Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. I agree with my colleague from Washington--we cannot stand by and allow this harm to continue. The U.S. Government requires child-resistant packaging on other products, including over-the-counter medications and cleaning supplies. These rules have prevented countless injuries and deaths, and this important legislation will ensure we have the same protections in place when it comes liquid nicotine.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, a number of my colleagues will be coming to the floor in just a while to talk about the crisis that is going on in the island territory of Puerto Rico. Remember, Puerto Rico is a territory. Its citizens are U.S. citizens, and we often forget that, particularly as they are now facing economic challenges that are growing worse by the day. Although we just had an opportunity in the Omnibus appropriations bill to address Puerto Rico's fiscal crisis, it appears that Congress is going to go home without having done the bare minimum for Puerto Rico. In the meantime, Puerto Rico is going to start the New Year on the verge of default as the Governor faces the troubling choice of whether to pay for essential public services or make a $1 billion debt payment to Wall Street creditors. The public services include those for health, fire, police, water, et cetera, versus paying the bonds that are coming due. Many of us have been urging our colleagues for months--Senator Durbin, Senator Cantwell, Senator Schumer, and myself--to meaningfully address this fiscal crisis by providing Puerto Rico with the same debt restructuring authority that is available to any other State under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. This is the authority that Puerto Rico had until it was taken away by Congress without any explanation 30 years ago. That is why I have joined Senator Cantwell, who is here, and Senators Schumer and Blumenthal, in introducing legislation that would allow Puerto Rico's municipalities and public corporations to restructure its debt under the watchful eye of the Federal bankruptcy judge. This is not a bailout. Providing Puerto Rico with an opportunity to orderly manage its debt as we do for every State under chapter 9 of the bankruptcy laws costs the Federal Government nothing. It also prevents Puerto Rico from having a drawn-out battle with bond holders following a potential default. Yet nowhere in the Omnibus appropriations bill, where we have a lot of other stuff--nowhere in the omnibus appropriations bill--is there anything to give Puerto Rico the legitimate orderly process of chapter 9 in bankruptcy that it needs. There are a few provisions to help Puerto Rico's hospitals, but even they don't go far enough. It deeply troubles me that we will celebrate the holidays knowing full well that there is so much more that the Congress could have done. I would like to put this in perspective. Just a few weeks ago we met with a group of Floridians who were here for the National Day of Action for Puerto Rico. What they describe--and what this Senator has seen in a visit to Puerto Rico and the government in San Juan a month ago--is a humanitarian crisis due to the crushing government debt, a failing economy, and a growing poverty. What is the result? Thousands of Puerto Ricans--U.S. citizens--are coming to my State. They are certainly welcome, but these are often the very talented, educated people that are so desperately needed for the well-being of the population on the island. Some that come are fortunate to move in with relatives. Others are living in motels. Others are even living out of their cars. A lot of them come to central Florida to the metro Orlando area, where there is a huge Puerto Rican population. What we see in the discrepancy and the economic despair that is happening on the island is absolutely heartbreaking. How in the world can we fail our fellow Americans like this? Notice who have been the most courageous in the military? It has often been the soldiers who are Puerto Rican. These Americans have contributed to the diverse fabric of our country, and they proudly serve in so many Federal responsibilities, including our military. We should be doing all that we can to provide them with the tools they need--the financial tools Puerto Rico needs to emerge from its current economic challenges--and debt restructuring authority is one of those things. I want to urge our colleagues, since we didn't get it into the omnibus, in the spirit of our patriotic unity to help each other and that unity that binds all Americans, to come together and help Puerto Rico at this critical time. I see my colleague from the State of Washington. I appreciate the leadership that she has taken. My State is one of the ones that is most affected. Her State is not as affected, and yet the Senator from Washington has stepped up and done this because she knows it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor and look forward to hearing from the Senator.

