There is another reason; that is, this group of political geniuses who happened to gather in Philadelphia back in that hot summer of 1787 created a system that had indeed separation of powers--that no one institution or one person in the Government of the United States could become so all powerful as to mow over other persons in the institution. In that separation of powers of the executive from the legislative and from the judicial, they also created checks and balances inherent in the Constitution so that power cannot accumulate in any one person's hands. Thus, in the Congress they created a House of Representatives which represents the population, and a Senate, which was the Great Compromise in the Constitutional Convention of 1787--the Senate that represented each State equally with two Senators. In the rules that evolved from that body, the checks and balances arose to protect the minority. Let us look in the separation of powers, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. What was created, and created over time, was the value of an independent judiciary, a judiciary that was going to be appointed in a two-step process. A one-step process that the Constitutional Convention rejected was that the appointment be only by the President. The Constitutional Convention created a two-step process in which the President nominates and the Senate confirms or rejects. That is part of the checks and balances. I must say, as a senior Senator from Florida, I have been absolutely bewildered at statements I have heard on the floor of the Senate as well as I have heard from some of my colleagues when we have been interviewed on these news programs in which it is claimed we are rejecting all of these judges. Let me tell you what this Senator from Florida has done. Of the 215 nominations before the Senate, this Senator has voted for 206 of them. That means there are only 9 this Senator has not voted for. In other words, under the administration of President George W. Bush, I have voted for 206 of his 215 nominations. That is 96 percent I voted for. Does that sound as though this Senator is not approving all of the conservative judges? Every one of those judges who have come forth to us was a conservative judge. I have voted for 96 percent of them. I can tell you that the 9 I have not voted for--by the way, I voted for one a majority of my party voted against, and that was Miguel Estrada. But I had reasons, because I called him in and asked him if he would obey the law as a court of appeals judge. He said he would. I said that is good enough for me. But the remaining nine, I have plenty of reasons why I do not think they are entitled to a lifetime appointment as a Federal judge. That is my prerogative as a Senator, and it is also my prerogative as a Senator under the rules of the Senate to stand up and to speak as long as this Senator has breath in order to get that opinion across. I have been amazed to hear some of my colleagues say here on the Senate floor as well as in some of these television interviews that we have done--and sometimes done together--that utilizing the filibuster has never been used, they say, against a judge nominee. My goodness, all you have to do is look at history. In 1881, Stanley Matthews was nominated by President Hayes to be a Justice of the Supreme Court, and he was filibustered. In 1968, Abe Fortas was nominated by President Johnson to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and he was filibustered. Since the start of the George W. Bush administration in 2001, 11 judicial nominations have needed 60 votes for cloture in order to end a filibuster. That is before President Bush's term which started in 2001. How people can come with a straight face and say a filibuster has not been used on judicial appointments, I simply don't understand. It defies the historical record of the Senate. I think there are several principles that are very important as we consider this. It is my hope--and I have reached out to colleagues, dear personal friends who are friends regardless of party--that we can avoid this constitutional clash which should not be and changing the rules by breaking the rules. Remember, a filibuster is to help encourage compromise. We shouldn't be changing the rules in the middle of the game. The underlying principle I want our Senators to remember as we get into this debate-- hopefully it will be headed off by cooler minds. As the Good Book says, come now and let us reason together. Remember these principles. The Constitution stands for an independent judiciary. There are very necessary checks and balances in our form of government to keep the accumulation of power from any one agency, or executive branch, or person's hands. We should not be overruling the Parliamentarian. We must encourage compromise. To change the rules in the middle of the game is bordering on an abuse of power. Surely the Senate can rise above this partisan, highly ideological set of politics and come together for the sake of the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, am I correct that we are in morning business and it is appropriate to address the Senate in morning business?