Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, will the Senator from Ohio yield for a question?

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Madam President. I say to the Senator, I appreciate what he is doing. I am a supporter and one of the cosponsors of his bill. This fentanyl problem is just devastating communities all over the country, including in my State of Florida. What was surprising to me to find out was that fentanyl is so much more addictive and so much more lethal than so many others of these drugs that ultimately lead to a person becoming addicted so badly that they just crave fentanyl. I appreciate very much what he has spoken about and given leadership to. I just want him to know there are a lot of us who are trying to raise the flags of awareness of this situation before it is too late.

Mr. NELSON. In passing, I would say to the Senator from Ohio, what was so surprising to me was, just a few grains of this deadly drug, just by being touched by someone, is absorbed into the system through the skin, and it can be lethal--just that innocent act of touching a few grains. So, indeed, we have to get our arms around this problem.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, most everybody has seen the news of another disturbance with regard to an airline in an airport terminal. Indeed, what has happened at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport just in the last day has been a disturbance where they had to call in the Broward County Sheriff's Office to put down the disturbance because there were some upset people. I have just gotten off the phone with the CEO of Spirit Airlines, as well as the head of the Air Line Pilots Association, and basically have told them that they should get this thing fixed and get it fixed quick. There is not so much a labor dispute, because they are in negotiations and I think are reaching final conclusions, but, as a result of some things with the schedule, it caused a number of flights to be canceled and, unfortunately, canceled right at the last before they could let the passengers know ahead of time before they ever came to the airport. Even much more of an irritant, they load them on the airplane as if they are ready to go and then tell them they don't have a crew of pilots and, therefore, the flight has to be canceled. Those problems are going to go through today and tomorrow. I am given to believe--having talked to the head of the pilot's union, as well as the CEO of the airline--that they will have this straightened out over the next several days. It has been costly, and it has certainly been an irritant and an inconvenience to the passengers because 300 flights have been canceled already in the past several days, and we are going to see some more canceled in the next couple of days. Now, this all culminated in what the American television viewer has seen--a chaotic scene at Spirit's front ticket counter at the Fort Lauderdale airport after passengers had to get off of the airplane and the canceled flight. Many people have seen this video. It is now circulating online. Obviously, these passengers were very frustrated, and it took, unfortunately, the deputies coming in to put down the disturbance. Having said that, this is just the latest. Doesn't that recall something else that has happened in the last few weeks--a passenger being dragged off of an airplane, beaten, and bloodied? Then, who has to come and get him but an element of the airport authority of Chicago. Haven't we also seen on another TV episode--and isn't this telling us something--that passengers are now recording evidence of how passengers are being treated because they have cell phones and cell phones have video cameras. So we saw an airline employee kind of go off on passengers in the case of another airline. Well, airlines, you had better start fixing this because the passengers are not going to tolerate it. On the instant circumstance, having talked with the CEO and the head of the union, they are in these discussions. I think they are going to get it fixed. But they need to fix it fast because the traveling public only has so much patience. What happened at Fort Lauderdale was unacceptable and deeply unfair to the affected passengers, the overwhelmed airline employees, and local law enforcement. It was unfair. Let's not forget, also in dealing with the Fort Lauderdale airport, that memories are still fresh of the shooting that took place in January at the baggage claim. Now, what happened just last night in Fort Lauderdale is just another example of passengers becoming sick and tired of what they perceive as mistreatment by airlines, be it that circumstance in Chicago with the forcible removal of a passenger, or be it failing airline IT systems and airline fees run amok. So the airlines had better start paying attention to this. It appears airlines are giving the impression that they have forgotten their customers must come first. So what is it? I know the airline companies don't intend to do this, but it is happening. It is being recorded on video, and it is all the more causing people to express their frustrations. I have no trouble in putting the airlines on notice. If they can't get their act together and start treating the flying public with respect rather than making them think they are self-loading cargo, then this Congress is going to be forced to act, and that time is going to come soon as the Senate begins work this year on what will be a bipartisan long-term bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. That bill is coming later this year. I just want to say in conclusion that we have had a hearing in our Commerce Committee on this. I thought that would be enough and this Senator wouldn't have to speak out anymore, but here, again, we have another incident. My heart goes out, for example, to some of the CEOs who are trying to change a culture of treating passengers with disrespect or ignorance. It is important they change that culture because we will continue to see these kinds of circumstances arise if passengers do not feel like they are getting the proper respect they deserve. After all, they are customers. They are paying customers of the airlines. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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, I want to talk as well about the Republican healthcare plan and point out why it is moving on very treacherous territory when it will affect the funding of Medicaid by lessening the amount of Medicaid money that will be spent in the States, because so much of that Medicaid money is going to address the opioid crisis. The opioid crisis, we found last year--you know, there was a lot of talk about it being in New Hampshire when the eyes of America were on New Hampshire in the New Hampshire primary. But the fact is, it is in every State now. It is particularly so in my State of Florida. There are something like 2,600 deaths that have occurred in Florida as a result of opioid overdoses. So the seriousness with which we are addressing this issue ought to be of extreme concern, and we ought to be doing something about it. Yet a bill just passed by the House of Representatives is doing exactly the opposite. It is going to cut Medicaid. It is a fancy term, cutting Medicaid with a block grant. What it means is that it is going to be capped. That means a State is not going to get any more Medicaid once that cap has been hit, unless the State responds. So, in essence, it is going to cost the States more money. I don't think you will find many States that are in such a fiscal condition that, in fact, they could do that. So what are we doing? We are harming poor people and the disabled who get their healthcare from Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, we are not only harming all of them, but addressing the opioid crisis will be particularly hurt. What I want to talk about today is the Republican healthcare plan