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 take advantage of this opportunity to also share with the Senate that we have a very important Coast Guard bill on which we are going to try to get unanimous consent so that we can send it on to the House. There are parts that have been controversial and those parts generally have been worked out. There are one or two others. This Senator thinks the American people--unless they get in trouble out on the high seas--don't really have an understanding of what a professional military organization the U.S. Coast Guard is. We have the Coast Guard participating with our Defense Department over in the war zones--the area of responsibility over in Central Command. We have the Coast Guard basically doing the job for the U.S. Navy in the waters off of Alaska. We have a Coast Guard that is patrolling the waters off of the continental United States, as well as the island State of Hawaii. The Coast Guard is always there when Americans get in trouble, and indeed when mariners who are not Americans get into trouble. The Coast Guard is an incredible professional organization that is doing the job. Down in the waters off of my State of Florida, the Coast Guard does this incredible job working with the U.S. Navy on the interdiction of drugs. When the drug smugglers have to be interdicted, the Navy, if they are tracking them, hands that over to the Coast Guard because the Coast Guard, in fact, has the law enforcement capability to go in and take down the smugglers. The Coast Guard can shoot the motors out of these go-fast boats to interdict smugglers--even going after submerged vehicles--to stop them. The Coast Guard does that from not only their boats but also from the air. The Coast Guard stands tall. We in the Congress now need to stand tall for the Coast Guard. Earlier this month the majority leader offered a unanimous consent to discharge from the Senate commerce committee and pass the Coast Guard Authorization Act, giving the Coast Guard the resources it needs to carry out its mission. It cannot be overstated. It is a small, very agile service of 42,000 Active-Duty members. It plays a vital role in protecting the Nation from narcoterrorism, human smuggling, environmental disasters, and from the loss of life and property at sea. So what is in this bill? It is the result of several months of negotiations between the House and the Senate. The chairman of our Senate commerce committee, John Thune, and I, as the ranking member of the commerce committee, have worked with our colleagues to craft a bill that will authorize a total of $9.1 billion in each of the fiscal years 2016 and 2017. It is a $380 million per year increase over the amount authorized last year, and it enhances the Coast Guard and its capability to do a number of the things that I have listed, which include cracking down on the drug trade and the destruction of evidence, including the destruction of illegal drugs. It enhances the Coast Guard capabilities to stop the smuggling of drug money across our maritime borders. The Coast Guard's Western Hemisphere strategy is to combat the criminal networks, secure the borders, and safeguard American commerce. So to meet all that, this legislation's increased funding is going to support the Coast Guard's ongoing fleet recapitalization program, including the design and construction of a new offshore patrol cutter and continued production of a fast response cutter. I have ridden in these fast response cutters. I have ridden in the go-fast boats as they simulated a drug smuggler that was trying to avoid us. This boat can do the hairpin turns and the sudden 180-degree turns at top speed, and that is how these guys can't get away. If for some reason they were not able to interdict them at sea, we have them from the air. I have watched the Coast Guard sharpshooters blow out the motors on a go-fast drug smuggling boat. But we have to recapitalize a lot of these old boats. The average age of a Coast Guard high endurance cutter is 45 years old. The average age of the Coast Guard's 210-foot medium endurance cutter is 48 years old. These are two of the primary ships that are used for interdiction and rescue worldwide. So new offshore patrol cutters, fast response cutters, will give our Coast Guard an effective coastal and offshore interdiction capability in order to meet its objectives. You think of the Coast Guard off the coast. They are in Washington. I am not talking about the ones onshore. They are out there protecting national security assets in and around the Potomac and the Anacostia Rivers. In addition to this recapitalization, the bill allows the Coast Guard to begin updating its fleet of polar icebreakers, allowing the service to pay an estimated $1 billion needed for the acquisition of a new state-of-the-art heavy polar icebreaker. Why do we need that? Have you noticed recently what the Chinese have been doing in the Arctic? Especially, have you noticed what the Russians are doing in the Arctic? Have you noticed that the Russians have 19 icebreakers and we have just a few? Have you noticed that China is funding and building icebreakers for the Arctic? Part of our icebreakers, the Polar Star and the Healy were built in the 1970s and 1990s. The Polar Star is now well beyond its intended 30- year service life. It is vital that we enable the Coast Guard to begin bringing these new vessels online to support the Coast Guard's Arctic strategy and cooperative maritime strategy and to meet the President's stated intent for increased American presence and capabilities in the Arctic. I went with the Coast Guard to Alaska. As I said a moment ago, the Navy has really ceded the Alaskan waters to the Coast Guard to protect maritime shipping--a huge fishing fleet up there. But also on the North Slope of Alaska, which is the beginning of those Arctic waters, there is a lot of activity up there--not only fishing but exploring for oil. At times of the year when it is totally incapable of a seaworthy vessel to crack the ice, you have to have an icebreaker to do it. The Russians have 19. They are getting very aggressive in the Arctic. Just ask the Prime Minister of Norway, with all of his teams, how concerned they are with what the former Soviets are doing up in the Arctic. Thus, this bill enhances and speeds up our capability of getting another icebreaker--a modernized icebreaker. So this legislation is also going to provide the Coast Guard parity with our Department of Defense sister services with respect to personnel policies such as parental leave and eligibility for combat- related special compensation. If they are out there on the frontlines, they should have parity with our sister men and women in uniform. This legislation will ensure that the Coast Guard is properly equipped to protect our national and homeland security interests in our ports, on our coastal and inland waters, such as Washington, and on the high seas around the world. This Senator believes that we will be able to do this by unanimous consent, if we work through a few more things. So I urge our colleagues in the Senate: Let's get this up and get it passed before the Christmas recess so the House will have it the first part of next year so we can get on about the process of getting this bill authorized, completed, and sent down to the President for signature into law. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua Manning, a NASA fellow and a detailee, and Brandon Fisher, a Coast Guard fellow at the commerce committee, be allowed floor privileges for the 114th Congress.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we are going back into space with Americans on American rockets, and we are going to Mars. We are on the cusp of the next big breakthrough in space exploration. It is interesting that this is at the very time that in our culture here on Earth, the movie that is harkening back--``Star Wars''--is coming out again, and it is going to be such a blockbuster at the box office. What is fictional in ``Star Trek'' and ``Star Wars'' is now becoming factual. In large part, it is what has been done in the Nation's space program since the shutdown of the space shuttle back in 2011 and in the preparation of the new vehicles--the new rockets, the new spacecraft, the new satellites, the new exploratory missions that have gone on. Who among us, merely three decades ago, would have thought the Hubble Space Telescope would look back into the far reaches of the universe-- close to the beginning of that universe--and start to unlock secrets through this telescope that is orbiting the Earth that was put up by humans in the U.S. space shuttle? Who among us would believe that we now are going to launch a telescope in 2018 that will look back in time to the very beginning of the source of light in the universe--the big bang--and understand this universe all the more and how it evolved in this magnificent creation that we earthlings observe of the heavens? Who among us, over four decades ago when we landed on the Moon, were not impatient to escape the bounds of Earth's gravity once again to get out and explore the heavens? That is now becoming a reality. It is becoming a reality in large part because of the budget that will be presented to the Congress, which we will pass--an appropriation that just in this present fiscal year that we find ourselves in right now will increase NASA's budget $1.3 billion over what NASA was appropriated last year. Getting Americans and American rockets back into space, since we haven't had Americans on American rockets since we shut down the space shuttle, had to be done. That was an essentially extraordinary creative flying machine, but its design had inherent flaws that were risky for human beings. Indeed, in over 135 flights of the space shuttle, we lost two crews--14 souls--because of its design. There was a malfunction where there was no escaping for the crew. But now we have new rockets that will have the crew in a capsule on the top of the rocket so that if there is an explosion on the pad, an explosion in ascent all the way into orbit, we can still save the crew because we can separate them by the escape rockets from the main vehicle and save the crew, ultimately having them land or by parachute--powered landing or a parachute landing. These rockets are almost ready to fly. Indeed, some of them have been flying for quite a while. Two companies, SpaceX and Boeing, will have the spacecraft. SpaceX, its capsule and spacecraft called Dragon, is sitting on top of a rocket that has flown many times called the Falcon 9. Boeing, with a spacecraft called the Starliner, will sit upon the very proven Atlas V. Which one will fly first? We do not know. But the fact is that is only 2 years away--2017. They will fly with the first crews to and from the space station so that we no longer have to rely upon a very reliable partner that indeed helped us build the International Space Station to which we go and return not only with crew but with cargo as well. We won't have to rely on the Soyuz anymore. We will be flying on American rockets. That is going to happen in a short 2 years. The assurance of that is this. It is the Omnibus appropriations bill that is coming forth that has appropriated the amount NASA needs to keep this competition between SpaceX and Boeing going for developing, hopefully, two spacecraft that will be launching Americans on American rockets to and from our International Space Station. By the way, we have six human beings on the space station. It is an international crew. They are doing all kinds of experiments. At another time and another day, I can tell my colleagues about some of those exciting things. We are going to Mars. We are going to Mars because we are developing a spacecraft called Orion that we have already test-flown out to 3,600 miles to check its structural integrity on a ballistic reentry. That was done a year ago. Now we are building the largest, most powerful rocket ever on Earth, called the Space Launch System, or SLS. Orion and SLS have also been given a boost in this appropriations bill. So we are well on our way for the first test of this full-up rocket with capsule in September of 2018. That is less than 3 years away, with the first crewed vehicle after the first test in 2021. That is the forerunner to building the spacecraft and the technologies that can take human beings and keep them alive all the way from Earth to Mars, land on Mars, stay on Mars for a while, and return safely to the Earth. ``Star Wars,'' ``Star Trek,'' is fiction. It is exciting, but it's fiction. This is space fact. It is happening in front of our eyes. Now, there are other things that are happening with this appropriations bill. We think, in this solar system, if there is a chance for life besides Mars, or life that was there and we want to know what happened--there is a moon around Jupiter called Europa. Europa is so cold that it has an exterior that is ice. But the gravitational pull of Jupiter, as Europa goes around and around Jupiter, is such that it causes the friction from an inner core that already has heat and heats up from the inside. So under this crust of ice on Europa is water. In our experience as earthlings, wherever we have found water, we have found life. So is not Europa one of the best chances of there being life as we understand it in those oceans? It is a smaller body than Earth--Europa--and yet has oceans that are twice the volume of the oceans on planet Earth. That is a real possibility. So in this appropriations bill, there is $1.6 billion to proceed on a plan for taking us to Europa to see if there is other life in our solar system. There is also something that is very important to us earthlings, and that is that we need to know what is happening to the planet and we need to be able to predict and we need to be able to foretell, because if a big storm is coming here, we want precise measurements to let us, bound on the face of terra firma, know what is that storm