Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, there are many reasons to vote against the tax bill. A new one has come to light in examining these 1,100 pages, and that is with regard to Puerto Rico and what it does to Puerto Rico. It ought to be enough that $1.5 trillion is borrowed in order to finance a huge tax cut for multinational corporations, with incentives to send American jobs overseas. That ought to be enough, and it ought to be enough that compared to that, there are just crumbs for the hard- working, middle-class families, but there is more. In this tax bill, indeed, CBO has said that 13 million people will lose health insurance as a result of something that was done to the Affordable Care Act. Now, if all of that were not enough, and if you care about the people on the island of Puerto Rico who are reeling from two storms that hit them--a good part of the island still doesn't have electricity and still does not have potable water--and who were already in economic straits to begin with and wanting to keep jobs on the island so people don't have to flee--lo and behold, in the tax bill, what is given to American mainlanders is an increase in the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child and making that refundable for low-income people up to $1,400 per child--that increase to help poor, working families with children was not given to Puerto Rico. That doesn't make sense, and it is just another reason why we should vote against the tax bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, does the Senator from Maine need some more time?

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, while the Senator from Maine is still here, let me just say what a great Senator she is and what a pleasure it is to do business in a bipartisan way, as the two of us have now done for several years here in the Senate, including the legislation the Senator from Maine just talked about. I just want to say to the Senator from Maine that it is my hope, regarding the statements that have been made to the Senator, that these two pieces of legislation she referenced will be passed. I do believe the majority leader, Senator McConnell, will honor that with regard to the Senate. It is this Senator's concern that at the other end of the hall, in the House of Representatives, they may not honor that. I certainly hope the Senator feels like she has the statements of commitment by the leadership in the House of Representatives that they will do as Senator McConnell has indicated. Madam President, I wish to talk about the tax bill. Needless to say, you are going to hear a different version from me than my good friend and the very distinguished Senator from Maine, because last Friday night we got the conference agreement on the tax bill. You can wonder why it was held until late Friday night, when nobody was paying attention to the details of the bill. What is becoming increasingly clear is that this tax bill is not for ordinary folks. It is going to give a few nuggets to the middle class, but that is to mask the true intent. The real purpose of the bill is to give huge tax cuts to multinational corporations and to make it easier for them to shift jobs overseas. That is the bottom line. Right now, under current law, corporations that send jobs overseas have to pay taxes on the money they bring back into the United States, but now, what this new GOP tax bill says is that corporations that send jobs overseas can bring that money back to United States tax-free. Once this bill passes, companies will come under increasing pressure to take advantage of the tax savings in the bill by sending their jobs overseas to low-wage countries--particularly those jobs that can't already be automated. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Instead of passing this version of the tax bill that will inevitably send American jobs overseas, we should be working on a bill that cuts taxes permanently for hard-working middle-class families. Supporters of the bill will argue that a lower corporate rate will encourage companies to keep jobs here. They will argue that, rather than going to a country with a higher corporate rate, America's corporate rate will be lower. But that is ignoring the attraction that companies have to send jobs overseas, because of cheaper wages and lower environmental standards. Take China. China has a corporate rate of 25 percent, except that they make exceptions for certain companies at 15 percent. So the 21 percent in this tax bill for corporations on income earned in the United States may still be higher than in China, and the pressure on corporations is to take it to a country that has lower environmental standards and lower wages. I think our friends on the other side of the aisle know this is a head fake. We are not fooled by this. We know what you are trying to do with this bill. The more people learn about it, the worse it looks. That is why they waited until Friday night to let the spotlight shine on it--so that over the weekend people weren't paying a lot of attention. There is a reason why my friends on the other side of the aisle are in such a rush to get this passed. It is because they want to get it enacted before all of the new loopholes and sweetheart deals for the special interests and the bottom line of encouraging jobs to go overseas are discovered. And, starting right now, it is going to be discovered. It would be nice if our colleagues showed as much urgency for some of the other things we should be doing in the Senate, such as providing millions of kids with health insurance through the CHIP program or helping folks recover from the massive hurricanes this year, including the millions of people in Puerto Rico who are still without reliable electricity or drinking water. What about the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers in the United States who are here in a deportable status? That is what we ought to be worrying about. It has been over 3 months, going on 4 months, since Hurricanes Irma and Maria devastated the Puerto Rican island. It has been months since Harvey and Irma devastated farmers in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. While the Congress has passed two disaster supplemental funding packages, neither of them has included any relief for Florida's agricultural community. They are hanging on by a thread. They can hardly make payroll. They are having to lay off people. They desperately need our help, which I hope we are going to address in this next disaster aid funding package. Instead of spending all of our energy on cutting corporate taxes and making it easier to send American jobs overseas, we should be focused on reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, so that 9 million children across the country, including nearly 400,000 in Florida, can continue to have access to the health coverage they desperately need. Or we should be negotiating permanent protections for the Dreamers before they are kicked out of the only country they have ever known. Unfortunately, the only thing this Republican-led Senate seems to care about is helping out large multinational corporations. The truth is, these multinational corporations are doing just fine. We shouldn't be moving Heaven and Earth--adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt or upending our Nation's healthcare system--just to make it easier for them to send American jobs overseas. That is not right. That is not fair. The American people deserve better. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, Senator Durbin has been leading a group of us talking about DACA, or the Dreamers. I wish to tell the Senate two stories. I wish to tell you about Elisha Dawkins. He was a baby who was brought from the Bahamas at age 6 months. He grew up in America. He grew up in Jacksonville, FL. He never knew anything about his roots. He only knew that he was in America. He served two tours in Iraq. He came back and joined the Navy Reserve. He had a top secret clearance and was sent to the very sensitive post of Guantanamo, where he was given a job as a photographer--obviously, a very sensitive position. Through an application for a passport and checking on the background of the passport, it came to be learned that he had come to America as an infant, and for what reason--for the life of me, it has not been explained--he was arrested and thrown in jail by a U.S. attorney. Once this case came to the light of day and some of us started speaking out about it, a Federal district judge took it in her hands to lecture the U.S. attorney, and only because of that, Elisha Dawkins was released from jail. As a result, we then started getting into it, and Elisha Dawkins was finally given his citizenship, and he is now serving in his native Jacksonville. He is a nurse. Here is an individual who had served two tours in Iraq and was in a top secret clearance in the service to the Navy Reserve in Guantanamo. This just shouldn't happen. Individuals in good faith have gone about carrying on--some not even knowing; and Elisha certainly didn't know of his undocumented status--but now we have many others. These individuals, in good faith, have divulged personal information to the Department of Homeland Security, which could eventually deport them, and that is why it is critical that we pass the Dream Act as soon as possible. I have heard from DACA recipients from all around the country, but especially I have heard from a lot of the 30,000 who are in the State of Florida. I have heard from DACA recipients who are valedictorians, medical students, even priests. Many are the primary breadwinners for their families. Senator Durbin has already highlighted some of my constituents over the years, including Cristina Velasquez, a graduate of Miami Dade community college who will soon graduate from Georgetown University and fulfill her dream of becoming a teacher for Teach For America. Cristina came to America at age 6 from Venezuela, a country whose problems Senator Durbin and I, but also the Presiding Officer today, have consistently been concerned about--the plight of Venezuela. If we fail to pass the Dream Act, are we saying that we are going to send Cristina back to the Maduro dictatorship in Venezuela, a dictatorship that can't even provide the basic staples for its citizens? Are we going to allow this young lady--who grew up thinking she was an American, now graduating from Georgetown--to channel her skills and her passion toward bettering our communities in need as a teacher? It doesn't make any sense to deport these kids. The contributions that Dreamers have made are countless, and Cristina and Elisha are just two examples. These Dreamers will continue to better our communities if only we will pass the legislation that Senator Durbin is sponsoring and many of us are cosponsoring. Rhetorically--this was going to be a time of question and answers, but Senator Durbin allowed me to kick off this session, and I see that we have many other Senators to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

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

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, there are all kinds of reports swirling around Washington, and we are hearing from those reports that the Trump administration is about to give a huge, early Christmas present to the oil industry. The reports are, the Department of the Interior is preparing to unveil a new 5-year plan for offshore oil and gas drilling--one that would open up the entire Atlantic coast of the United States to drilling. This new 5-year plan, which would go into effect in 2019, would replace the current 5-year plan that was finalized just last year and doesn't expire until 2022. Why is the Department of the Interior in such a rush to waste taxpayers' money to write a new one? The answer is, the oil industry wants to start drilling in these areas now, and the Trump administration is going to let them do it. While it hasn't been released yet, we are hearing that the administration's new plan will open up the entire Atlantic coast to offshore drilling--from Maine to as far south as Cape Canaveral. Let me show you why that is a problem. This is the east coast of the United States. This is Maine. This is Florida. This is Cape Canaveral. This is Fort Pierce, FL. Look what happens on the Atlantic coast off the eastern continental United States. These are all military testing areas. Every one of these hatched areas--every one of these blocks--is of a place that has limited access because of military testing. Take, for example, all of this area off the east coast of Florida. There is a place called the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. There is a place called the Kennedy Space Center. We are launching commercial and military rockets, and within another year and a half, we will be launching American rockets with American astronauts that will go, just like the space shuttle before them, to and from the International Space Station and will carry crews as well as the cargo they already carry. When you are launching to the International Space Station or, in 2 years, when we launch the largest rocket ever from the Kennedy Space Center--the forerunner to the Mars Program, taking humans to Mars, or in the case of the new Mars rocket, called the SLS, the Space Launch System--where do you think it will drop its solid rocket boosters? It will drop them precisely out here, which is exactly why you cannot have oil rigs out here. All of the commercial rockets that come out of Cape Canaveral right now put up a host of communications satellites; that is, a constellation of satellites. How do you think we get our pinpoint GPS here on Earth? Many of those rockets are coming right out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and, increasingly, there is commercial activity at the Kennedy Space Center, which is collocated with the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. What about all of those scientific satellites that are out there that give us precise measurements on what is happening to the climate so when we then track hurricanes, we know precisely and have such great success in predicting the path and the voracity of a hurricane? All of those rockets are coming out of Cape Canaveral. They have first stages, and when the first stages burn up, they have to fall someplace. You cannot have oil and gas production out here. It would be the same off of Norfolk, VA. They also have a launching point there for NASA--Wallops Island. Yet, in the Norfolk area, all of the military does its training out in the Atlantic, and you are going to have a whole disruption. Take, for example, all of the military assets--spy satellites--that go into orbit and are rocketed out of Cape Canaveral. Those first stages, when burned up, have to fall. That is why we have a location like the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It launches from west to east in order to get that extra boost of the Earth's rotation and, therefore, needs less fuel to get into orbit. This is a prime location. You cannot put oil and gas out here. You cannot have oil rigs off of Cape Canaveral, where all of these military, NASA, and commercial rockets are going, as well as governmental payloads that are not military. We have heard the loud opposition from the Department of Defense, the chambers of commerce, fishermen, and coastal communities all along the Atlantic that have weighed in against the administration's