that passed out of the House last week. This plan is going to increase costs for older Americans. Remember, it is going to go on a ratio. Instead of 1 to 3, or older Americans being charged three times as much in health insurance as younger Americans, it is going to go up to a ratio of at least 1 to 5, and maybe more. So it is going to increase costs for older Americans. It is going to cut Medicaid, and it is going to take healthcare coverage away from tens of millions of people. Right now as a result of the ACA, there are 24 million people who have health insurance coverage who did not have it before this law was passed in 2010. It is going to reverse that. Do we want to take away healthcare from people who can now have healthcare through Medicaid and/or health insurance because they can now afford health insurance? Is that really a goal the United States wants to do--to take away healthcare through private health insurance? I don't think that is what we want to do, but that is what the House of Representatives' Republican healthcare bill has done. If we just look at my State of Florida, there are almost 8 million people who have a so-called preexisting condition. This includes something as common as asthma. That is a preexisting condition. As a former elected insurance commissioner of Florida, I can tell you that some insurance companies would use as an excuse as a preexisting condition something as simple as a rash and say: Because you have a preexisting condition, we are not going to insure you. Under the existing law, the Affordable Care Act, an insurance company cannot deny you with a preexisting condition. Just in my State alone, there are almost 8 million people who have a preexisting condition. Are we going to turn them out on the streets because their insurance company says they are not going to carry them anymore? I don't think that is what we want to do. The bill allows insurers to charge older Americans at least five times more than what they charge younger adults. Is that what we want to do? What is the principle of insurance? The principle of insurance is that you spread the risk. You get as many people in the pool as you can--young, old, sick, healthy--and you spread that risk. If you get fire insurance on your home, you are paying a premium every month and the insurance company has calculated in an actuarial calculation what it is going to cost you to insure, and you are part of hundreds of thousands of people in that pool who are also insuring against fire damaging their house. It is the same principle with health insurance. So you get young and old, sick and well, and some people with preexisting conditions, and you spread that risk over a lot of people. One of the fallacies we hear is that we can create this by creating a high-risk pool. In other words, we are going to set up some money for people who have really sick conditions, and we are going to take care of them. That is the most inefficient way to do it because insurance is about spreading risk, not concentrating risk, which is what a high-risk pool exactly is. So the House of Representatives, which has concocted this thing called the Republican healthcare plan, has come up with exactly the opposite idea of funding--instead of spreading the risk, concentrating the risk, and then saying that they are going out and getting $8 billion and that is going to pay for it. It is not even going to touch it. It is the most inefficient way to approach the subject of spreading risk, because they don't spread the risk. They concentrate the risk. What this bill does is that over 10 years it cuts over $800 billion out of Medicaid. You start doing that, and you are going to lose what we know of as Medicaid, a healthcare program primarily for the poor and the disabled. By the way, isn't it interesting that they cut over $800 billion and save it out of Medicaid, and what did they do in the same bill? They give upwards of $600 billion in tax breaks to those who are at the highest income levels. Let me get this right. It is kind of a reversed Robin Hood. I am going to take from the poor by cutting $800 billion, and I am going to give to the rich by tax breaks for the highest income folks. Is that what we want to do? I don't think so. Medicaid is a program that guarantees healthcare for millions of Americans, including children, people with disabilities, pregnant women, and seniors on long-term care. Think about that. What am I talking about? It is seniors in long-term care, seniors in nursing homes, who don't have enough resources or enough assets in order to pay for their care in their twilight years. Therefore, they are being paid by Medicaid, and that is the only source of income to take care of them. Is that what we want to cut in order to give a tax break for the highest income group? It ought to be the reverse. That is upside-down thinking. Last week the Florida Medical Examiners Commission released new data showing that over 2,600 Floridians have died from opioids in just the first half of 2016 alone. Over the entire year before, 2015, fentanyl, an opioid, killed 705 Floridians. Just in the first half of 2016, almost the exact same number, 704, died. We have a problem in the State of Florida, and there are a lot of other States that have the same. Last month I went to a research institute down in Palm Beach County. They are using NIH grant money to research new nonaddictive opioid drugs. If they can come up with this, that is certainly all for the better to help people with pain and so that they are not being given an addictive drug. But we are not there yet, and we are using NIH money that is going into that research. Last month I sent a letter to the Republican leadership pushing for more funding for the opioid fight and for the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON. So what we need to do is to take a comprehensive approach to helping our State and local governments respond to this opioid epidemic. I was very happy to be an early part of putting together and sponsoring a bill called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 and of the funding included in the 21st Century Cures Act to start putting more resources into our States right away for this opioid epidemic. Those laws have resulted in Florida's receiving more than $27 million to help our State respond to the opioid crisis. Yet a lot more action is needed, as you can see by just the first half of last year alone, with 704 people dying from opioid overdoses. Last week, in Florida a local paper reported about how the opioid epidemic is affecting our Nation's children. In 2015 alone, 167 babies were born in opioid dependency in just one city--Jacksonville-- contributing to Duval County's being tapped as having the second highest number of babies born addicted to opioids in the State. Isn't that sad that children come into this world and they are already addicted? We are dealing with people's lives here. We are dealing with their health. The last thing in the world we ought to be doing is cutting the resources of funding to help people who are in such dire straits. I would urge our colleagues to think twice about supporting this disastrous Republican healthcare bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, many, many thanks to the leader for his kind remarks. The final bill was negotiated by the big four--the two leaders in the Senate and the two leaders in the House. It was not going to happen this way unless the leaders all agreed, so my profound thanks on behalf of the explorers and the adventurers of the United States--the ``can do'' little agency, NASA, that is now on its way to Mars. On behalf of all of the NASA family, I thank the leaders and especially the Democratic leader. A personal thanks for his very kind comments. Mr. President, we have approached the NASA bill in a bipartisan way. As a matter of fact, I give great credit to both the chairs and the ranking members