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, yesterday it live the nomination and confirmation process as envisioned by our Constitution with regard to two nominees. The Constitution, of course, provides that it is a two-step process: the President nominates and the Senate then confirms or rejects. In this case, there was quite a contrast between the two nominees. In one of my committees, the Foreign Relations Committee, we have a highly contentious, highly divisive debate raging over the nominee of the President, Mr. John Bolton, to be the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations. It is a very significant post representing the wishes of the American people, of the U.S. Government, to the world body, the United Nations. While at the same time those confirmation hearings were occurring in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, another one of my committees, the Commerce Committee, was considering the nomination of Dr. Michael Griffin to be administrator of NASA. Dr. Griffin's nomination is quite a contrast to Mr. Bolton's nomination, for it is embraced almost unanimously in a bipartisan way. The extraordinary support is shown even to the point that the chair of the Science and Space Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison of Texas, and I, the ranking member of that subcommittee, both requested that the chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, accelerate the confirmation process. So that Dr. Griffin could be confirmed by the committee and we could get his nomination to the floor of the Senate this week, putting him in place as the administrator next Monday. NASA desperately needs to have a strong leader in place, particularly as we recover from the disaster to Columbia. We are also going to launch an expected flight for recovery somewhere about the middle of May. That is the contrast between two nominees. I think one of the things that makes Dr. Griffin so attractive as the head of NASA is not only that he is literally a rocket scientist with six graduate degrees. Not only does he have exceptional experience in the Nation's space program, both the manned and unmanned programs, but he carries with him a demeanor that contains an element of humility, which will serve him well in the NASA family. NASA is a family. We have seen that borne out in the history of our space program in times of tragedy as we have had in the past. The NASA family comes together, and in times of triumph not only with the extraordinary space accomplishments we have had, but in times of extraordinary triumph where in fact it has been said that failure is not an option. The extraordinary success we had with Apollo 13 in which we thought we had three dead men on the way to the Moon when the Apollo module blew up, and how in real time people in a simulator back in Houston, people in mission control, the design engineers--all came together to figure out the fix. Since the main propulsion system had blown up, rapidly losing electricity, and how to design the circumstances which in a trajectory towards outer space they could get back home safely to Earth. And they did that. That is another illustration of how the NASA family works when it comes together. It wants a leader who has an appreciation of that family, who knows something about the business of that family, and who in fact can comport themselves with humility. Interestingly, this is a contrast to the other nomination being considered at the same time, on the very same day, in another one of my committees. This is a controversial nomination because of the alleged improprieties which stem not from a sense of humility but from a sense of entitlement, even bordering on arrogance in demanding one's way. Not one's personal beliefs and ideology--we can all debate those because those are differences of issues. But in this particular case, Mr. Bolton is alleged to have berated intelligence analysts and, according to the allegations from some former very high-ranking State Department officials, insisting that they be fired, dismissed, or transferred because their analysis of the intelligence differed with his. Contrast the personalities, the nominee to be NASA administrator and the nominee to be the U.S. Representative to the U.N., contrast of styles, contrast of attitudes, and contrast of capabilities. Thus, it leads to extraordinary differences in the nomination process. I wish all of the nominations were as Dr. Griffin in NASA, except for one hiccup that I think we are taking care of with the junior Senator from Virginia. It is my hope that today Chairman Stevens will call the committee, that we will vote Dr. Griffin out of the Commerce Committee and get his nomination to the floor. At least by tomorrow, so his name can be sent, confirmed, and the President can go ahead and swear him in. Information Data Brokers If that were not enough to engage one Senator from the State of Florida in activities, we also saw yesterday a day that started to bring out new revelations on a completely different subject. This time we found from the wire reports that the number of names which had been thought to have been missing or stolen from an information data broker, namely one located in my State, a company called Seisint in Boca Raton, FL, owned by LexisNexis. The company is owned by an international conglomerate located in France, which a month ago announced that 30,000 names were missing--that is 30,000 names and Social Security numbers, and who knows how much other sensitive information. These records are compiled in this company for many law enforcement agencies. We were told yesterday the number is now not 30,000, it is 10 times that; it is over 300,000. This is one of a series of five or six revelations in the last 2 months of information. Data brokers trade and sell this information about us--information that normally we would be so careful in seeing that it's secured