that is coming and what are the weather conditions. That accuracy is so important for us in our daily lives here on Earth, not even to speak of our national security. You could go through the rest of the NASA budget and you can see that it indeed sets us on a course for extraordinary space exploration as well as taking care of the aeronautical research, which is the other ``A'' in NASA--aeronautics. That has a plus-up from the President's request--aeronautics--giving all the research on the technology to make sure that our aviation industry is at the absolute cutting edge. We are going to Mars, and we are beginning this journey as we did with the test of the spacecraft a year ago. That journey is going to accelerate, and in the lifetimes of many of those within the sound of my voice, they will witness a human crew of Americans and possibly an international crew that will go all the way to the planet Mars and return. Indeed what was science fiction based on science facts--the Matt Damon movie ``The Martian''--really is right within our grasp. It is an exciting time as we bring our space exploration back to life so that the American people can see that there is a viable space program and that we have a goal and that goal is the planet Mars.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, Americans are understandably frightened by the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. As we mourn the loss of the victims, our hearts go out to their friends and families. We were shocked 14 years ago, on September 11, when foreign terrorists struck our homeland. For the first time, two big oceans did not protect us from foreign terrorists. Now we know we have to be prepared to meet the threat not only abroad but here at home. First, that means we have to see the threat clearly. It doesn't just come from shadowy foreign terrorist groups such as ISIS or Al Qaeda; now we see that it comes from a lone wolf or wolves, individuals who get radicalized. We saw that in the case at Fort Hood. We have seen it in other cases. We saw it in the case that was averted in Times Square, from someone who had come all the way across the country. They are extremely hard to detect. Of course, ISIS uses the Internet to spread its propaganda, its influence, and to try to inspire disaffected young people with its propaganda far beyond where ISIS is located over in the Middle East. That means we have to use all the tools at our disposal to collect actionable intelligence, harden our defenses, counter radicalization, counter propaganda, and stiffen our resolve. We ought to ensure that terrorists can't exploit the Visa Waiver Program. There are 38 countries with which we share this visa waiver. We ought to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the access they need to the terrorists' electronic communications to disrupt the attacks--that is a big order--all the while protecting Americans' privacy and constitutional rights. That is why this Senator thinks it was a mistake to change the previous law, as we did earlier this year, which allowed telecom business bulk records to be readily accessed to trace terrorist communications. We have done this. We do not have the ready access of those bulk business records. Again, I remind our listeners we are not talking about the contents of communications--telephone calls or content of the Internet messages. We are talking about the bulk records which are business records that such and such a number or such and such an IP address on such and such a date transmitted a message to another number or another IP address. In the past, through a court order, those bulk records were held by the NSA, granting ready access so that if we were trying to stop a terrorist by getting intel ahead of time, we could go back and see where those communications were and with whom and how many hops it had gone in order to try to break up the terrorist activity. The problem with the lone wolf is that if they are disguising their operations, they are not communicating with anybody. That is why it makes it so much more difficult to intercept the lone wolf who has been inspired by ISIS. Recently we saw that ISIS has claimed the responsibility for the bombing of a Russian airliner over Egypt, and it reminds us that our planes and airports remain a target for terror attacks. That is why I am introducing, and will explain tomorrow, legislation to tighten internal security at airports across the country. We had some good examples of that a year ago in Atlanta. Unbelievably, for several months, guns were brought into the Atlanta airport by airport workers, were transferred to a passenger who had already gone through TSA security, and they were actually transported over a number of months from Atlanta to New York. It is the lack of security on the perimeter of allowing workers into the airport proper that needs to be tightened up at all of our 300 airports. Two have already done that over the last several years, and I am very proud of the Miami airport and the Orlando airport that they have done it and done it very successfully. Because ISIS exploits war in Syria and the instability and sectarian conflict in Iraq, meeting the terrorist threat means the use of military force as well. With the help of our coalition partners, as we speak, our forces are striking ISIS from the air and training local forces to fight ISIS on the ground. We are intensifying airstrikes against ISIS leadership, against heavy weapons, against oil tankers and oil wells, and have recently deployed U.S. Special Operations forces to help local forces build the necessary battlefield momentum to take back territory. Special Operations forces will be central to the fight in order to avoid the large-scale deployment of U.S. ground forces. These forces are trained to conduct surgical strikes against terrorist leaders. There are press reports that GEN Joseph Votel, the current commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, in the next year will become the next commander of Central Command, responsible for operations against ISIS. He already works side by side with General Austin--the commander of U.S. Central Command in Tampa at MacDill Air Force Base--and he will bring tremendous experience to the job. The Congress is not doing our job. We should authorize the use of military force. It is our responsibility. I believe the President has the responsibility to fight ISIS in Iraq or Syria or wherever, but the unity of the Congress backing the President in law is constitutionally required. We ought to debate these proposals and vote. The authorization would show the world that the United States is united in defeating ISIS. The military fight is one piece of a broader effort to destroy ISIS and bring about a political transition in Syria to a government where finally Bashar al-Assad will have finally left. That is critical to ending the war, ending the resulting humanitarian crisis, and stemming the flow of the refugees. Our efforts will take