on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, as well as on the subcommittee on appropriations in the House that handles NASA appropriations. All of those leaders were absolutely key. Of course, the same thing is true here in the Senate. As the ranking member, I have the privilege of sharing the leadership with our chairman, John Thune, on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. It is that subcommittee's chairman and ranking member, as well as the chairman and ranking member from the subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee, from whom we will hear momentarily--to all of them, I am very grateful. What it says is that NASA--America's civilian space program--should not be a partisan subject. What it says is that the leaders of NASA should not be partisans. As a matter of fact, they should even be more than bipartisans--they should be nonpartisans. That has been the tradition of NASA's, so like that of the Secretary of Defense. One considers that appointment to be a nonpartisan. So, too, we consider the Administrator of NASA to be a nonpartisan. I think, in this interim, with the Acting Administrator of NASA, that they are conducting themselves in a very significant way in keeping all of the advancements that they have done but that are now to be accelerated with this appropriations bill. I congratulate the whole NASA team. It has been my argument to the Vice President and to the President that in the selection of the next leader of NASA, they need to do it in a nonpartisan way so that we can keep going for this human mission that is going to the planet Mars in the decade of the 2030s. With the increase in NASA funding, we now stand on the precipice of a new golden age of exploration and discovery. In March of this year, several of us were at the White House when the President signed the NASA authorization bill. What we have worked on for the better part of 2 years keeps NASA on a steady course, with a balanced and ambitious mix of science, technology, and exploration initiatives. Let's not forget that the first ``A'' in ``NASA'' is ``aeronautics.'' It keeps all of that moving forward. This additional $368 million of funding for NASA gives that little agency the ability to build off of the momentum that is already there. For example, in the White House, the Vice President--and I have commended him both privately and publicly--is bringing about the reestablishment of the National Space Council. I shared with him that all of us look forward to working with him and the Council to develop and carry out the ambitious civil, commercial, and national security space agenda for this country. The $19.65 billion appropriation for NASA, coupled with the NASA authorization bill that we already passed a month or two ago, demonstrates our firm commitment to one day putting humans on Mars and permanently expanding our civilization out into the cosmos. We will soon have a regular cadence of missions that will be launching into deep space using the Space Launch System--the largest rocket ever, a third more powerful than the Saturn V rocket that took us to the Moon. Its spacecraft--the Orion--and other systems will be assembled and launched, and a lot of that is being done at Florida's Space Coast. The first rockets and spacecraft that will start the journey are being assembled right now at various sites across the country. Right now, the Space Launch System--the SLS rocket, the Orion spacecraft that sits on top of it--and the launch infrastructure at Cape Canaveral or, more specifically, the Kennedy Space Center, are all in the most challenging stages of their development. These complex systems are all very intertwined, and it is vital that we make sure that NASA has the funding flexibility that it needs to address issues as they come up so that they can bring these systems together for the launch in early 2019 of the largest rocket ever. We have asked NASA to look for new ways to expand commercial space activities in Earth's orbit, and we are providing NASA with the tools and the direction it needs to expand our commercial space activity. We are right on track to begin launching astronauts to the International Space Station on American rockets, commercially made, and that is going to start next year. People do not realize--they thought the space shuttle was being shut down in 2011. They thought that was the end of the space program. No. No. All of this is being developed aside from the robotic missions that there have been with the rovers on Mars and all of the pictures of the cosmos. I mean, it is just unbelievable. Next year we are going to replace the Hubble Space Telescope, which has peered back into the beginning of time. We are going to look back almost to the beginning of time with the James Webb Space Telescope. All of this is strengthening a flourishing U.S. space industry, especially in the areas in which NASA centers are located around the country. What is happening at the Kennedy Space Center is that it is being transformed into a commercial as well as a government spaceport-- into a busy civil, military, and commercial spaceport. This appropriations budget allows us to continue all of this going on at the same time. We are going to put up gee-whiz things like the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope, as well as additional Mars rovers. The rovers that are up there show that Mars, at one point, was warm and wet. We are going to find out whether there was life there. If there were, was it developed? If there were, was it civilized? If there were, what happened? These are lingering questions as we peer up into the night sky. The funding included in this budget deal moves us ever closer to answering that burning question: Are we alone in the universe? This budget helps us better understand our own planet by funding NASA's Earth Science Program, as well as funding aeronautics and education programs for our youth. The investments that we as a country make in our space program pay immediate dividends to our quality of life right here on Earth. Of course, the space program creates thousands and thousands of jobs for skilled workers to build machines that help us explore the heavens and jobs for the researchers to understand and interpret what we discover and jobs for the engineers and the entrepreneurs to develop new technologies. These public investments also stimulate complementary investments of private capital and the thousands of jobs that follow from that, and those are companies that will partner with NASA. Again, I thank our colleagues in both the House and the Senate for their continued support of our space program. In this time when we find ourselves far too divided in our politics, the exploration of space continues to be a powerful force that brings us together into our search as we explore the universe. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to share a poem and song titled ``America at the Crossroads,'' written by my dear friend and fellow Floridian, JoAnna O'Keefe. She conveys a message of unity and patriotism that I believe is important for Congress and our Nation as we tackle many challenges at home and abroad. Mrs. O'Keefe's work won her the George Washington Honor Medal by the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge this year, and I am honored to share it with my Senate colleagues. The material follows: America at the Crossroads (By JoAnna O'Keefe) We the people Are on opposite sides; We've lost sight of the middle Where Resolutions reside. If Jefferson were here right now He would pick up his pen. On parchment he'd write: Be Patriots again! Look into the eyes Of your sisters and brothers. Be Americans! Respecting one another. No outside force Will ever take this land. But a ``house divided,'' Cannot stand. Blood has been shed For this land of the Free Be Americans! Embrace your destiny. Be that ``City on a Hill.'' Be that Light! Lay down your anger. Americans! Unite!