and locked up or shredded so somebody can't get that information and go out and steal our identity. We now find these information brokers--in one case called ChoicePoint--have 12 billion records; they have records on virtually every American. We have seen over the last couple of months a series of these stories where the information is suddenly missing, or they found that somebody hoodwinked them and bought their information under false pretenses. It is now out in the public domain in somebody else's hands. Members of the Senate, if we don't do something about this, none of us in America will have any privacy left because our personal identities will be taken from us. I hope Senators have had an opportunity to experience what I have in talking with victims of identification theft. One of the biggest complaints, aside from the harassment and the financial losses, is they can't get their identity back. They do not know where to go. They go to their local law enforcement. We can't help you. They go to their State agencies. We can't help you. They go here, they go there, and they keep getting referred to somebody else, and all the while somebody else has their identity. Maybe they are put on the watch list, or the do-not-fly list, or suddenly they are getting dinged for $25,000 charges on a credit card, or their driver's license--such as the truck driver's license in Florida which gives the privilege of driving vehicles loaded with hazardous materials. Guess what that would do in the wrong hands. We find, if we don't do something, that none of us will have any privacy left. It used to be in the old days that we were careful to shred our records, or keep them locked up. Now we know all of this private, personal, and financial information is in the hands of information brokers who have it on computer--billions of bits of information. They are trading it and selling it and buying it. There is something we can do about it. I suggested one way a month ago when I offered a bill that has been referred to the Commerce Committee. Today, Senator Schumer of New York and I have taken a number of bills, including mine and his, and we have put them together into a comprehensive package. The bill is being referred to the Commerce Committee, and it is my hope we will get the Senate to start moving on this. As we speak, the Judiciary Committee is having a hearing on this very subject. It is my hope we will get some action so we can protect the personal identity of every American. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the business before us is the Dorgan amendment, which strikes $21 million from the President's budget and prevents the funds from being used for the broadcast of TV Marti. You can say I have a parochial interest in this, being the senior Senator from Florida, joining my colleague, Senator Martinez. Indeed, we do have a parochial interest because we have quite a few Cuban Americans who are citizens of our State. But the reason we should defeat this amendment goes far beyond parochial interests, or any interest of any particular group, for it strikes at what the heart of America stands for in our promotion of freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press--all of these freedoms that we are privileged to have, protected by our Constitution, which supposedly are protected under the Cuban Constitution, but have never been protected. This amendment sends the wrong message to the Cuban people at a time when change is in the wind, when in fact change is occurring on the island. This amendment would cut the entire budget for TV Marti. It would also prevent the Broadcast Board of Governors from purchasing a small aircraft that they will use to transmit the signals. The aircraft is equipped to broadcast both television and radio signals. Eliminating this funding would also limit the U.S. radio broadcast operations. Current broadcasting operations, including radio, are conducted from a Department of Defense EC-130 Commando Solo aircraft. It is based, interestingly, in Harrisburg, PA. It has to fly every Saturday all the way from Pennsylvania down to the Florida Keys for its mission. It makes a lot more sense for the Broadcasting Board of Governors to have a smaller aircraft that is located close to Cuba, being more economical and still having the same equipment. This station and this money shows our commitment to the Cuban people as they continue to suffer under a dictatorship that ignores human rights and imprisons political dissidents. We simply should not be turning our backs on Cubans at a time when the regime is beginning to crack and a fledgling civil society is emerging. Look, for example, at what has happened in the last couple of years. The Senate has heard me speak many times on the floor about this very brave Cuban named Oswaldo Paya and the Varela Project; where Cuban citizens put their name on a petition to the Government. Interestingly, this is under a process of the Cuban Constitution that said if you get 10,000 signatures--and they got well over that--that automatically an issue goes to the Government. The petition calls for freedom of expression, freedom of association, free enterprise, electoral reform, and also calls for elections within 1 year. Have those brave Cubans who stood up suffered reprisals and intimidation by the Cuban security forces? You bet they have, and some of them went to jail. And only because the international community raised Cain were some of the dissidents released when, in fact, others are still in jail. But they were