time and commitment, but they are clearly necessary to protect our national security. This is going to be a long, hard war. We can't do it overnight. There has been success in the war effort. We brought together 65 nations. Twelve thousand terrorist fighters have been killed. We have shrunk the territory ISIS occupies and has sanctuary. I want to show the Senate this map. It has been shown before. It is not classified. All the area in green is what ISIS used to occupy, along with the area in orange--there along the Euphrates River. All of that area in green ISIS occupied but no longer does because of the coalition efforts. There has been success. Someone needs to talk about that success. Going forward, we are going to have to use more Special Operations troops. We are going to have to insist on our Arab neighbors picking up the fight and doing the fighting on the ground, and we do not need to make the mistake of tens of thousands of Americans on the ground because that plays right into ISIS's hands because it looks like--and ISIS would portray it as--it is the United States versus Muslims. We should treat Muslims with respect here at home in America; treat them with the respect they deserve. Don't overreact. Otherwise that plays to ISIS's advantage of the image of Americans; in other words, it is us versus them. We are accelerating the fight. We have more and more intense coalition partners. We have extensive intel sharing. We have an outreach to Muslims about the truth of ISIS, and we insist our partners share their intel with us. That includes the visa waiver of those 38 nations. Fear at this time--like San Bernardino--is a natural response. It happens at times such as this, but we cannot let fear get the best of us. We must overcome the fear and not let it compromise who we are as Americans by overreacting. We need to nail down a truth that our government has no greater obligation than to keep us safe. I want to share with the Senate, where is the unity that we used to have? I know it is not in vogue to say ``the good old days,'' but I can tell you that when this Senator was a young Congressman and when it came to national security, partisanship stopped at the water's edge. Isn't it time to unify? Isn't it the time to disagree without being disagreeable? Isn't it time to think of ourselves as Americans instead of partisans? Isn't it time to remember that Latin phrase that is up there above the President's desk, ``e pluribus unum''--out of many, one. It is time to come together. God bless America. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, while my colleague from Michigan is here, let me say that we appreciate so much his participation in the commerce committee, especially the expertise he brings to the table with regard to all things automotive since, in fact, his State is the automotive State. He is a valued member of our commerce committee. I thank the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding, Mr. President. I am going to say two short paragraphs, but first, my commendations to the leadership that has already been mentioned by the esteemed majority leader; my commendations to my colleague, our chairman on the commerce committee, Senator Thune, who has been a pleasure to work with; and my thanks to the staff, including Kim Lipsky, the staff director for our minority staff on the commerce committee. I want to echo what you have said. Because of this bill, we are going to provide States and communities with over $300 billion over 5 years to repair the roads and bridges of this country and greatly improve rail and port projects, and as a result, we are going to create jobs. In my State of Florida, this translates to $12 million that can be used for improvements on Interstate 95, Interstate 75, and projects, such as SunRail, Tri-rail, and the streetcars in Fort Lauderdale. This is just a small example, and I am so grateful to everyone. I thank everyone very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we are about to consider a big appropriations bill all wrapped up into one called an Omnibus appropriations bill. I think it will be a good bill. But here we go again, trying to attach all kinds of goodies to it. Now, with just a few days left of funding before the U.S. Government spending authority and appropriations expire--to the best of my recollection that is about 9\1/2\ days away--we have to get something done. But what is happening is that the special interests are coming out of the woodwork, and they are hard at work to sneak sweetheart deals into what is a must-pass piece of legislation--the funding to keep the Government of the United States functioning. So these special interests that are suddenly popping up and sneaking around the corner don't have to get the votes to get it passed through their regular order for whatever their particular interest is. They want it so their interests are riders on the appropriations bill, and everybody has to vote for it with their special interests because if we don't, the government shuts down, which is obviously an unacceptable alternative. These handouts to special interests are known as appropriations riders. Most ordinary Americans don't know that this stuff is going on. Well, based on the appropriations bill that we saw earlier this year, we know that many of these riders could work their way in. For example, some people, particularly in the banking community, don't like some of the restrictions. In September of 2008, when we nearly had a financial meltdown as a result of Lehman Brothers going down, there was a big financial death spiral going on. A lot of excesses happened during that time in the bailout so that Wall Street would not go under, and there was legislation to correct some of those excesses. It is known by the name of the two authors, Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank. There are going to be people trying to put in a rollback of some of those provisions, but I hope some of our colleagues will remember what those were put in for, so that we don't have the likelihood of having another financial death spiral like that which almost occurred. I hope we remember the picture in our minds of the Republican Secretary of the Treasury at the end of the George Bush administration, begging the leadership of Congress to pass the troubled assets relief bill to keep the financial integrity of the U.S. Government. There were a lot of excesses, including excessive executive salaries that came from that. We know all about what happened to that supersized insurance company called AIG. I don't think Americans would want these kinds of things put on a necessary funding bill for the United States Government. I will give another example. Another policy rider is to prohibit the United States from working with other countries to address climate change. This Senator has been in the middle of it because Miami Beach is ground zero on climate change. The measurements over the last 40 years are an additional 5 to 8 inches that