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, there has been a longstanding question of whether there would be drilling for oil in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off of the State of Florida. This had been settled in law 10 years ago. Then, my colleague Senator Mel Martinez and I passed a portion of legislation called GOMESA. That portion of the legislation put the drilling off of Florida in the eastern Gulf--everything east of a north-south line called the Military Mission Line, which is a line running south of approximately Fort Walton Beach--everything east of that is off limits in law to any kind of oil drilling activity, along with the remainder of the coast of Florida; 125 miles from the coast going all the way over to Pensacola and to the Perdido River, which is the Alabama-Florida line. The reasons for this are many, but not the least of which is called the Military Mission Line. That area of the Gulf off of Florida is the largest testing and training area for the United States military in the world. Compared to other testing ranges, such as the Nevada Test Site-- it dwarfs that site. As we can see, from north to south, we have ranges as far as 300 miles from east to west. For example, off of Naples, FL, all the way west to the Military Mission Line is approximately 250 miles. That has been needed by our U.S. military because of the testing and training. It has been doubted over the years as the relentless pursuit of oil drilling by the oil industry has tried to erode into that, and that is why, in a bipartisan way, Senator Martinez and I put in law for the period of years through 2022, from when we passed this back in 2006, it off limits. The question is, What is coming afterward? Well, of course if it is up to the Department of Defense, there will be no oil drilling activity. That is what I wanted to bring to the attention of the Senate today. Two previous Secretaries of Defense in Republican administrations, including Secretary Rumsfeld, have written letters to state the policy that any oil-related activity in that testing and training range would be incompatible with the mission of the testing and training of the U.S. military. The reason I am bringing this to the attention of the Senate today is that a letter signed by the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has just come into my possession. A gentleman named Mr. A.M. Kurta writes: I have been asked to respond to your letter-- This is to Congressman Matt Gaetz-- on behalf of the Secretary of Defense. This is regarding the maintaining of the moratorium on oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico beyond the year 2022. The letter states: The Department of Defense (DoD) cannot overstate the vital importance of maintaining this moratorium. Why is that? The letter goes on to explain not only the necessity of which so many of our bases in the area--Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, all the testing and training of the F-22, the training of our pilots there; Eglin Air Force Base, the testing and the training of the pilots for the F-35. Remember, the F-35 is being sold to many foreign nations, the testing and training of those pilots, as well, but now, with new technologies--I quote from the letter: Emerging technologies such as hypersonics, autonomous systems, and advanced sub-surface systems will require enlarged testing and training footprints, and increased DoD reliance on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act's moratorium beyond 2022. The moratorium is essential for developing and sustaining our nation's future combat capabilities. So I think it is pretty clear. There is one other issue. This all follows the fact that this Senator filed a bill last January to extend this moratorium. I will point out that just recently a bipartisan delegation from Florida--a majority of the Members of the Florida delegation, bipartisan--signed a letter to the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense requesting the extension of this moratorium in law past the year 2022. The response from the Department of Defense has come today. There is one further issue, and that is, if it is off limits to oil drilling in law, is there any question that it ought to be off limits to seismic testing? To the author of the original legislation 10 years ago, that should be clear, but--therefore we ought to clarify it. The request of the Department of Defense is: [A] question arose concerning whether Congress intended the moratorium to prohibit even geological and geophysical survey activities in the eastern Gulf. We would welcome clarification from Congress concerning this matter. So it will be this Senator's intent, joining in a bipartisan way with colleagues from Florida, to get that clarification in extending the moratorium. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, in conclusion, we can't have oil drilling, not only for our national security and the testing and training of our most sophisticated weapons systems in the Gulf off of Florida, but also we couldn't stand it if we had another oil spill that would do to us what the last one did. It was a spill way far west off of Louisiana, but it drifted to the east and blackened the sugary white sands of Pensacola Beach and Destin Beach, and there were tar balls as far east as Panama City Beach. Because of that, we lost an entire season of our guests, our tourists. They did not come to the Gulf Coast of Florida, not just in the Florida panhandle but all the way south down the Gulf to Naples and to Marco Island--a $60 billion per year tourism industry for Florida's economy. We can't suffer that kind of shock again. So whether it be the degradation of the environment, the messing up of the training and testing of our U.S. military and their largest testing and training range, or the devastating economic loss to Florida of its tourism industry--for all those reasons, we need to pass this legislation. It will be coming forth in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. President, 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, I want to address the Senate on the occasion of the solemn memorial of 7 years since the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the resulting oilspill, where 11 workmen were tragically killed. The oilspill fouled the sensitive gulf ecosystem in ways that we still do not fully realize. Yet we are hearing today that the President is expected to issue an Executive order this week that ignores the implications of that tragedy, which was also the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history, by blindly encouraging more drilling in very sensitive areas. I can tell you that drilling off the coast of Florida's neighboring States poses a real threat to our State's