plan to allow drilling off their coasts. We thought we had put this puppy to bed last year when the Obama administration backed off its plans to have these drilling areas. They backed off because of the opposition. They also backed off when it came to Florida. Why? Florida has more beaches than any other State. We don't have as much coastline. Alaska has the greatest coastline, but the last time I checked, Alaska didn't have a lot of beaches. The one that is blessed with the beautiful beaches is Florida. When it comes to beaches, that means people want to go to the beach, and that means there is a significant tourism-driven economy there. We learned what happened with just the threat of there being oil on the beach. Remember the Deepwater Horizon oil explosion off of Louisiana? Let me show you so you don't get confused with all of these colors. In essence, all of this yellow over on the other side of Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico, means this area is off-limits. It is in law, and it is a good thing because when the Deepwater Horizon spilled off of Louisiana, the winds shifted, and that oil started drifting to the east. It got as far as Pensacola Beach, and it completely blackened the white, sugary sands. That photograph went all over the world. Pensacola Beach was covered up in oil, and the winds kept carrying it forward. Some of it got into Choctawhatchee Bay and the sands of Destin, and some of the tar balls went as far east as the Panama City Beach. Then the winds shifted and carried it back, and that was the extent of the oil on the beach. For 1 solid year--a tourist year--the tourists did not come to the west coast of Florida because they had seen the pictures of what had happened to Pensacola Beach, all of the way down the west coast--the Tampa Bay area, Sarasota, the Fort Myers area, Naples, Marco Island. The tourists did not come. Now let's go back to the Atlantic. When you start to do this, you are now threatening the lifeblood of Florida's economy, its tourism-driven economy. It is not only a threat to the environment, but it is a threat to the multibillion-dollar, tourism-driven economy. In 2010, we lost an entire season, as the tourists did not come to the west coast of Florida. That is why, when I gave the list of all of those entities, including the U.S. Department of Defense, they don't want it. It is because of the military areas. I also mentioned the chambers of commerce. They have awakened to the fact that oil on beaches is a killer of our economy. When this plan is announced later today, probably, it will not be unusual to see local governments spring into action, like the Broward County Board of Commissioners, which has already sent letters that oppose drilling off of Florida's coast. Floridians understand this issue. That is why, in the past, we have had such bipartisan agreement all over Florida--Republicans and Democrats alike--to keep drilling off of our coast, but if Big Oil gets its way, every inch of the Continental Shelf is going to be drilled. We saw what happened less than a decade ago. The scientists would say we are still uncovering, for example, the full extent of that BP oilspill and its damage. I urge our colleagues to take up the bill that was filed earlier this year by this Senator, Senator Markey, and others that would block an attempt by the administration to open up our coast to oil drilling. The stakes are extremely high for the economy of our States all along the eastern coast. Georgia has a substantial tourism-driven economy. You know South Carolina has Myrtle Beach. What about North Carolina? What about Virginia's tourism-driven economy and especially with all of the military concentration there? You can go right on up the coast. The stakes are exceptionally high. We simply can't risk it. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, we are just about to enter the holiday season. The traffic is already picking up. We could call it the great holiday migration that is going to be underway. Millions of people will be traveling to see their loved ones--their families, their friends-- and they will be visiting by airplane. They are going to get a big surprise when they head to the airline ticket counter or try to check in online and face a blizzard of what the airlines call ancillary fees. For years, many of us on the Commerce Committee have been pushing the Department of Transportation to adopt rules that would require a standardized disclosure statement for common airline fees, such as bag fees, change and cancellation fees, and priority boarding and seating fees. Comparing this to when one applies for a credit card, there is a box on the back of the application that shows the annual fee of the credit card, the interest rate, and any other fees. Consumers have this so they can compare adequate data to adequate data. We like to call it comparing apples to apples. Therefore, the consumer can know what it is they are looking for and choose the credit card they want. So it is a commonsense solution in the airline business that you would want to do for consumers, to make sense of all those different fees on an airline ticket. Well, there was some progress on this earlier in the year when the Department of Transportation proposed a rule to require airlines to disclose bag fees to consumers when they purchased a ticket. Last week, however, the White House directed the Department of Transportation--the administration did this for all of those airline holiday travelers. They put a big lump of coal in their Christmas stockings when they abruptly canceled the proposed rule of the Department of Transportation that you were going to know what those fees were upfront when you purchased the ticket, along with another rule that would have required airlines to tell the public how much money the airline is charging for all the other ancillary fees. Those proposed rules were withdrawn. Well, that is just not in the interest of the traveling public. That is not in the interest of consumers, and it should not be any skin off the airlines' back to just show what the fees are upfront so the consumer understands that. Indeed, a new revenue source for the airlines is to have these additional charges. That is not what this Senator is arguing with, as long as those fees are properly and clearly disclosed. Let me give you another example. Last year, on the FAA bill we passed into law, it required the Department of Transportation to implement two basic rules to protect airline customers--two very simple rules. The first was, if you have checked a bag and you have paid the airline a certain amount of money to check that bag, what happens if your bag doesn't arrive or if it is delayed beyond a certain number of hours? Shouldn't the airline, at least, refund that fee you paid for that bag to be delivered in a timely fashion? Well, it is a pretty simple concept. If you pay $50 for a checked bag, you expect it to arrive with you, and if it doesn't, you should get an automatic refund. That is common sense, but the Department of Transportation hasn't done anything on that, and it is in the law. It is in the law we passed last year. I will give you another example. The second requirement we put in last year's FAA bill is that airlines, when they seat children 13 or under, put them adjacent to a parent or an older sibling traveling with them. So the Department of Transportation, earlier in the year, designed a rule to ensure that parents would not have to fork over money for a preferred seat just to be able to sit next to their child. The Department of Transportation was supposed to have finalized both of these rules by July of this year, but to date they have done nothing. Consumers traveling during the