Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of the time of the Senator from West Virginia.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to state that I enthusiastically support this legislation. If I had to sum up in one sentence what would be one of the most powerful statements as to why we need to pass this legislation, it would be from the television interview of Governor Kean, the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, when he said: This bill will pass. It is just a question of will it pass now or will it pass after the next terrorist attack. His statement was full of so much meaning because of all the deliberation and the factfinding that the 9/11 Commission had brought to the light of day in showing how the intelligence apparatus of this country had failed us in alerting that we were about to be attacked. We do not have the luxury of two big oceans protecting us as we have had in the past, for we now have a new kind of enemy who deals with stealthiness. Our ability to protect ourselves is having the information ahead of time so we can thwart the attack. It was also very revealing in the 9/11 Commission Report when they concluded that we are safer than September 11, but we are not safe. I commend the chair of the committee and her ranking member, as they have done an extraordinary job in the crucible of legislative give and take to stand on their principles and to insist on those principles that a reorganization be done under which there would be accountability instead of the separate and multifaceted intelligence communities that we have seen in the past that do not talk to each other. My hat is off to the chair of the committee and to the ranking member. My hat is also off to them because they have shown legislative dealmaking at its best. They have done it with aplomb, with respect, with bipartisanship, with dignity, and that is the standard that has been so much a part of the historical tradition of the Senate. And the two of them, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, have shown us that standard. This Senator from Florida is very grateful. There will be other issues that we have to address in the future. Some of these additional questions on immigration are absolutely critical to our future protection, and we can do that in the context of a big immigration bill. We simply cannot be safe if thousands of people continue to come across the Mexican border, as we have heard in testimony in our Commerce Committee--specifically with our chairman, John McCain--having witnesses telling us how many people are coming across the Mexico-Arizona border each week. It absolutely staggers the imagination how we can have this porous border and protect ourselves from this new threat of terrorism. So we have to deal with that issue. In part, this committee has dealt with it in giving new border agents and Customs officials, and for that I am grateful. With more coastline than any other State, save for the State of Alaska, my State of Florida is a place that is ripe for infiltration, and we need that extra protection. I am looking forward to the continuing debate and offering some observations from the perspective of the State of Florida as we get into that debate. But for the time being, the reorganization of the intelligence apparatus, where there will be accountability and where there will be a centralized budget, is very important for the future protection of this country. That is why I support this bill, and I will be voting for this bill when we vote on it today. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I yield 5 minutes of his time to Senator Lieberman, and I would then yield back Senator Byrd's time, except for 5 minutes under Senator Byrd's control.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I ask the Senator regarding the objection that is being raised, what is the chance that that objection will be lifted and that we will be able tonight to pass this legislation that is so needed?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then, I say to the Senator, Godspeed.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to create a new government reward hotline designed to solicit tips from Spanish-speaking immigrants and other groups that are more likely to be the silent victims of consumer fraud. The hotline will allow anyone with knowledge of a fraud scheme involving deceptive advertising to get a reward for reporting it directly to the experts who work at the Federal Trade Commission. This legislation addresses the unscrupulous businesses that target certain communities because they know the victims are less likely to report crimes. It will further the efforts of the Federal Trade Commission to combat this problem by creating an Office of Consumer Advocacy and Outreach within the Federal Trade Commission which will administer programs and services that make it easier for victims in these communities to hold wrong-doers accountable. A Federal Trade Commission survey from earlier this year revealed that nearly 25 million adults in the United States, or 11.2 percent of the adult population, were victims of fraud, and that certain communities were more likely to fall prey to fraudulent schemes. For example, the survey found that Hispanics are twice as likely to be victims of fraud as non-Hispanic whites. A study conducted by the National Institute of Justice concluded that immigrant victims report crimes less frequently than other victims. The factors cited as contributing to this underreporting included language barriers, cultural