environment and our multibillion-dollar tourism industry, and that is because a spill off the coast of Louisiana can end up on the beaches of northwest Florida, just like a spill off the coast of Virginia or South Carolina can affect the entire Atlantic coast. BP, as a result of Deepwater Horizon, agreed to pay more than $20 billion in penalties to clean up the 2010 oilspill and repay gulf residents for lost revenue. But, apparently, that wasn't enough, if BP's recent spill in Alaska is any indication. So we shouldn't be surprised, since oil companies and their friends have fought against any new safety standards or requirements, that the President still wants to open up additional waters to drilling, despite the fact that we haven't applied the lessons learned from Deepwater Horizon. This is at a time when the United States has been able to find all new reserves of oil and gas onshore. So we are not in a time of a shortage of discovery or a shortage of oil reserves. Our domestic energy market is being affected by the low price of natural gas, since so much of the reserves are just tremendous here in the continental United States. The most visible change since the Deepwater Horizon spill is the division of the Minerals Management Service into the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. All of those changes were made as a result of trying to improve things after the BP spill, but it doesn't seem to have made any major improvements in oversight, according to a report issued by the GAO last month. So I have come to the floor to try to alert other Senators about the importance of preserving the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. It makes no sense to put Florida's multibillion-dollar, tourism-driven economy at risk. And there is something else at risk. The Department of Defense has stated numerous times--I have two letters from two Republican Secretaries of Defense that say it--that drilling and oil-related activities are incompatible with our military training and weapons testing. That is the area known as the gulf training range. It is in the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. It is the largest testing and training range for the United States military in the world. Now, in that gulf training range is where the pilots of the F-22 are trained. That is at Tyndall Air Force Base. It is where the new F-35 pilots are trained, by the way, not only for the United States but also for the many foreign nations that have bought F-35s. Of course, that is essential to our national security. That is just pilot training. That doesn't speak of the testing done on some of our most sophisticated weapons over hundreds and hundreds of miles of restricted airspace. Oh, by the way, when the U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet shut down our training in Puerto Rico and the island of Vieques, where do you think a lot of that training came to? The Navy still has to train. So they will send their squadrons down to Key West Naval Air Station at Boca Chica Key. When those pilots and their F-18 Hornets lift off the runway, within 2 minutes they are out over the Gulf of Mexico in restricted airspace. So they don't spend a lot of fuel and a lot of time to get there. That is why a lot of our colleagues across the State of Florida on the other side of the aisle--in other words, this is bipartisan--have weighed in with this administration, urging continued protection for the largest military testing and training area in the world. Opposition to drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is bipartisan, bicameral--the Senate and House--but so is our opposition to drilling off the Atlantic coast. Now, let me just distinguish between the two. Years ago, my then- Republican colleague Senator Mel Martinez and I both offered in law an exemption until the year 2022 of any oil drilling off of the coast of Florida. It is actually everything east of what is called the Military Mission Line. It is virtually the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. Of course we did that for the reasons that I have already stated. That is in law up until 2022. But the administration will be coming forth with another plan for the 5-year period for oil drilling offshore for the years 2023 up through 2028. It is my hope that the words of this Senator and the words of our bipartisan colleagues from the Florida delegation will convince the administration that it is not wise to impede the military's necessary training and testing area, not even to speak of the tremendous economic deprivation that will come as a result of an oilspill. Just think back to the BP spill. Think back to the time when the beaches, the sugary-white sands of Pensacola Beach, were completely covered with oil. That picture--a very notable picture, a contrast of the black oil on top of the white sand--went around the world. The winds started blowing the oil from the BP spill off the coast of Louisiana. The winds continued to blow it to the east, and so some of the oil got into Pensacola Bay, some of the oil started getting into Choctawhatchee Bay, and some oil got on the beautiful beaches of Destin and Fort Walton Beach. The winds took it as far east as the Panama City beaches. There they received basically tar balls on the beach. Then the winds reversed and started taking it back to the west, so none of the other beaches all the way down the coast of Florida--Clearwater, St. Petersburg, on down to the beaches off of Bradenton, Sarasota, Fort Myers, Naples, and all the way down to Marco Island--none of those beaches received the oil because the wind didn't keep blowing it that way. But the entire west coast of Florida lost an entire tourist season because our guests, our visitors, the tourists, didn't come because they had seen those pictures and they thought that oil was on all of our beaches. Let me tell you how risky that was. In the Gulf of Mexico, there is something known as the Loop Current. It comes through the separation of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and the western end of Cuba and goes up into the gulf, and then it loops and comes south in the gulf. It hugs the Florida Keys and becomes the Gulf Stream that hugs the east coast of Florida. And about midway down the peninsula, it starts to leave the coast, follows and parallels the east coast of the United States, and eventually goes to Northern Europe. That is the Gulf Stream. Had that oilspill been blown south from Louisiana and had the Loop Current come enough north, that oilspill would have gotten in the Loop Current, and it would have taken it down past the very fragile coral reefs of the Florida Keys and right up the beaches of Southeast Florida, where there is a huge tourism business. By the way, the Gulf Stream hugs the coast in some cases