holidays are going to have the experience, if your bag doesn't show, since the rule hasn't been put in place by the Department of Transportation, even though it is the law that was passed last year--what is going to happen? Passengers with delayed bags will be losing out on the money they paid to check their bag, even if it doesn't get to them in a timely fashion. What is going to happen to the parent with the underaged child? They are going to be boarding planes wondering if they will be able to beg someone to give up their seat just to sit next to their child, even though that may be a preferred seat; in other words, a seat that costs more money. Just about everyone else will be left playing airline fee roulette, not knowing what the new fee is that they are going to have to pay just to get the basic service. It is so common sense, why do we have to fight about this? We are not arguing that the airline doesn't have the right to charge the fee; we just want it disclosed to the person who is purchasing that ticket. It doesn't have to be the way it is now because consumers should have a right to know ahead of time what they are paying, and then they can compare options. When an airline charges a fee for a service, if they failed to deliver that service, passengers ought to get their money back. This is called basic fairness, but that is not what we are seeing out there. I urge the leadership of the Department of Transportation--Secretary Chao and her staff--to go ahead and implement those two regulations that emanate from the law we passed and to do it quickly. I urge the Department of Transportation to treat airline passengers like they ought to be treated, which is as valued customers during this holiday season, as in every season. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON

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

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, the matter that is before the Senate is the motion I have offered. It simply is, in this tax bill, the corporate rate is reduced from 35 percent down to 20 percent, and that is permanent, but the modest, middle-class tax breaks are not permanent, and in 7 or 8 years they cease to exist. They sunset. So, in this tax bill, you want to give permanent, huge corporate cuts, from 35 down to 20. By the way, if the American corporation is doing business overseas, it is basically a zero tax rate, which is an incentive to go overseas, send jobs overseas. American jobs are lost while giving those huge corporate breaks at the same time it is giving modest breaks to the very people who need the tax cuts; that is, hard-working American families, the middle class. Then, oh, by the way, in 7 or 8 years, vamoose, it is gone, no tax break. It goes back up. It is a tax increase. That is simply not fair. So this little motion simply says go back to the Finance Committee and correct this inequity. Go back to the Finance Committee, make the middle-class tax cuts permanent, and then get the Finance Committee to offset those with revenue from someplace. Do you know where that someplace should be? It ought to be the huge corporate tax cuts. That is where the revenue ought to be taken back from to give that revenue or tax cuts to the middle class. It is a simple issue of fairness. I am delighted to be joined by my colleague from Minnesota. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, we yield back all time as well.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, this is, in effect, a massive transfer of wealth under the guise of tax reform and under repeating the statement: It will help the middle class. You can repeat a statement, but that doesn't mean it is true. You have to look at what the facts are. I think you have heard a number of the speeches that will refute this-- that it is not middle-class tax relief. It certainly isn't when a lot of those so-called tax cuts for the middle class will evaporate; they will cease to exist after 7 or 8 years. Let's take another part of this tax bill, the child tax credit. We are going to have a couple of amendments out of here on the floor tonight. We are going to have one that is going to increase the tax credit substantially, like $3,000 per child. When you compare that to the current existing Republican bill, they have a tax credit that, in fact, if you have more than three children, if you have a large family, you are going to be penalized. That is what the facts are. Let's see how the votes come later this evening on two amendments. One is a Democratic amendment, and one is a Republican amendment. As to the child tax credit, let's see what the majority of our friends who are trying to ram this through in the dead of night do. Let's see what happens, because, clearly, their tax bill does not do enough. This Senator has long supported increasing the child tax credit, including cosponsoring Senator Brown's amendment to increase the credit and make it easier for those who are in a low-income situation to claim that credit. I am going to continue to support increases for this tax credit for the middle class, as long as it is done in a fiscally responsible and thoughtful way. It doesn't make any difference who is proposing it. Let's see how the votes come out here on these two amendments. Unfortunately, the bill that is before us does it backward because it actually increases those who have a number of children. We should be doing the opposite. I hope that we will find a way to drastically change this bill. Instead of limiting the child tax credit, let's go in and make the corporate income tax not at 20 percent but at 22 percent or 25 percent in order to fund the child tax credit to help those on the bottom line of the economic ladder. We should be coming together in a bipartisan manner to flip the priorities in this bill and to significantly increase the child tax credit. Obviously, that is what the American people want, but that is not the bill of goods that you are getting sold here tonight. By saying something is something, that doesn't make it so. It is what the facts are. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I intend to call up my motion to commit the bill to the Finance Committee, which is at the desk, and it is supported by Senator Harris. Mr. President, while we are working out the consent, the tax bill before us is not for the middle class. As a matter of fact, this is a big cut for corporations. This is not a cut for you. It is not a cut for hard-working families. It is so lopsided as a cut to big corporations. The fact is that it is not for the middle class. We need to be frank. The truth is that the bill treats the corporations much better than regular people. For example, over a 10-year period, if you make $75,000 or less, you will be hurt by this bill. If you are a small business owner and your taxes are a passthrough at the individual rate, your taxes are going to be much higher than large, multinational corporations. If you buy your health insurance in the individual market, there is a good chance that you are going to lose access to affordable health insurance. These are the facts, and it is just plain and simple. Sure, there are tax cuts for some of the middle class, but those tax cuts go away after 8 years. In 2026, they are gone. By contrast, the tax cuts for big corporations are made permanent, and that is simply not treating people fairly. So what I am suggesting is that we send this bill to the Finance Committee to work out a bipartisan compromise on how to make middle- class tax cuts permanent. There were 17 of us that stood up in the press gallery yesterday and said we are for a bipartisan compromise. I would hope a majority of my colleagues would support that, and I ask for your support.