the sea level has risen at the seasonal high tide. The streets of Miami Beach are flooded. It is a real problem. There are some, such as Senator Inhofe, who don't believe it. So we can have that debate. I am respectful of Senator Inhofe and of his position, although I think we can easily refute it with scientific evidence, but we ought to have that debate. Don't sneak it in on a rider on a must-pass, gargantuan appropriations bill in order to keep the government functioning. There are other riders that are being discussed that are bad for the safety of families and making our highways more dangerous. For example, we picked up that some of the appropriators have suggested to continue the delay of the important implementation of safety laws, such as how long does it take for a trucker to become tired if they have to work longer and longer hours, and is that a safety concern. As the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction, we work on these issues. We debate them. Don't go trying to sneak something in under the rug in an appropriations bill regarding safety for surface transportation. We just hammered that out in a conference committee on the highway bill. The highway bill is a lot more than just highways and bridges; it is surface transportation. It includes safety measures as well for all modes of surface transportation. Let me give an example of another rider that is out there lurking. There are some who want to take all of the additional fees--when someone buys a ticket to fly on an airline, a person ought to have the opportunity of knowing what all those fees are, and on a person's airline ticket that one buys from the airline, one usually does. But there are others who want to sell those airline tickets--not the airlines--and not disclose all of those fees. Yet the consumers are the ones who are paying for it. They are trying to sneak in under the rug another provision that would become law on an unrelated appropriations bill. So I just wanted to add my voice to the others who are speaking this afternoon. Let's put the American people first, and let's use what we hear about all the time: Regular order. Let the committee system work to hammer out what ought to be in the bills instead of, at the eleventh hour of the 59th minute as we have to fund the government, trying to sneak something in, in the dead of night, in order to scratch the itch of someone's special interest. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about a piece of legislation that a number of us have filed. There will be several Senators speaking here later this afternoon about the Seniors And Veterans Emergency Benefits Act. It is a very important piece of legislation to help millions of Americans who depend on Social Security benefits to make ends meet. I want to emphasize that point. Much of the American population does not realize that there are senior citizens whose sole existence depends on the check they get from Social Security. Unfortunately, we have seniors who are facing the situation that the price of food or some of their medicine unexpectedly goes up. How could this be, in America in the year 2015? But it happens among some of our senior citizens. In the last Congress I had the privilege of chairing the Special Committee on Aging. We held a number of hearings on this issue. It will break your heart, but that is going on today. To add a little more drama and heartache to this, in October the Social Security Administration announced that for the third time in the past 40 years, there will not be a cost-of-living adjustment for 2016. That is under a formula, and it is legal. Since 1975, the cost-of- living adjustment has ensured that the purchasing power of the Social Security benefits stays the same, regardless of rising prices or inflation. When we get to a point that the formula says no cost-of- living adjustment for a senior citizen, that becomes a fairly big deal because 65 percent of all senior citizens depend on Social Security to provide the majority of their cash income. It is real money that they depend on to help make the basic expenses. In my State, we have a higher percentage of the population who are senior citizens--4 million Floridians that are categorized as senior citizens because of their age. When there is not an adjustment on the cost-of-living adjustment, these folks are starting to feel the squeeze and are forced to sacrifice on something. What a group of Senators are going to talk about and what I am sharing is that we are going to offer an opportunity to act before this no cost-of-living increase would take effect in January because 20 of us have sponsored legislation introduced by Senator Warren to fix the fact that there is a lack of a cost-of-living adjustment. I am glad to see that Senator Warren is here. I could not join the distinguished Senator later on, so I took the liberty of going ahead and telling from my point of view how this legislation is going to give to about 70 million Americans a one-time payment of approximately $580 to help them have money for the basic needs, such as food or rent. Nearly 4.5 million people in Florida--a little less than a quarter of the State's population--would be eligible for that lump sum payment. Nine million veterans who receive Social Security benefits would receive a benefit under the bill. In my State, 323,000 veterans and their family members would get that benefit. Forty percent of the seniors in the United States have incomes below the poverty line if they do not have Social Security assistance. That is a shocking statement. Let me say that again. Forty percent of our senior citizens in this country would have incomes below the poverty line if they did not have Social Security assistance. Therefore, this legislation that we are filing would lift over 1 million people out of poverty. To some, a benefit of $580 may seem insignificant, but in reality, it is going to make a difference to millions. It may not seem like a big deal to a lot of people that there is no COLA, but if that senior citizen does not have the money to pay for the rent, a utility bill, a trip to the doctor or the groceries they need for their nutrition, that $580 is the difference. Many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and are forced to make these tough decisions. We ought to be making it easier for them. That is our job. There are no excuses. I intend to work with our colleagues to see if this is a possibility. While Senator Warren is here, I wish to engage the Senator from Massachusetts and yield to her for an answer. As we sat on the Special Committee on Aging, we heard the testimony of how dire, on the line, and on the razor's edge the income is for senior citizens with these Social Security benefits. When that does not keep up with the cost of living--surely there is a cost-of-living increase in one year over the other, but if their Social Security checks don't reflect that, does that not invite a tremendous hardship on that elderly person?