only a mile off of the beach. That is the hard economic reality of what could happen to Florida's tourism industry, not only on the west coast, as it already did in that season of the BP oilspill, but what could happen on the east coast of Florida too. Opposition to drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is certainly bipartisan, but so is the opposition to drilling off the Atlantic coast. In the last Congress, Members from both parties joined together to file a House companion to the legislation this Senator had filed that would prohibit seismic testing in the Atlantic off of Florida. The type of seismic airgun testing companies wanted to use to search for oil and gas would threaten thousands of marine mammals and fish, including endangered species such as the North American right whale. The blast from seismic airguns can cause permanent hearing loss for whales and dolphins, which disrupts their feeding, calving, and breeding. In addition to the environmental damage those surveys would cause, businesses up and down the Atlantic coast would also suffer from drilling activity. Over 35,000 businesses and over 500,000 commercial fishing families have registered their opposition to offshore drilling in the Atlantic. From fishermen, to hotel owners, to restaurateurs, coastal residents and business owners understand it is too dangerous to risk the environment and the economy on which they depend. There is one unique industry that opposes drilling off the Florida east coast. We made the case way back in the 1980s when Secretary of the Interior James Watt decided he was going to drill from Cape Hatteras, NC, all the way south to Fort Pierce, FL. This Senator was a young Congressman then and took this case on and finally convinced the Appropriations Committee not to include any funds for the execution and offering of those leases. It was a simple fact that that was where we were launching our space shuttle then, as well as our military rockets from Cape Canaveral, and you simply can't have oil rigs out there and be dropping the first stages and the solid rocket boosters from the space shuttle. As we know, the Cape has come alive with activity--a lot of commercial rocketry, as well as the mainstays for our military space program. In a year and a half, NASA will launch the largest rocket ever, one-third more powerful than the Saturn V, which was the rocket that took us to the Moon, and that is the beginning of the Mars program, as we are going to Mars with humans. Because of that space industry--whether it is commercial or whether it is civilian NASA or whether it is military--you simply can't have oil rigs out there in the Atlantic where we are dropping the first stages of those rockets. That is common sense. When President Obama took the Atlantic coast off the table from 2017 to 2022--that 5-year period planning in the offshore drilling plan-- Floridians finally breathed a deep sigh of relief. They sighed happily too. If President Trump intends to open up those areas to drilling, his administration will receive and can expect to receive a flood of opposition from the folks who know what is going to happen. It is this week--and here we are midweek--that we are expecting the Trump administration to move forward with an Executive order that would ignore the wishes of coastal communities. I want to say that the areas off of Florida in the east coast of the Atlantic are very sensitive, as I have just outlined, but there is nothing to say that if you have a spill off of Georgia or South Carolina, that it can't move south, and that starts the problem all over. This announcement by the President will be like a big present for the oil companies, which, by the way, in areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are rich with oil--and there are, in fact, active leases that are not producing the oil. Why would they want to grant more leases in areas that are important to preserve the Nation's economy as well as our military preparedness? I hope the President thinks twice before putting Florida's economy at such a risk. I hope he refrains from issuing this Executive order, but if he doesn't, this Senator and a bipartisan delegation from Florida will fight this order. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an important civil rights anniversary in the annals of our Nation's favorite pastime. Seventy years ago this month, Jackie Robinson started on first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers, becoming the first African American to play for a Major League Baseball team and marking the beginning of the end of racial segregation in baseball. That watershed moment came after a distinguished career in what were then known as the Negro Leagues, the coalition of teams for players of Color and whose retirees remain a vibrant part of the community in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. Jackie Robinson's contributions to the sport of baseball and to our Nation are unparalleled. His accolades ranged from ``Rookie of the Year'' in 1947 and ``Most Valuable Player'' in 1949 to the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1984. In 2003, he was posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor bestowed by Congress. His character and spirit have not ended with his passing, and his legacy remains a part of our communities, including the Tampa Bay area. Through the work of his wife, Rachel, and the Jackie Robinson Foundation, college-bound students have been provided with over $65 million in grants, scholarships, and direct program support, resulting in a 98 percent graduation rate among recipients. Each of the students are mentored with consideration to the values espoused by Jackie Robinson himself--courage, determination, teamwork, persistence, integrity, citizenship, justice, excellence, and commitment. It is in honor of Jackie Robinson's character and contributions that teams across Major League Baseball honor him every April 15, on Jackie Robinson Day. In particular, I am especially proud to recognize the Tampa Bay Rays' work in its community to honor Jackie Robinson's legacy. To mark this year's anniversary, the Rays and their community partners carried out service projects in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, in neighborhoods now home to men who, like Jackie Robinson, once played in the Negro Leagues. Along with updating a local baseball park and beautifying small businesses in the 16th Street Business Corridor, the Rays honored nine ``unsung heroes'' in the Tampa Bay area who exemplify the aforementioned values Jackie Robinson held. The Rays' leadership and commitment to community represent the best of American citizenship and public service, and I am honored to recognize the team's work to uphold and live up to Jackie Robinson's legacy.