Mr. NELSON

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

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am here to discuss the tax bill, what we have done before, and what we have now in front of us. That is not what the American people want. It is what large corporations want--large, multinational corporations that get their corporate tax rate cut from 35 to 20 percent. It is what the well-to-do want. That is what is before us. Now, let me explain. Anyone who says that this bill is all for the middle class is not giving the full story. What they are not telling you is that the tax cuts for the middle class expire in 7 or 8 years. That is not what is being told. Folks are not telling you that this bill will put small businesses at a competitive disadvantage, making it easier for large, multinational corporations to crush local small businesses. I say this as a Senator from Florida, since small business is the economic backbone of our State, not the large multinational corporations. What people are not telling you is that this bill will cause healthcare premiums to go up by 10 percent and will force 13 million people to lose their health insurance, and that is according to an independent analysis by CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. Folks are not telling you that this bill will send thousands of jobs--American jobs--overseas. It is not a jobs bill; it is a bill that is going to send jobs overseas because the tax rate for income produced overseas for large, multinational corporations is going to be less than the tax rate for those same corporations producing the income in America. This is exactly what is in the bill. They are not telling you all the other ways that CBO says this bill will hurt ordinary Americans. For example, beginning in 2019, CBO says anyone making under $30,000 a year will take a hit from this bill if it becomes law. Then, in 2021, anyone making under $40,000 will start to feel the pinch. Finally, in 2027, anyone making under $75,000 is actually going get a tax increase. That is what folks are not telling you, but that is what is in print in the bill. All the while, the big, multinational corporations and those at the economic top will continue to reap the benefits of tax cuts. This is not fooling; this is what the bill says. Once folks find out what is in this bill, there is going to be a day of reckoning. The question is, When are they going to find out? Are they going to wait until they see that everybody--in about 7 years--earning under $75,000 is actually getting a tax increase? What the bill needs is balance. This Senator is a member of the Finance Committee. We tried to add balance in the committee, but our Republican colleagues insisted on voting down every Democratic amendment that was brought up, only making changes on the margin to say that they had gone through regular order. An amendment of this Senator's to increase the child tax credit was voted down, 14 to 12. In the meantime, the real bill is being written in secret by one party, with a new iteration to change it coming out almost every other day. I wish I were kidding. In fact, it came out the week before Thanksgiving. On Monday, we started marking it up. A new version came out on Tuesday. A new version came out on Wednesday. Then, in the markup on Thursday before Thanksgiving week, lo and behold, there was a new version with a so-called managers' amendment. The bill starts changing colors, with each new version trying to top the last in what it is doing to the middle class. This isn't the way we should be doing the people's business. We ought to be coming together to find a way to negotiate a tax bill that works for most Americans, not pit red States against blue States or make it harder for cities to invest in infrastructure. We shouldn't have a tax bill that makes healthcare less affordable and takes healthcare away from 13 million people and, on top of all of this, that increases the national debt by almost $1.5 trillion on top of the $20 trillion of national debt. What the American people want is for us to work together, to work on bipartisan compromise, but what we have is the opposite of that. The American people want the best way to ensure a good outcome for the widest majority of Americans. I daresay, if we put a tax bill on this floor in a bipartisan way, it would end up having 70 to 80 votes out of 100 Senators in a big, resounding, bipartisan vote, but that is not the course that has been chosen. I want to give one other example. Some Senators are being told that the health insurance part of this bill ends up raising rates by 10 percent and taking health insurance away from 13 million Americans. They are saying that in a series of bills that this Senator has worked on in a bipartisan fashion, some of them being initiated in a bipartisan way out of the HELP Committee by Senator Alexander and Senator Murray--some are saying that those bills, including a bill that this Senator has cosponsored with Senator Collins to establish a reinsurance fund--and in some States, the use of it has lowered premiums by 20 percent--some say that all of those fixes to the Affordable Care Act will completely overshadow and take away the health insurance premiums that this tax bill has that CBO has said will raise premiums 10 percent. That argument has been made why some Republican Senators should vote for this tax bill, but, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office came out today with a letter saying that that is not true, that the rates on what is being done in this tax bill on health insurance will still go up 10 percent almost every year for the next 10 years. That is not this Senator saying that; that is in a letter of November 29 by the Congressional Budget Office. So how we ought to do it is the same way the last major tax bill was passed. It was way back in 1986. It was when Ronald Reagan was President and the Speaker of the House was Tip O'Neill. They were two old Irishmen who used to fight like the dickens. But they had a personal friendship. They had a personal relationship. They could cut through all the political differences. When it was time to get things done, they could come to a bipartisan consensus. In 1986, they found a way to do it, and the middle class was the one that benefited. We know it can be done. It has been done before. This isn't 1986; this is 2017. Things have changed. It has gotten a lot more partisan around here. It has gotten a lot more ideologically rigid. But when you are doing major tax bills that affect one-sixth of the American economy, isn't it time to revert to what we did back in 1986 when we came together in bipartisan consensus? As long as there is a will, there is a way. And in the midst of this extreme, toxic atmosphere of high partisanship, what I hope is that we might find the will to cut through that and say: Indeed, there is a way, and it is a bipartisan way. We just need willing partners on both sides. I pray that will occur between now and Christmas before we do something we are going to regret, so that we can do something for the American economy and so that we can do something for the American people, that they finally say: This is the way I want our public servants to act. I want them to act in consensus building in a bipartisan or a nonpartisan way. I hope that will be our Christmas present. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we do want to go far, and we need to travel together. We have been trying to make the case that, indeed, we do this in a bipartisan way instead of being jammed through in a partisan way. I don't think there would be a Senator in this Chamber that would not want to help Puerto Rico, given the fact that Puerto Rico is going through the ravages of the aftermath of a hurricane, where still today just under half of the population in Puerto Rico does not have electricity, and it is 3 months after the hurricane. But we are going to send another hurricane to Puerto Rico if we pass this bill because of the provisions that are so punitive to Puerto Rico in this tax bill. In this tax bill, there is a 20-percent penalty on businesses doing business in Puerto Rico. It is just unbelievable, a 20-percent penalty on companies that invest in Puerto Rico, causing one of the daily newspapers on the island, El Nuevo Dia, to state that 250,000 jobs would leave the island just as a result of that provision. That is not something we want to do to Puerto Rico. We want to help Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, that is not all. The bill eliminates the section 199 manufacturing deduction for Puerto Rico, specifically in the law to encourage manufacturing in that island Commonwealth, a territory of our fellow U.S. citizens. The bill also eliminates the rum cover, which is how they get a rebate for paying those excise taxes on the production of Puerto Rican and U.S. Virgin Islands rum. It is a means of offsetting the cost of economic development in those two territories, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This bill further fails to put Puerto Rico residents on an equal footing with those on the mainland by giving them the same treatment on the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. First, the bill is so out of balance, to begin with. But then, when you get down to the specifics in so many of the items--now, in this particular item affecting Puerto Rico--this is not what we want to do. Yet we are just about to vote on this bill, and that is what is going to happen. That is what is going to happen in Puerto Rico. I urge some of our Members to reconsider their vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, one cannot say it much better than the Senator from Massachusetts has said it. Everyone has come to expect a free and open internet--one that does not charge more for certain content and charge less for favorite content. It is supposed to be free. It is supposed to be open. It should be balanced. Hopefully, since it seems that the Pai regime is, in fact, going down this road, there will be immediate lawsuits that will be very time-consuming. At the end of the day, sometime in the future, there may be an opportunity for a legislative solution, but it has to be a balanced solution that protects the right of the public to a free and open internet.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the Los Angeles- class attack submarine USS Jacksonville prior to her decommissioning. On August 10, the USS Jacksonville returned to homeport at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam after completing her final deployment in the Western Pacific. The completion of this mission marked the USS Jacksonville's 15th deployment since the ship's commissioning in May 1981. Over her lifespan, the USS Jacksonville has completed two around-the-world cruises, visited ports in nearly every continent, and completed countless critical missions. While assigned to the Enterprise battle group on September 11, 2001, the Jacksonville provided critical intelligence support as the Nation prepared to respond to the horrific attacks. In a tribute to its namesake, the Jacksonville's nickname is ``The Bold One,'' based on the city of Jacksonville, Florida's slogan of ``The Bold New City of the South.'' I am sure the entire city of Jacksonville, with its rich naval tradition, is honored today by this submarine's legacy, and the outstanding service provided by her crew and their dedication to our great Nation. Current and former crew will be hosting a reunion this November in Hawaii to say one final good-bye to the USS Jacksonville. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the boat, her current crew, and all of our Nation's courageous sailors who have served on board in years past.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Steven Bradbury, but first I want to speak on a much lighter subject, the reason that I wore this orange tie. The University of Miami football team has a perfect record. This is hearkening back to the glory days, and I will tell you why I do this. My neighbor and one of my best friends, Cortez Kennedy, who was originally from Arkansas, was the defensive player of the year for the national companionship team in 1989 at the University of Miami. Then, he spent 10 years with the Seattle Seahawks, and he was an NFL Pro Football Hall of Famer. I am doing this for my friend, Cortez Kennedy, whom we lost 6 months ago to a heart attack, much too early, at the age of 48. What a Miami fan he was, and how proud he would be now of his cherished University of Miami football team and the perfect record they have thus far. Mr. President, now I speak to Steven Bradbury. We have seen real trouble signs lately in the transportation safety area. Last year was the most deadly year on the highways in nearly a decade. Over 37,000 people were killed in highway accidents in 2016, an increase of 5.6 percent over the previous year. Many of those fatalities were preventable and were caused by people not wearing seatbelts or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or distracted drivers. We need leaders in the Department of Transportation who are willing to speak up and take action to reduce these highway deaths. We also need leaders who embrace a safety culture and ensure that defects in automobiles are quickly addressed. Let me talk about something that is one of the most egregious defects that we have heard about--the Takata airbag fiasco. It has caused 16 deaths and 180 injuries worldwide. This came to my attention several years ago through the Orlando Police Department in what was thought to be a fender bender in the middle of a traffic intersection. By the time they got to the driver of the car, they thought it was a homicide: Her throat had been slit, and she had bled to death. But, indeed, a Takata airbag had exploded--a defective airbag--and all the metal surrounding the housing of the airbag. The defective material exploded with such force, it was as if a grenade exploded right in the face of the driver. There have been 16 deaths and 180 injuries worldwide. It was a fender bender for the lady in the middle of the intersection, but the airbag exploded and sent metal shards into her neck and cut her jugular. A big, strapping, very muscular firefighter had a Takata airbag explode in his face, and he doesn't have a left eye anymore. He can't be a firefighter anymore. These are just two that happened in my hometown of Orlando. Many of the deaths we have seen in the Takata airbags are due to pure neglect, but it is also true that Takata covered up critical defect information. Information has come to light that engineers at Takata kept it from becoming public--these defective Takata airbags--when, in fact, they knew they were defective. On top of that, the regulator--the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--did not react quickly enough. This brings us to the fact that we need people in the Department of Transportation who will take a strong stand for safety, and that brings me to the nomination of Steven Bradbury, who is up for general counsel. Indeed, he has had a lengthy legal career, but far too much of his legal career involved working against the interests of safety. For almost 2 years, Mr. Bradbury represented Takata in its response to our Senate Commerce Committee and in the NHTSA investigations. Naturally, when he came in front of our committee, I asked him if he would recuse himself from all matters involving Takata if confirmed to this position because he had represented Takata as their lawyer for 2 years. But listen to what he said. He said that while he will recuse himself from Takata airbag matters, he has not agreed to recuse himself from all Takata matters, such as their pending bankruptcy. Wait a minute. Are you going to recuse yourself from the client you used to represent or not? He in essence said he is not. In Mr. Bradbury's legal career, he has also represented several airlines in antitrust and consumer proceedings--and I emphasize consumer proceedings. It is hard for me to see how he will put that past representation aside and work for airline consumer protections. For example, if you check a bag and it gets to you late, you at least ought to get your bag fee refunded. In the Commerce Committee, we were able to get that into last year's FAA reauthorization bill, but it is another potential conflict. Drivers and consumers need champions at the Department of Transportation. Unfortunately, I believe Mr. Bradbury has not demonstrated the ability to put consumers first; therefore, I will oppose his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the November 2, 2017, vote on calendar No. 433, confirmation of the nomination of Stephanos Bibas to be U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit. I would have voted nay.