Mr. NELSON. Therefore, I conclude by resting the case. If the cost of every person's daily living is in fact going up and yet our formula shows that they get no cost-of-living adjustment, is that not putting a burden upon the ones who we should be respecting and protecting that should not be there? We can do that with this legislation. 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. President, am I correct that we are in morning business?

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. I will. Let me make this statement. There is another part of unfairness, and that is that Puerto Ricans are not being treated the same way under the Medicare and Medicaid laws as well. To this Senator from Florida, who is close to the Puerto Rican people, it does not seem to be the fair thing. Regardless of what the issue is with regard to how they got into economic trouble, the fact is they are in economic trouble. The question is, How are we going to get them out of economic trouble? Of course, for purposes of a question, I yield to the distinguished Senator, my chairman of the Finance Committee.

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, this Senator from Florida doesn't think it is true that Puerto Rico is having such economic chaos that the net result is that Puerto Ricans--who are American citizens--move to Florida. The fact is that some are moving to Florida, I would say to the distinguished Senator from Utah, because of the economic deprivation of the island. It would seem to me, as someone who has looked at this issue and has been to the island and spoken to the leaders, that there is an essential element of fairness here. If the bankruptcy laws are allowed to apply to all States and municipalities, why would those bankruptcy laws not apply to Puerto Rico and its need to reorganize its finances as well?

Mr. NELSON. The Senator is certainly entitled to the information in order to make a reasonable judgment. This Senator is advocating fairness in the system. There was a time that Puerto Rico was, in fact, included under the bankruptcy laws. For whatever reason, a couple of decades ago the law was changed and they were treated differently; the same was true with Medicare and Medicaid payments. I think, regardless of what their financials show, Congress is going to have to take action. So when the Senator gets the information he wants, then I hope we can act forthwith because this is a problem that is with us at the moment. They are about to the point that they cannot make the payments on their debt obligations. So the day of reckoning is basically here.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I came to the floor for a different reason. I want to speak about the National Security Agency and the bulk telephone metadata collection program that basically the new law took over, that there was reform of. Now, let me explain the old law and the new law that just took effect yesterday. The old law had been in effect for--I don't know the exact number of years but something in excess of 5 and less than 8. The old law said that by going to the approved court that handles classified information--called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, known by its acronym FISA--that the government could ask for these records to come into the possession of the government by showing good cause as to why those records would be held. So it was pursuant to a court order. What were the records to be held? These are business records of the telephone company. This is not the content of the telephone call; this is the business record that says that on such and such a day, at such a time, that telephone number such and such called telephone such and such. That is called metadata. That is it; there is no content. For almost a decade, ever since we had the 9/11 attacks and we passed the PATRIOT Act to try to make it much more efficient for our National Security Agencies to protect us--those records, if the telephone company complied with the order, would be in the data-base. But it is not the content. It is only the business records stating what I just said: Number such and such called such and such. Why was that important? Because when we suddenly got an indication that we had a terrorist that was going to strike either here or abroad and if that terrorist had a link to a number, we could see what calls that potential terrorist had made to what number and what numbers that number then called, and we could go down several different calls. It was through this that we were able to track down and prevent a number of terrorist acts, including in this country. Earlier this year, along came the reform. The choice this Senator-- who supports the old law--was given was that either the old law is going to expire and there is not going to be any law that governs the collection of these business records--nothing--or go with the reform. The so- called reform was that you had to go to the FISA Court to get an order as to a specific number and a specific reason why that number was something that you wanted. That sounds harmless enough, except when you are dealing in some cases with seconds, minutes, a few hours; you might be looking for this person about whom we suddenly got a tip--maybe from a human source--that they are about to try to do us damage. So how long is it going to take to go into court? Is it going to take months? Is it going to take weeks? Days? All the time, the potential terrorist is well ahead of us. I know our intelligence agencies are trying to be prepared so they can do it in the shortest possible time, but a judge has to be there to hear the facts and the probable cause in order to then render an order to allow the intelligence agencies--domestically, it would be the FBI--to go get those business records. If they get the business record and see that it goes one hop to another number, but maybe that goes another hop to another number and that goes another hop to several other numbers, under the so-called reform of the USA FREEDOM Act, there is a limitation on the number of hops. This Senator feels we shouldn't limit those hops if we are trying to find out who the bad guy is and what he is about to do. Once we had that determined, then we go to the court again. If it is an American citizen or a person who is legally in the United States, they have to obtain another court order in order to be able to get the content--either listening to those calls or in the case of email records, the content of the email. We always said there ought to be this continuous tension between our right to privacy, protecting our country, and ourselves. We want that tension to be there because our right to privacy is what makes us different in this country. Therefore, that is why we have the protections of having to go into court in order to get an order to get the content of the communications. All you have to do is look to Paris and you can see that these guys are out to really do some mayhem. If in any way we are slowed down, then I think it is a considerable hindrance to us. I bring this to the attention of the Senate simply because the new act superseded the old act this past weekend. Naturally, when these records were spread about publicly 2 years ago by Edward Snowden, intentionally, recklessly, and