brave, and they went ahead and signed that petition that was generated by Oswaldo Paya. This type of dissident action is supported and promoted through TV Marti. Some say all of these signals have been jammed. They have been jammed because they were either being transmitted from a stationary tower or they were being jammed when they tried to start transmitting from a satellite in the eastern Atlantic. This new airplane has only been flying since the fall of last year. We have to give it a chance to see if the signals are getting through. Now we will do it more economically with the smaller aircraft. I will give another example of what is happening on the island in addition to the Varela Project. There are others in Cuba who are coming together to create civil society groups advocating for basic human rights and changes in the Cuban Government's structure. On May 20, next month, these groups will come together for the first time ever in Havana for a historic meeting to openly discuss and debate the future of the island and a transition after the future death of Castro. TV Marti has produced a series of TV programs, including a 10-part series in which experts discuss a possible transition to democracy. That needs to be out there to be received by the Cuban people. These are just some of the historic changes that are occurring on the island. These are the reasons that, maintaining our commitment to the freedom-loving Cuban people, we need to continue to broadcast TV Marti to Cuba. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Senators, we need your help. Senadores, necesitamos su ayuda. I yield to my colleague from Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I say to my colleague from Florida, the proof is in the pudding. Absolutely, the Castro Government for years has continued to try to jam broadcasts, and the fact is that we know the broadcasts of Radio Marti get through to the island. Broadcasting by this airplane is a new means by which we can get the transmission of TV Marti into the island. This clearly is what America stands for. I am going to close. I see the chairman of our Foreign Relations Committee wanting to be recognized. I say to Chairman Lugar, when I was 17 years old, I was taken, representing the youth of America, to Germany to broadcast over Radio Free Europe behind the Iron Curtain on a broadcast that years later we found out, much beyond my little broadcast, had a profound effect in bringing information to people who were enslaved behind the Iron Curtain. That was effective. I think this is going to be effective in Cuba behind that iron curtain that enslaves those people on the island of Cuba. Therefore, it is my hope, my prayer, that we will continue this effort, particularly where there are the beginning signs of liberty striking out all over the island. I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the esteemed Senator from Indiana, for the opportunity to speak on this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I pay tribute to Pope John Paul II, not only as a leader of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics, but also someone who was a moral leader in our troubled world. I was privileged to have met this Pope twice in my life while representing the people of Florida. I will always remember his devotion to faith, his intellect and his charm but, mostly, I will remember his overwhelming humility. I was struck by how a man in a position of such awesome power could be so humble. And I believe people around the world saw this, too, which is why millions came to see and hear him during his visits to 129 different countries. His words of freedom and peace penetrated the human heart. John Paul II was also a man of great courage, who learned firsthand the suffering of the Polish people he later would come to serve. As a young man, he performed forced labor at the hands of the Nazis but challenged their rule. As the archbishop of Krakow, he defied communist rulers, telling his countrymen no one could take faith and hope from their hearts. He used his 26-year papacy to spread the message of freedom and peace to all corners of the world, and did so with vigor. His international trips always served a higher purpose, for he always sought to bring people together as equals in God's eyes. At one large gathering of youth, the faithful chanted, ``We love you; we love you.'' When they quieted, the Pope humbly responded, ``I love you more.'' He also inspired open communication among the world's faiths, as the first Pope to enter the main Jewish synagogue in Rome and the first to enter a mosque. When he was selected to be the church's 264th Pope, his first words to the public were: ``Be not afraid.'' Indeed, Pope John Paul II taught people around the world they need not fear those who try to oppress, nor fear those who might be different. As the world mourns his passing, we all should try to heed his words.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary procedure we are in at the moment?