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak despite the order for recess.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it has been 2 months since Hurricane Irma hit Florida and basically covered up the State, and our people are still hurting because they don't have sufficient housing. If you lived in a mobile home, if you lived in a low-lying area, your home was destroyed. It is uninhabitable. The ceiling is collapsing. The mold and the mildew, because of all the water which has now accumulated, makes it an uninhabitable home. FEMA, through individual assistance, is supposed to provide temporary housing. This is the law. That is what the people of Florida are entitled to--just like the people of Texas are entitled to in the Presiding Officer's State--but it is not happening in Florida. Why? Because they get on the telephone, and they have to wait up to-- documented--4 hours to get somebody on the phone from FEMA or, for home inspections, it takes 45 days before they can get an inspector to come out and see the home so they can be declared eligible for individual assistance. That is just unacceptable. If they don't have the means--especially if they don't have a job as a result of the jobs being destroyed in the hurricane--where are they going to be able to get temporary assistance for housing? It is a fact that this is happening in the State of Florida, and it has to be changed. Thus, you see the bipartisan effort of my colleague from Florida Marco Rubio and me writing to the head of FEMA today to say: Look, what happened? Years ago, during the debacle of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, they experienced an average wait time of 10 minutes before they could get FEMA on the line to help them. Now we have people waiting as much as 4 hours. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the Senate. After a hurricane, 2 months later, we cannot have an aftermath where our people are hurting, they are suffering. They can't live in a healthy condition in the homes that have been destroyed in the hurricane. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

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

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, everybody in Washington now knows that the special counsel has announced charges against two of President Trump's former campaign aides in connection with the ongoing investigation into whether Russia interfered with the 2016 election. After painstaking investigations in the intelligence community, we now know that, in fact, Russia did interfere in the election. Since they have continued this pattern in other countries' elections, what many of us are concerned about is the fact that they will interfere in the next elections coming up. We have already seen attempts in the special election down in Alabama. They have been trying to increase the number of hits going to a Facebook or Twitter account. So they interfered. We also learned this morning that a third former Trump campaign aide has pled guilty to lying to the FBI in January when he was asked about his interactions while he was with the Trump campaign. These are very serious charges, and we should be united against any individual who helped further Russia's interference in our elections. Yet, sadly, the response to these indictments has been seemingly split along partisan lines. That doesn't make sense. Defending America isn't a partisan issue. In fact, everyone in the Senate--all of our Democrats, Republicans, our two Independents--has sworn an oath to do exactly that, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. So charging these individuals shouldn't be seen as a victory for one party or another. It shouldn't be seen as a defeat for a party. These individuals are charged with crimes against the United States, crimes against all of us Americans. The fact is that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in our election, and in so doing, he has attacked the very foundation of our constitutional democracy. We know that, and we also know that we are not the only country he has attacked. According to the U.S. intelligence community, he will continue this type of behavior unless he is stopped, and that is why we have such a heavy responsibility to defend America from these kinds of attacks and to defend our American constitutional foundations that are built on a process of free and fair and unfetterred elections. It doesn't matter whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, it should be clear: If you help an enemy of the United States meddle in our democracy, you will be held accountable. Here in this Senate and throughout the country as a whole, too often we find ourselves suddenly divided on issues because of party politics. That shouldn't be the case. There should be no disagreement when it comes to protecting America because we should be Americans first--not Democrats or Republicans first; we should be Americans first. We must continue to be patient with the Mueller investigation and allow it to follow the facts wherever they may lead because finding out what happened is the only way we are going to be able to prevent this from happening again, and it is the only way we are going to be able to keep our country safe. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, just as the Senator from California has outlined the needs of her State, having been hit by a natural disaster, so, too, natural disasters, not wildfires--although we have had plenty in Florida--but hurricanes have hit other States. Yesterday, this Senator spoke at length about the effects on a particular industry, the citrus industry. I showed pictures of 75 percent to 90 percent of the fruit on the ground. This Senator made a unanimous consent request to include a bipartisan amendment to get money for agriculture, not just in Florida but Texas, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the wildfires in California into the package-- specifically, about $3 billion for agriculture. The losses in Florida's agriculture are $2.5 billion, of which three-fourths of a billion is just losses to citrus growers. That is all the bad news because the unanimous consent request was rejected. The good news is, although the White House rejected it, they made a promise to put it in a continuing supplemental emergency appropriations in November for all these natural disasters and get that funding in there for agriculture. Some of us on both sides of this aisle, in order to make sure that promise is kept, have put a hold on the nominee for Deputy Budget Director. I will take the White House at its word, and this ought to all be worked out in November. That was the subject of my address to the Senate yesterday, along with my colleague Senator Rubio from Florida, as we talked about the losses particularly to agriculture. Today I want to talk about how a month after