differences, and a limited understanding of the United States Justice system. During this past year the Federal Trade Commission has levied an increasing number of complaints against deceptive Spanish-language advertisements, including fraudulent driving permits and junk computers. Two of these complaints were filed against businesses in South Florida that targeted Spanish speakers with advertisements for ``scientifically unfeasible'' weight-loss pills. The Office of Consumer Advocacy and Outreach created by this bill will provide information to targeted consumers in these communities on how to protect themselves against fraudulent schemes and where to seek redress if they become a victim. The Office will work with law enforcement to track and investigate fraud schemes that target immigrants, the elderly, minorities and other communities. One of the ways the Office will work to increase reporting of fraud by Spanish-speakers, for example, will be to publicize the reward program through a Spanish-language public service advertising campaign produced by the Federal Trade Commission that warns against consumer fraud and provides the number for this newly created anonymous hotline. Additionally, the Office will work with law enforcement to increase their level of participation in the Consumer Sentinel database system. This database, currently in existence, collects information from local, State and Federal agencies on consumer complaints to assist in the tracking and investigating of consumer fraud issues.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to create a new government reward hotline designed to solicit tips from Spanish-speaking immigrants and other groups that are more likely to be the silent victims of consumer fraud. The hotline will allow anyone with knowledge of a fraud scheme involving deceptive advertising to get a reward for reporting it directly to the experts who work at the Federal Trade Commission. This legislation addresses the unscrupulous businesses that target certain communities because they know the victims are less likely to report crimes. It will further the efforts of the Federal Trade Commission to combat this problem by creating an Office of Consumer Advocacy and Outreach within the Federal Trade Commission which will administer programs and services that make it easier for victims in these communities to hold wrong-doers accountable. A Federal Trade Commission survey from earlier this year revealed that nearly 25 million adults in the United States, or 11.2 percent of the adult population, were victims of fraud, and that certain communities were more likely to fall prey to fraudulent schemes. For example, the survey found that Hispanics are twice as likely to be victims of fraud as non-Hispanic whites. A study conducted by the National Institute of Justice concluded that immigrant victims report crimes less frequently than other victims. The factors cited as contributing to this underreporting included language barriers, cultural differences, and a limited understanding of the United States Justice system. During this past year the Federal Trade Commission has levied an increasing number of complaints against deceptive Spanish-language advertisements, including fraudulent driving permits and junk computers. Two of these complaints were filed against businesses in South Florida that targeted Spanish speakers with advertisements for ``scientifically unfeasible'' weight-loss pills. The Office of Consumer Advocacy and Outreach created by this bill will provide information to targeted consumers in these communities on how to protect themselves against fraudulent schemes and where to seek redress if they become a victim. The Office will work with law enforcement to track and investigate fraud schemes that target immigrants, the elderly, minorities and other communities. One of the ways the Office will work to increase reporting of fraud by Spanish-speakers, for example, will be to publicize the reward program through a Spanish-language public service advertising campaign produced by the Federal Trade Commission that warns against consumer fraud and provides the number for this newly created anonymous hotline. Additionally, the Office will work with law enforcement to increase their level of participation in the Consumer Sentinel database system. This database, currently in existence, collects information from local, State and Federal agencies on consumer complaints to assist in the tracking and investigating of consumer fraud issues.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in these final days of the 108th Congress, I would like to call attention to an issue of great consequence to the people of Florida and to other States that recently have been victimized by natural disasters. This year, four hurricanes wrought a path of damage and destruction across Florida and other areas. The U.S. Congress was quick to provide Federal relief for victims of the storms, and we are grateful for this. Yet a June Internal Revenue Service ruling determines that this assistance ought to be taxed. This means that if a homeowner accepts a $25,000 Federal grant to elevate their flood prone home, the grant would be included in their taxable income. This unexpected tax liability could be financially devastating to a retiree living on a fixed income after already having faced the costs of hurricane cleanup. It also creates a strong disincentive for homeowners to participate in Federal mitigation programs, increasing the risk of damage and expense in future disasters. The IRS