I might say illegally, there was a fear. It made it seem like Big Brother was gathering up all of our information. That is why in the initial PATRIOT Act we were so careful to keep this right of privacy protected by court order for the business records and then of course for content by a court order. I believe that program was lawful, I believe it was court-approved, and I believe it has helped protect us from terrorist attacks in the past. I think the confusion in the land is because of what the bulk record was. It wasn't content. It was business record--the dates, times, length, and the numbers dialed but not their content. We have this new law. It is in place. The National Intelligence Director, Jim Clapper, and the NSA Director, ADM Mike Rogers, assured us that the new law preserved a critical counterterrorism capability, but these Paris attacks remind us how brutal ISIS really is and that the terrorist threat persists. As we look at who the terrorists in Paris were, there were four of them whom we knew of, whom we had on our no-fly list, and who were citizens of European countries. What does that mean? That means they didn't have to go into the Embassy to get a visa so their background could be checked. They are one of the visa waiver countries. But there was another one of their citizens who was one of those terrorists who was not on our no-fly list. I think the fact that the administration has already started clamping down, doing the extra checks, we certainly want to keep the Visa Waiver Program going, but it is a considerable potential threat if we are not checking and rechecking. I think from what we learned out of Paris, if the European countries will be more forthcoming to share their intelligence information with us about the potential terrorists, that will build our no-fly list for their citizens and that will be very helpful. We ought to permanently extend section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which is going to expire in another 2 years. This crucial tool provides access to electronic communications of suspected terrorists and other foreign persons located outside of the United States. As we redouble our counterterrorism efforts, we must maintain what works and make the necessary changes as the threat evolves. That means remaining vigilant and using all the tools in our toolbox--including intelligence collection, Homeland Security protections, and the fight against ISIS on the battlefield. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I will have more to say about the refugee crisis and the necessity of the considerable vetting of those refugees, as well as any other refugees, as we protect ourselves here at home. I will have more to say about that later. U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate that last night the House passed a bill we modified--the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act. It will now go to the President to be signed into law. This bill contains the language we helped to negotiate as a compromise between two different bills that had passed the House and the Senate earlier this year. This bipartisan legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously, is a major effort that recognizes the tremendous growth of the commercial space industry. It is an industry that now represents more than 75 percent of the $330 billion global space economy--$330 billion. It is an industry here in the United States that will continue to grow as more companies enter into new and exciting space ventures, such as launching thousands of small satellites that will provide worldwide Internet access, such as recovering valuable resources from distant asteroids, and such as sending tourists on incredible journeys that one day may even include overnight stays in space hotels. These are the innovative kinds of commercial space activities this little country boy dreamed about years ago when I had the privilege of helping pass the first Commercial Space Launch Act way back in 1984. It is an industry where we are starting to see a resurgence of activity here in the United States. For example, just 10 years ago, there was only one American commercial space launch, compared at that time to eight launches from Russia and five from Europe. Last year there were 11 American commercial launches, accounting for nearly half of the worldwide commercial launches and earning $1.1 billion in revenue--more than both Russia and Europe for the very first time. Much of this growth has been seeded by a commercial industry supporting the needs of our space program; in particular, the International Space Station. Folks just do not realize that we have an International Space Station up there right now that is as long as from one goalpost on a football field all the way to the other goalpost. That is how big this is. There are six human beings up there on orbit right now. Two American companies are now supplying the International Space Station with critical cargo and supplies, along with our international partners. Soon, U.S. companies will begin launching NASA astronauts and international partner astronauts to the space station. That is why this bill is so important. It paves the way for NASA to begin launching government astronauts on American-made commercial rockets so we do not have to depend on our crews getting to and from the space station just on the very proven and reliable Russian Soyuz. Commercial companies are also making great use of the space station for medical research, and one company is even 3D-printing tools right now on the space station. So the bill extends the operations of the International Space Station to provide certainty to industry and to the international community that the station will be around not just to 2016, not just to 2020 but now, as we put it in the bill, at least to 2024. I think we will see efforts later on that it will even be extended beyond 2024. It is fitting that I mention that because this month we are celebrating the 15th anniversary of continuous human presence aboard the ISS--15 years we have had humans up there on an around-the-clock basis. The commercial space sector is also revitalizing old government infrastructure such as the historic launch pads that lined Florida's space coast. It has been a privilege for me to spend some time there at the Cape and at the Kennedy Space Center. It is an amazing transformation of Cape Canaveral into a bustling space port, but I have seen how challenging it can be for commercial companies to get to do business out there on the Air Force territory. That is why this bill requires the FAA, NASA, and the Air Force to work together to reduce the administrative burden on industry operating on government property and to do that by streamlining the Federal launch requirements and processes. This bill is a major update to our commercial space legislation. It will encourage the growing commercial space industry for many years into the future--an industry of vital economic, scientific, and national security importance. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, what is our parliamentary posture?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 minutes to speak as in morning business.

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