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to inform the Senate I am introducing a bill today that I will offer as an amendment to the supplemental funding bill for defense which is supposed to come out of the Appropriations Committee this week and will be coming then more than likely to the floor next week. This supplemental appropriations bill is a must-pass bill because it contains the funding for additional expenses on the war in Iraq. As such, it becomes a vehicle through which I can try to attach an amendment that would have a significant policy effect upon our defense posture. It is no secret that a number of us have joined in opposing the Pentagon's plans to scrap one of our 12 aircraft carriers. The aircraft carrier they have selected is the John F. Kennedy, which is home ported at Mayport Naval Station, which is in Jacksonville, FL. Naturally, I speak for the interests of Jacksonville and the State of Florida, but I speak with a much larger vision about the defense interests of our country. For example, if the Pentagon, which I think has made a wrongheaded decision on budgetary reasons--they think it is going to save them a billion dollars when in fact it is not, but even so, if that were true, in the middle of a war is not the time for us to be reducing our ability to protect our forces around the world with these floating air fields that we call aircraft carriers. And we only have 12. The Pentagon is proposing to scrap one of the 12. There is another reason. As a result of the announcement that was made by the Navy this past Friday night after business hours, the Navy is going through with the plans on the Kennedy by scrapping the plans for rehabbing it in dry dock. It is not a surprise, but it is a confirmation that it is the John F. Kennedy they are planning to axe. The significance of this from a defense posture is that it leaves all of our remaining carriers in the Atlantic fleet home ported in one port--Norfolk, VA. The significance of that is in testimony in our Senate Armed Services Committee, over and over, four star admirals have come in front of us and said: Don't keep all of your carrier assets in one place. Spread them out. It is no secret that when a terrorist is looking to do some damage of closing up a port, particularly a port that is upriver such as Norfolk, with some one or several carriers that could be in port, just sinking debris in the channel could close up the port. That is not the defense posture we want. So there is no one who is in the uniformed military who thinks you should not spread your assets. As a matter of fact, on the west coast, on the Pacific fleet, we have three ports for aircraft carriers. The response is: If you are going to scrap the Kennedy, which is a conventional carrier, powered by oil, why not then take one of the nuclear carriers and put it down at Mayport Naval Station and you have achieved the same thing? That would be good, but it is going to take, according to testimony in the Armed Services Committee, a minimum of 5 to 7 years before that could happen because of the environmental impact statement that first has to be done and then, secondly, the reconfiguring of the docks and the other facilities to be able to handle a nuclear-powered carrier. The result of this is that for 5 to 7 years you do not have another home port for a nuclear carrier on the east coast of the United States, and all of them are home-ported in one place. That is not the defense posture the United States should be in. It is another thing to talk about the parochial interests, which I represent, of Jacksonville and Florida. That is certainly an economic hit because Jacksonville, even if they get a nuclear carrier--and by the way, 5 to 7 years down the road it is another administration and another Congress to make those decisions--but in the meantime, Jacksonville doesn't have a carrier for 5 to 7 years, with the economic hit that takes place and the Nation doesn't have its carrier assets spread on the Atlantic coast of this country. That is not a position we should have. I am going to offer a compromise, since it seems that the Pentagon is absolutely intent on scrapping--they call it mothballing--this carrier. The compromise I am suggesting, and I talked to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just moments ago, is since the Navy and the Pentagon have decided they are not going to rehab the John F. Kennedy in a dry dock and save that expense, but the Kennedy can remain operational for the next 3 to 4 to 5 years without being rehabbed in dry dock, let us keep our assets dispersed on the east coast until these decisions are made and the facilities are changed so we can spread our nuclear carrier assets. That does another thing for the defense policy of this country. There is a question coming up in 2008, when the conventionally powered aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk is scheduled to be decommissioned. She is now home-ported in Japan because Japan, the Japanese Government, has had a policy of not accepting a nuclear carrier. What happens if by 2008 the Japanese Government does not change the policy and will not receive a nuclear carrier? Then we ought to have the John F. Kennedy kept alive in an operational status where it can fill that role and, over the course of the next 3 years coming up to 2008--and we are in 2005 right now--we will know the status. From the standpoint of defense policy, No. 1, of spreading our carrier assets, the compromise I am offering makes sense. No. 2, from the standpoint of being able to respond quickly if we needed another conventionally powered carrier in Japan, we would have a backup conventional carrier in 2008 if the Japanese Government would not receive a nuclear carrier. And, No. 3, it would not disrupt the lives of all those Jacksonville families by suddenly abolishing one of our carriers and all of the 5,000 sailors and their families and perhaps other ships in the carrier battle group that would go away. It seems to me it is the prudent defense policy thing to do. I know if I offer this, if