policy runs counter to good public policy and common sense. Senator Kit Bond and Representative Mark Foley have introduced S. 2886 and H.R. 5206, respectively, identical bills that would fix this problem by exempting mitigation grants from being included as taxable income. These bills have drawn support from both sides of the aisle and a large number of the Florida Congressional delegation. I am disappointed that we will not have an opportunity to pass these bills before Congress adjourns. If we fail to act early on in the 109th Congress, come April, some homeowners could be in for a rude awakening in the form of a higher tax bill from the IRS. To help ease the minds of Floridians and other Americans living in disaster prone areas of the country, I joined Senator Landrieu in sending a letter to Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus asking them to direct the Treasury and the IRS to delay implementing this policy until Congress has the opportunity to act. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to find a solution to this problem.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while the Senate is holding in abeyance for the final Omnibus appropriations bill that the House is getting ready to file sometime tonight, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to our retiring Senators: Tom Daschle, Fritz Hollings, Don Nickles, John Breaux, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, John Edwards, Peter Fitzgerald, Zell Miller, and Bob Graham. I wish to make a speech about each one of these Senators who has become a dear friend, in some cases, over the years, such as Fritz and Peatsy Hollings, who took special interest in me as I came to the Senate and made sure I got on his Commerce Committee, which has been just an extraordinary experience with him as chairman, as well as with the present chairman, John McCain. Don Nickles, whom I have known over the 24 years he has been in the Senate, for I was in the House at the time, has been a regular in our Wednesday morning Senate prayer breakfast. He is a good friend. John Breaux, the very mention of his name brings a twinkle to your eye as you recall the wonderful good times and the great sense of humor that John Breaux has. He is the most popular politician in the State of Louisiana. He is going to be sorely missed as the dealmaker of the Senate. Ben Nighthorse Campbell has this wonderful new museum for Native Americans which would not have happened--just a stone's throw from this Capitol--had it not been for his leadership. There is, as you go through this museum, a special display on the artwork of Ben. I commend it to our colleagues. Peter Fitzgerald is a very active member of our Commerce Committee, who, in the comments by his colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, today said it very well, could work so well with Members of both sides. A southern icon, Senator Zell Miller, will go down in southern history as one of the great progressive Governors of the new South. He is one who has always extended wonderful courtesies to me. I wish to say a special word about John Edwards, for he came to the Senate in a seat that was already held by an incumbent Senator, and they said it could not be done. They said a Democrat could not win in North Carolina. Of course, John did and took the national stage by storm. I spent several days with him over the course of the past several months in the campaign. I can tell you it was a wonderful inspiration to see the amount of energy, focus, discipline, and intelligence he brought not only as a Senator but as a candidate for Vice President of this great country. And then, of course, we all know the story of how on the very day that John had to concede the election, along with our colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, his wife told him that she had breast cancer. I want Elizabeth and John to know that our prayers are with them and that we are all sharing a great deal of optimism about her complete recovery. I had the wonderful privilege of observing their three loving children on the campaign trail--their daughter Kate, and then, of course, the two young ones, Jack and Emma Claire, as they would bounce with such boundless enthusiasm on that campaign plane. There is a special part in my heart for Tom Daschle. We came to the Congress together in 1978. Among the freshman class in the House of Representatives that year, we knew Tom as ``Landslide'' Daschle. He won his race for Congress by 14 votes. Of course, he says that was a big percentage of the total vote in South Dakota at that time. We saw him grow over the years into a great Democratic leader, both minority and majority leader of the Senate, and we saw the pressure that Tom was under. Who here would not remember exactly where you were and what you were doing on September 11, 2001. We were in a leadership meeting only a few feet from here on the West Front of the Capitol watching the television of the World Trade Center, and had tried to resume our meeting when someone burst through the door and said: The Pentagon's been hit. We leapt to the window looking west across the Mall in the southwest direction of the Pentagon and saw the black smoke rising. People went their separate ways. I leapt to a telephone to try to get word to my wife because we had just moved into an apartment overlooking the southwest corner of the Pentagon. That day I remember so vividly seeing the Constitution at work, because as I came back into the room and saw the people pouring out of the majority leader's