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, I have already cast my ``no'' vote with regard to the judge and will so again whenever we get to final passage, but I want to take this opportunity to talk about the chaos that is going on in Venezuela. As if there weren't already enough chaos, last week Venezuela's supreme court stripped its legislative branch of its powers--just stripped them of powers. Only because the court had gotten such significant criticism did it reverse its decision. Apparently even the very shaky President of Venezuela, Maduro, weighed in to get them to reverse their decision. Now, isn't that something? This is supposed to be a democracy. Yet it is being run as a dictatorship, where even the judicial branch goes and does something crazy and the President of the country gets up and tells them: You had better reverse yourself; there is too much criticism. This is the nonsense that is going on in Venezuela. Of course, what went on last week further undermines Venezuela's so-called democracy, and it is only the latest in President Maduro's creeping dictatorship. That is what it is. He has repeatedly and violently suppressed protesters and jailed his political opponents in violation of any understanding of human rights. He has used that same Supreme Court to block members of the National Assembly from taking office, and he has used that Supreme Court as a rubberstamp to overturn the laws that the National Assembly does that he doesn't like. Isn't it a sad state that Venezuela has reached? The President has also thwarted opposition efforts to recall him, President Maduro, in a national referendum. In so doing, he was able to appoint a Vice President with ties to Hezbollah, and now a Vice President it appears that he has sanctioned for drug trafficking. Meanwhile, the poor Venezuelan people suffer the consequences of the political, humanitarian, and economic crisis. Venezuelans are dying because of severe shortages of food and medicine and other products. The economy is in freefall, and crime and corruption are rampant. Last year, 18,000 Venezuelans sought asylum in the United States-- more than any other nationality. The United States stands clearly on the side of the Venezuelan people in calling on President Maduro to cease undermining democracy, release all political prisoners, respect the rule of law, and respect human rights. There obviously is no sign that he is going to be doing this. What should we do? First of all, we ought to get our Secretary of State to work with the international community, including the Organization of American States, to help resolve this crisis and alleviate the suffering of the Venezuelan people. That is the first order of business, to try to eliminate the suffering of people. It is all so true; whenever a dictator takes control, as has happened in Venezuela, it is the people who suffer first. Additionally, I am suggesting and I am calling on the administration to fully enforce and, where appropriate, expand the sanctions on those responsible for continued violence and human rights violations that are perpetrated against the people. It is very interesting. A lot of these so-called big guys in Venezuela love to travel. They love to have bank accounts. They love to come to Miami. They love to have U.S. bank accounts. Let's slap some severe economic sanctions on these guys. The situation is increasingly dire, and we must stand with the Venezuelan people in their struggle for democracy and human rights. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, while we have a lull in the debate, I want to take an opportunity to talk about healthcare. Since we had an utter inability of the House of Representatives to come together on any kind of healthcare bill, this Senator would suggest that instead of the mantra ``repeal and replace,'' since now that seems to be dead, why don't we take the existing law that has provided a lot of things for the average citizen? For the average person in my State of Florida, it means a great deal to have the availability of health insurance, which they never had and can now afford. There need to be fixes to the law known as the Affordable Care Act that was passed several years ago. Indeed, one of those fixes could be a kind of ``smoothing fund,'' that as the insurance companies vie for this business on the State exchanges, they would be able to have this fund as a resource for them to get over some of the humps--also, certainly for some of the insureds. Just because you are at 400 percent of poverty and therefore no longer eligible for some of the subsidies to enable you to buy health insurance--and, by the way, for a single individual, that is only about $47,000 a year of income--the person who makes $47,000, $50,000 a year can't afford to go out and spend $8,000, $10,000, $11,000 on a health insurance policy. We need to adjust that--in other words, fix that as well. There needs to be an additional fix of a subsidy for the people who are just over 400 percent of poverty. To translate that another way, for a family of four, that is only about $95,000 a year. On a tight budget like that, they simply can't afford health insurance. They need some help. With a few little fixes like that to the existing law--the Affordable Care Act--we could get this thing tuned up and, indeed, continue to provide what we need in order for people to have healthcare. One other fix: There are about 4 million people in the country who, if their State legislatures and their Governor would expand Medicaid-- and some of those Governors are now expressing interest in doing this-- under the Federal law up to 138 percent of poverty, 4 million more people would be covered with healthcare. In my State of Florida alone, there are 900,000 people who otherwise would be getting healthcare who do not because the government in the State of Florida has refused to expand Medicaid coverage up to 138 percent of poverty. How much is that? For a single individual, that is someone making about $16,000 a year. A person like that can't afford health insurance. A person like that can't afford any kind of paying for any healthcare. What happens to them? When they get sick, they wait and wait to try to cure themselves because they can't pay a doctor. When the sickness turns into an emergency, they end up in the emergency room and then, of course, it is uncompensated care and the hospital eats it. The hospital, of course, passes that uncompensated care on to all the rest of us who are paying our premiums on health insurance. It makes sense to do this. With a few fixes, we would be able to tune up the existing law to provide the healthcare that most of us want to provide. It seems to me that it is common sense, and it is common sense that can be done in a bipartisan way. It