it is not being considered in the Pentagon, that I am swimming upstream. But I think it is worth the fight, not only as a Senator representing Florida but as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; it is a matter of protection, of the defense interests of this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this bill we are considering is a good-faith, bipartisan effort to allow a Federal court in my State to review this case. One of the improvements of this legislation was that it changed the original draft directing a Federal court how it should issue injunctive relief because constitutionally we cannot direct a Federal court, even in law. I support this bill so that this case can be reviewed and decided in a timely manner. And, indeed, it underscores the need for us to promote living wills so that a person's wants and desires will be carried out when they are in an incapacitated condition.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is a sense of the Senate on the same subject and I don't see how anybody can disagree with it. It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt, and a failure to act by 2042 would result in deep benefit cuts; therefore Congress should take action . . . This does not say wait until 2042. It says ``a failure to act by 2042 would result in deep benefit cuts'' which is exactly what the Social Security Administration and CBO have told us; that if we do not act by 2042 they are going to pay only 73 cents on the dollar. CBO says that date is 10 years later, 2052. Out of an abundance of caution, I have stated the earlier date.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. If it is a unanimous consent request, I yield.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President----

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is a pleasure to always accommodate the leadership of the committee. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the leadership of the committee. Perhaps we might come to a resolution over the amendment I have just offered because this amendment speaks truth. Let's go back to where I was in the explanation. We are going to have benefit cuts certainly by virtue of the change in the formula. All of the Social Security actuaries will tell you if you change the index from increases in wages to prices, for a young worker today, by the time they retire, their Social Security benefits are going to be cut almost in half. Second, if you are taking all of that Social Security tax revenue out of the Social Security trust fund, since the trust fund is a pay-as-you-go kind of trust fund, you have to fill that hole with something. That means you are going to have to borrow additional money to pour into the Social Security trust fund to fill the hole. The Social Security actuaries have estimated that is $4.9 trillion over 20 years. Members of the Senate, right now the publicly held national debt of the entire country is $4.3 trillion. We are talking about a system, a scheme, a proposal, that is going to more than double the publicly held national debt over the next two decades if adopted. It is most appropriate that we start this discussion of the budget resolution because the budget resolution is a lot about borrowing. It is a lot about massive deficit financing. And now the administration has a proposal that would add massive additional borrowing to the present national debt. When I came to the Congress in 1978 and was put on the Budget Committee as a freshman in the House of Representatives, back then we used to call it fiscal conservatism when someone would want to balance the budget, when someone would want to get the revenues and the outflow or expenditures in sync. What we had 3 years ago was more revenues coming in each year than we had in expenditures, and the difference was a surplus. But 3\1/2\ years later this is where we are: Massive spending and less revenue. The deficit in this next fiscal year--you can take your choice, since this budget has now become a political document instead of an economic document, whether you think it is going to be $390 billion, which does not account for all of the realities of the additional spending as well as additional tax cuts, if enacted, or it is going to be more like $434 billion of deficit spending. That is a concern. Every time we talk about the budget--as a matter of fact, my maiden speech on the floor of this Senate--and I waited appropriately for about a month before I made a speech back in 2001--my maiden speech was about the budget and wanting to have a fiscally conservative budget. But we have gone the other way since January of 2001. So we talk a lot about the annual deficit and adding to the national debt, and now it has gone haywire. It is out of control. Now we have a proposal with regard to Social Security, not even to speak of the merits that you already heard in the discussion here, a proposal that is going to add massively to the debt of the United States. This is not the fiscally conservative nor prudent way to approach a budget. So I have offered a sense of the Senate: It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt, and a failure to act by 2042 would result in deep benefit cuts; therefore Congress should take action to address Social Security solvency. Now, why 2042? I could have used the year 2052 because the Congressional Budget Office has said it is the year--2052--when Social Security will have to cut its benefits down to something like 73 cents on the dollar. But the Social Security trustees say that date