office, under the orders of the Capitol Police to get out of the building, evacuate immediately, I saw the security people of the Capitol Police take Tom in a different direction to an undisclosed location where he, along with the rest of the congressional leadership, was to be sequestered as a protection of this constitutional government and its continuity. Tom grew a lot in those ensuing days. That was in the morning, sometime right after 10 on September 11. I remember that evening, as dark fell, Members of the House and the Senate of all parties on the east front steps of the U.S. Capitol holding hands and singing ``God Bless America'' to demonstrate in what little way we could that those who sought to strike us down were going to see the resolve and the unity of the Government of the United States. I could keep going on about Tom, but we heard his comments today. Of course it is with a heavy heart that we see Tom leave this Chamber. It is under circumstances that I hope we never see replicated. There has to be civility in this body. There has to be a mutual respect. There has to be a respect for the truth. There has to be respect for the dignity of individuals and their families. Have we lost our compass? Have we lost our anchor? Have we lost our sense of human beings? This Senator can do something about that, as I have tried in the past, by the way I conduct myself with regard to my relationship to other Senators in wanting to treat others as I would like to be treated. Now that the fractiousness and the divisiveness of this highly partisan, highly ideological, rigid time of debate is behind us, it is my hope this Senate can start to come together for the good of the people, even as we approach another election time. It is for the sake of the Nation that we must do this. Bob Graham I conclude my comments about my colleague from Florida, my mentor, my friend of many years. It is hard to believe Bob Graham has been elected to serve almost 40 years--38 years to be exact. From when he was first elected to the State legislature in 1966, he has been in elected office ever since--two terms in the State house, two terms in the State senate, two terms as the Governor of Florida, where he had a magnificent record, where he has put his stamp as one of Florida's great Governors, starting programs to save the Florida Everglades, the River of Grass, the Kissimmee River, and the Everglades restoration that has now started that is an $8 million project shared half and half between the State and the Federal Government. That is a great legacy for Bob. Then, of course, his three terms in the Senate, 10 years of which he served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the last 2 of which he served as chairman of that committee. Of course, with that great knowledge and expertise, in the course of the debates here, Bob has given us great insight and wisdom. Finally, some of his fellow Senators convinced him that he ought to sit down and write a book and that book is entitled ``Intelligence Matters.'' It is my hope that with other Senators on this floor that we are going to be able to help Bob fulfill one of his dreams, which is that in an intelligence service that has been decimated from time to time as a result of the whims of appropriations, that a professional core of career intelligence officers can be enhanced by starting an ROTC for intelligence officers. We are going to try to get the appropriations to start that and to do it at one of our Florida universities named for Bob Graham. Let that little incubator show the way to see whether that is a system we can adopt around the country to give an ample supply of officers who are ready for service in the intelligence service. So it is again with a heavy heart that I see my colleague, Senator Graham, retire after a distinguished career. He will not be retiring as a public servant, because whether it be from the position of a university--and it is my understanding he will be going to Harvard for a year at the Kennedy School--or whether it be back in our State affiliated with several of our universities in Florida, Bob will be rendering public service to the people of this country for some period of time. So for all of these names I have mentioned, in the great poem ``Ulysses,'' he says, ``I am a part of all that I have met,'' and I am a part of all these great Senators. I am much richer for it and for having been their friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will address the Senate in morning business.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary procedure that we find ourselves in?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it seems that several things have happened with regard to questions of matters of faith and what some would call cultural issues that seem to be upside down in America. Just in the last few days, we have seen several ABC stations across the country that have had a fear of being fined by the Federal Communications Commission for showing the award-winning movie, ``Saving Private Ryan,'' because of some of the language that is used in this extraordinarily heroic film that is one of the most accurate portrayals of the fog and heat of war that has ever been made. At the same time, we find that ABC, in its leading up to Monday Night Football, has fostered an advertisement to promote one of its nightly network prime time shows in which a risque kind of setting is displayed for an audience that would inappropriately include children, particularly, who are watching at around 6 o'clock in the Pacific time zone