the hurricane in Puerto Rico and 2 months after the hurricane in Florida, the aftermath is not going so swimmingly because people are not getting the assistance they need. Mind you, this is 2 months after the hurricanes. People lost all the food in their freezer because they didn't have any power. They are supposed to get assistance in order to be able to buy food. If you are living paycheck to paycheck and you don't have a paycheck, you don't have any money to buy food. Therefore, you should get financial assistance from FEMA and the USDA. Yet you ought to see the lines in Miami, in Orlando, in Tampa, and in Belle Glade, and then they are cutting off the lines. The people who are getting cut out are going without food. So we have a long way to go. The USDA's Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called D-SNAP, is supposed to help all of our people recover from losses incurred by Irma by making short-term assistance available. It is especially important for families who are low income, who don't have income, or they are not getting a paycheck. Now they are saddled with unexpected repairs like a storm-damaged roof. They spent money evacuating or they lost wages during the storm, or they lost power and lost all the food in their freezer. Some people buy food in bulk because they can get it cheaper and store it in the freezer. Then, bam. It is all gone because there is no power. There were 50,000 people waiting at a center in South Florida, and many were turned away after waiting in the heat for hours and hours. The next day it was the same story in another city I didn't mention, Delray Beach. The people are getting desperate. I thank FEMA for everything it has done. I thank the Congress for doing the first supplemental in September that was intended originally for Harvey in Texas but along came Irma in Florida. I thank the Congress for the additional supplemental we just passed last night, but the administration of all these programs for assistance to people is not going so well. Let's take another example. You get on the phone and you call FEMA. You are supposed to get a FEMA representative, and you have to wait. If that is because FEMA needs more people on a short-term basis to handle the amount of calls, well, FEMA, let's get it going. What happens if you are calling because you need to have a FEMA representative come to your house to inspect your house so you can then get the necessary individual assistance to help you? You are waiting for assistance as to when a housing inspector can come and visit the home. Once you get through on the telephone, the last time we checked, the expected wait time to get a housing inspector is 45 days. That is too long for families to wait for an inspector to come because these Floridians are stuck living in damaged homes. Their homes have gotten wet, and, therefore, the mold and the mildew has built up, and they don't have any place else to go. They don't have any income to go down to one of the air-conditioned hotels, and they are still waiting for the FEMA inspector to come and inspect their home so they can get qualified to get the assistance that, in fact, they are due under the law. Our people can't access certain forms of FEMA assistance until the inspection is complete. I am told that FEMA has indeed increased the number of housing inspectors on the ground, but this process has to be expedited. This isn't the only delay that is causing a very serious threat to health and to safety in Florida. FEMA has been very slow to bring in manufactured homes, mobile homes. Why? Because a lot of people's homes and/or mobile homes were so damaged, they can't go back and live there, so they get temporary assistance. They go into, hopefully, some air- conditioned place, such as an existing apartment complex or, per chance, a hotel. But what if you are in the Florida Keys? What if you are in the Keys, where there are not enough hotels and motels? In fact, there are not a lot of apartments. By the way, the service industry is necessary to revive the tourism industry in the Keys, as an example, because that is the lifeblood of the economy, and the service industry has no place in which to live because their trailers are history. I wish I had a picture here to show you of a mobile home park just north of Big Pine Key that I went to. There was not one mobile home that was upright. They were either all on their side, or they were upside down. It is not unusual because these are the Keys. The hurricane came right off the water, a category 4. But FEMA isn't getting those mobile homes, those manufactured homes, in as temporary assistance. Understand, the example I gave is of the Florida Keys. There is one way in and one way out. But you have to compensate for that. In the meantime, people are suffering, and people are hurting. The redtape should not stop anyone in this country from having a safe place to live. I urge FEMA to expedite the transporting of these units all over Florida, to Florida communities, and filling them up so that Floridians have a place to live that is safe and clean. I say to my friend from New Jersey, if what is going on in Florida isn't bad enough, what about Puerto Rico? Right now, more than a month after the hurricane, 80 percent of the island still doesn't have power. I didn't go into the urbanized parts of San Juan, although I was there and did look around; I flew into the mountains, into the little town of Utuado. For 2\1/2\ weeks, they were cut off. They didn't have a road to get up there for 2\1/2\ weeks. I say to my friend from Washington, in Puerto Rico, would you believe that over a month after the hurricane, 30 percent still do not have potable water? In Utuado, in the mountains, I saw them going up to a pipe to get water that was flowing down through the mountains. This wasn't necessarily potable water, but it was the only thing they had. They were lining up with their plastic jars and plastic buckets. Hospitals in Puerto Rico are rationing services. They are forgoing optional operations. They are making difficult decisions on prioritizing patients because of limited medication, and limited facilities, fuel, communications, and power. Dialysis centers are desperate to get clean enough water so that they can process the dialysis for kidney patients. Clearly, more needs to be done to help the people of Puerto Rico in addition to the people in Florida and all the other States. I urge my colleagues to remember the plight of Americans trying to put their lives together after a major disaster. We have heard the Senator from California make a plea about the wildfires. You have heard this Senator make a plea for Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. We have heard the Texas delegation make a plea for Texas. We all have to come together in this time of need and pass a robust and comprehensive aid bill. We hope the White House will be true to its promise that the additional aid, particularly for agriculture, will be put in the November emergency supplement. There should be absolutely no ambiguity that the Federal Government intends to provide all the necessary assistance to make our people whole. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, to accommodate the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent--I understand that he will object, and I will explain it afterward, but it involves what you see here in the aftermath of the hurricane, all of this citrus fruit on the ground-- that it be in order to call up my amendment No. 1575--approximately $3 billion for all of the agriculture for Florida and Texas, which Senator Cornyn, Senator Rubio, and I have all been working on--to the motion to concur with an amendment to the House message on H.R. 2266 and that the amendment be agreed to with no intervening action or debate. In order to accommodate the majority leader, I will explain it after he has returned to his meeting.