is 2042. That is 37 years from now. Why is that important? It is important to give us a marker at the point at which Social Security cannot pay 100 percent of the benefits. This is quite in contrast to what we faced when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. For there, in 1983, Social Security was about to run out of funds within 6 months, not in 37 years, not in 47 years. It was about to run out within 6 months. And do you know how we solved it then? A Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and a Democratic Speaker, Tip O'Neill, got together and they said: We are going to solve it. We are going to solve it in a bipartisan fashion. We are not going to play ``gotcha'' politics. We are going to create a bipartisan commission. As a result of that commission, we are going to go out and give support in a bipartisan way. We are not going to use the results of that against anyone in the next election. That was one of the finest hours in a success story of the Government of the United States, when within 6 months of Social Security being in trouble, running out of money, in 1983, as a result of that agreement, Social Security was made solvent all the way to the middle of this century--pick your date, 2042 or 2052, depending on whether you believe CBO or the Social Security trustees. So that is why we put in this sense of the Senate the date 2042. And then we say something that we all acknowledge, that, indeed, Social Security does have a solvency problem. We state the outside of when those deep benefit cuts would occur. According to the Social Security trustees, those benefit cuts would be 27 cents on the dollar 37 years from now. But then we say Congress should do something about it and not wait until then. We say Congress should take action to address the Social Security solvency. Now, I do not know how much more straightforward we can make it. When I would go into those townhall meetings--and people had read a lot about this in the papers, and they had heard a lot about it on the news--and I would explain to them what I have just explained, in some cases people were aghast. I think in the morning papers we see chronicled on the front pages the new results of additional feelings of the American mood about this. People have been very much helped by Social Security, and they do not want to see benefit cuts. In the 70-plus years that this system has been in existence, it has not been an investment program. It has been a social safety net program. Indeed, in 1950, 40 percent of our senior citizens in this country--over a half a century ago--40 percent of them were living in poverty. Today, only 10 percent of senior citizens are living in poverty. A major reason for that improvement in the condition of senior citizens is the fact that they have something to fall back on; that is, they are guaranteed Social Security benefits. In an ideal world, if you are a retiree, what would you like to have? You would like to have one-third of your total income, as a retiree, to be on your pension plan. You would like another third of your income to be from your savings. The remaining third you would like from Social Security. But what happens if you were an employee of WorldCom, as some of our Floridians were, or an employee of Enron, as some of our Floridians were, or an employee of Eastern Airlines, as some of our Floridians were? They do not have a pension. And what meager savings they had are now eaten up. The sad truth is that too many senior citizens in this country today, in the year 2005 in fact, are subsisting, existing on their Social Security benefits. Now, we have to stand up and stand right by our seniors. So that is why I offer a commonsense sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would be happy to yield to the Senator, but I have been waiting for the last hour and a half and this Senator wants to speak his mind. Then I will be happy to engage with the Senator.

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

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, let me read the amendment to everyone because we have just changed the amendment that had been printed that I intended to offer. I have added some additional language. It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt, and a failure to act by 2042 would result in deep benefit cuts; therefore Congress should take action to address Social Security solvency. That is the amendment offered as a sense of the Senate. We have heard a lot of debate on Social Security. As a result of having 10 town hall meetings in my State over the last recess, the people of Florida heard what the administration's proposal was, to take up to 4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax against an employee's wages and instead of allowing all of that 12.4 percent tax to pour into the Social Security trust fund, to allow up to one-third of it to go outside of the Social Security trust fund in the so-called privatized accounts, with the result, combined with the change in the formula as proposed by the White House that future Social Security benefits would be calculated increases each year not according to what has been the case since the beginning of Social Security, according to the index on wages, but instead targeted to a lower index, on prices. So the combination of taking a third of the Social Security tax out of the Social Security trust fund plus a changing of the payment formula was going to cause cuts in benefits, with massive borrowing to fill the hole. Why cuts in benefits?