of this country. On the one hand, ABC stations are taking off the air a movie that really has a great deal of portrayal of the strength of this country and all of its patriotic values and, at the same time, the network, ABC, is then promoting what some would find questionable. It seems to me we have lost our sense of balance, our sense of direction, that it is entirely upside down as to what we should be doing. So, too, I have noted in a Washington newspaper today the fact that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is urged to defend the Boy Scout movement, the title of the headline, and of which critics are pointing out that a settlement by the Department of Defense of an ACLU suit back a few years ago is going to continue to drive, to force the military to cut off all taxpayer support to the Boy Scouts of America which, in this case, uses military bases for meetings and events, such as their annual Boy Scout jamboree that is held on a Virginia military base. It seems that we have it, again, upside down, for if the objection is that the Boy Scouts of America have, as part of their oath, an allegiance to God, and if that is the reason for the suit, might I remind the Members of the Senate that when we took the oath of office, it said at the end of the oath, ``so help me God.'' But isn't it interesting that the U.S. military has taken a position in a settlement which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would keep the Boy Scouts of America off a military facility when, in fact, every military officer in the U.S. military, including this former officer of the U.S. Army, took an oath that said the following: That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of this office upon which I am about to enter, so help me God. That is the part of the oath every U.S. military officer takes, and it is the one I took decades ago when I entered as an officer of the U.S. Army. It seems to me there is a great deal of inconsistency then that the U.S. Department of Defense would take a position where every one of its officers has sworn to uphold their oath, and at the end of that oath state, ``so help me God,'' and yet they are moving to a position to knock the Boy Scouts out of being able to use public facilities--in this case, military facilities--because they have a similar oath. I come back to my opening comments. We have something that is upside down. There is not a Senator here who does not passionately believe in freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of belief in what any person chooses to believe, but are we getting so mixed up that we lose sight of what are the accepted ways in which we conduct ourselves and the respect we have for one another in our respective beliefs? Really, is there anyone who wants to kick the Boy Scouts out of their annual jamboree on a Virginia military facility? Of course there isn't. In this week that has just passed where we see the ABC network saying to some of these stations that we are not going to allow ``Private Ryan'' because it has bad words in it, and at the same time promoting a commercial that certainly has questionable viewing characteristics for young children at the 6 o'clock timeframe on the west coast of this country, and where today's news is bringing us to the point at which our own Department of Defense is taking a position that ultimately would lead to kicking off the Boy Scouts because the Boy Scouts believe in God, then I think this country has gone too far. It is time to stand up and speak out about common sense and principles that were set in place for this country by its Founding Fathers of a belief in Divine Providence and a respect for that belief. So what I will be doing is offering a resolution to the Senate today, and that resolution will conclude that: It is the sense of the United States Senate that the Department of Defense should continue to exercise its longstanding statutory authority to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America, in particular the periodic national and world Boy Scout jamboree. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished former chairman, now ranking member, of the Finance Committee, my friend, the Senator from Montana, for the time. I wanted to share with the Senate that, for the third time in as many years, I find myself wondering how in the world can we continue to be in such a fiscal posture that we find ourselves in. We are constantly reminded by the administration how rosy our economic outlook is, and there are some economic indicators that say that. On the other hand, we hear from the Department of the Treasury that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the Government is in danger of defaulting on our loans. By the way, where are a number of those loans? A huge amount of those loans to the U.S. Government are from the banks of Japan and China, of all places. In the 108th Congress alone, we have had to increase the statutory maximum debt the Government can carry by over $2.2 trillion. The last time we engaged in this exercise a year or year and a half ago, in May of 2003, we needed the single largest increase to the debt limit in U.S. history. That was almost a trillion dollars--$945 billion. That lasted us only until today. Now the Treasury is explaining that they have resorted to ``extraordinary measures'' just so they can meet their current obligations. So here we go again. Three times we have done this in 3 years. Let me put it in context. From 1996 to 2001, the debt limit was increased by a total of only $400 billion, in