is my hope and my prayer that the Senate and the House will come together and ultimately do this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, deciding whether to confirm a President's nominee for the highest Court in the land is a responsibility I take very seriously. Over the past few weeks, I have met with Judge Gorsuch, listened to the Judiciary Committee's hearings, and reviewed his record with an open mind. I have real concerns with his thinking on protecting the right to vote and allowing unlimited money in political campaigns. In addition, I am concerned that the judge will not protect the rights of the everyday average citizen when they come up against large corporate interests. Judge Gorsuch has consistently sided with corporations over employees, as in the case of a freezing truck driver who, contrary to common sense, Judge Gorsuch would have allowed to be fired for abandoning his disabled rig during extreme weather conditions. I will vote no on the motion to invoke cloture and, if that succeeds, I will vote no on his confirmation.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, today I want to join my friend Susan Collins and talk about why I support the Main Street Fairness Act. I am glad to partner on this bill with the Senator from Maine. The bill does one simple thing: It ensures small businesses don't have to pay higher taxes than the largest corporations. This is the type of common sense that we need more of in Washington. There are 2.3 million small businesses in Florida, employing around 43.2 percent of the State's workforce. They are the primary engine of job growth in the country, and are a proven means for economic mobility. Under most circumstances, small businesses are subject to the same rules as large corporations but are treated differently under the Tax Code. They already have a hard enough time competing with large multinational corporations, which can hire an endless stream of high- priced tax lawyers to shift their income abroad and avoid U.S. taxes. We should be doing all we can to put small businesses on a more level playing field. Part of that starts with this bill, but it doesn't end here. We need to do comprehensive tax reform. This bill should be part of that conversation, as one way we could help small businesses. It is not the only way, and I am certainly open to other ideas, but we need to have a serious talk about how we are going to freshen up the Tax Code and help the economy grow. I know a lot of my colleagues have different ideas about what tax reform should look like, but I think we should all be able to agree that it needs to be real reform, not just a temporary tax cut. It needs to support a technology-driven economy and help us transition to a greener, fairer economy--with a lot less disparity. Tax reform should also generate enough added revenue to pay for the infrastructure we desperately need. That includes the crumbling roads and bridges that threaten the safety of millions of Americans and are a tax on small businesses. We also need to invest in our water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, ports, railways, public schools, and affordable housing infrastructure. At the same time, tax reform needs to be deficit neutral. You might ask, how are we going to pay for all this? Well, we can start by getting rid of outdated special interest tax breaks that are no longer needed or don't make sense in the 21st century. We can also eliminate tax loopholes that allow companies to shift profits abroad and lead to corporate inversions. This bill, the Main Street Fairness Act, is a good start, but it shouldn't end here. We need to have a serious, deliberative effort to develop a bipartisan tax reform package.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, for years, I have been working to make sure that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has reliable tools to forecast hurricanes. Today the Senate will come together on legislation to get us closer to that goal. In May 2016, just before the start of hurricane season, the Commerce Committee held a hearing on preparedness. At that hearing, I asked the then-Director of the National Hurricane Center, Dr. Rick Knabb, about the fact that NOAA has two P3 propeller aircraft that fly into the storm, but only the one Gulfstream jet that can fly high enough and long enough to get above the storm. Flying above the storm is critical because the scientists drop sondes out of the belly of the aircraft that fall through the storm sending measurements of the entire vertical profile. This is vital to telling us where the storm is headed and whether it is weakening or strengthening. Having only one Gulfstream is a single point of failure because, if the plane is out of commission, we do not have a backup ready to go. Unfortunately, my fears were realized a few short months later. During a Hurricane Hermine reconnaissance mission, NOAA had to ground the Gulfstream for emergency corrosion repairs. Luckily, a plane owned by the National Science Foundation and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research was not on a mission at the time and was able to fill in for the NOAA Gulfstream, but you can imagine that this will not always be the case. While the hurricane season seems to be getting longer, the NOAA plane is getting older. We must have a reliable backup. So, in January, I filed S. 153, legislation to require NOAA to acquire sufficient backup capability for our hurricane hunter aircraft. I am pleased today that the Senate will unanimously pass this measure as part of a broader weather bill. I take comfort that even in times of great divisiveness, the Senate can come together on matters of public safety. The power of Mother Nature must be taken seriously. Consider the flooding in California or the devastating tornadoes that hit Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida early this year. In 2016, Hurricane Matthew took 46 lives in the United States alone. In addition to requiring backup capability for the hurricane hunters, the broader bill we will pass tonight, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, will improve NOAA s ability to understand, predict, and--most importantly--to warn people about all kinds of weather events that dramatically affect the economy and people's daily lives. It also includes a reauthorization of the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act. These provisions will give NOAA the tools to protect life and property and to support continued economic growth. It is my hope that the House follows suit.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a detailee, Randolph Clark, and a fellow, Stacey Stern Albert, who have worked on this issue for the Commerce Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.