relative terms. Today, we are asking that be doubled in the increase of the debt limit. There certainly are new expenses we are now facing, such as terrorism and the war in Iraq, which have put a tremendous strain on our budget. But these are not new expenses. We ought to be doing a better job of anticipating those needs and budgeting accordingly and not digging ourselves deeper into debt. Instead, the huge budget deficits year after year have put us on a reckless fiscal path that will take us decades to undo. And guess who is going to pay off that debt we keep adding to the tune of half a trillion dollars a year. It is going to be our children and our grandchildren who are going to have to pay off that debt. I keep hearing a lot of folks here who want this to happen. They keep claiming they have a conservative fiscal record, but I think the truth is that the ``tax cuts and spend'' mantra is not fiscally conservative. It is fiscally reckless. There will undoubtedly be more expenses that we face--emergencies from natural disasters, such as the four hurricanes that hit my State, and the floods in the Midwest. That is part of the reason for having a Federal Government, to respond to those emergencies. There are going to be necessities, such as the imminent retirement of the baby boomers, the unstable situation in trying to stabilize Iraq, and the terrorist threats all across the globe. We cannot continue to ignore those needs on our balance sheet. Today's debt limit increase is something I have a great problem with simply because of the way of the fiscal policy that has been thrust into the running of our Government. I do not want to see this as an annual exercise. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would the Senator from Louisiana recall for us if she has had a similar experience in her State as this Senator has from my State of Florida in talking with members of the families of the National Guard who are at an enormous financial sacrifice when they have to leave their civilian job and are activated, especially if it is two or three rotations they have to go to, and if their employer--I am curious if the Senator has heard from the employers in her State of Louisiana, as I have in my State of Florida, if her employers who want to help the Guard men and women and who want to help the reservists and want to pay them, why they should not receive some financial incentive through a tax break? Would the Senator recall for us her experience, and is it similar to the experience I have had talking to employers and reservists and Guard men and women?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair. Would the Senator please point out if she thinks that this is important to the Guard and the Reserve given the fact that so much of the load has been put on our National Guard and our Reserve?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am sorry?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, did I not just ask a question right then? Would the Parliamentarian please advise if I was not asking a question right at the moment?

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to support passage of the JOBS bill conference report. This legislation is a positive step toward alleviating the pain put on the manufacturing sector by the World Trade Organization tariffs, providing domestic companies with a sizable tax deduction that will help to create jobs, and simplifying our international tax regime. Most importantly, though, it pays for itself. By eradicating a number of abusive tax shelters, this bill does not add to our deficit; it plugs holes that have been exploited in the Tax Code while ensuring this important tax relief is not at the expense of future generations. I am also quite partial to a provision aimed at rectifying an inequity that has existed for over 18 years. The residents of the seven States without an income tax have been treated unfairly under the Tax Code since 1986. I applaud the conferees for including a temporary 2- year benefit for citizens of these States, allowing them to deduct the State sales taxes they pay from their Federal income tax liability. I look forward to working with my colleagues to once again make this benefit permanent, but I thank the conferees for including this important tax relief for the citizens of Florida and the other States without an income tax. One part of the Senate-passed bill that did not make it into the final package would have dealt with our National Guard and Reservists who are performing so admirably overseas. I am deeply troubled by the omission of tax relief for the employers continuing to pay the salaries of their employees who have been called to active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was inexplicably left on the cutting room floor in conference, and I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure this oversight is remedied. We owe this tax relief to the patriotic employers who have helped to ease the financial burden of serving overseas by continuing to pay their active duty employees. I also am troubled by the absence of another Senate-passed component to the bill: FDA regulation for tobacco. This issue has received strong support in the U.S. Senate, so the House acted unilaterally, ignoring the will of the Senate and the bipartisan agreement that any buyout also would include regulation of tobacco. Another aspect of this that disappoints me is the tobacco buyout assessment provision that emerged from conference. This rule places a greater burden on Florida companies, specifically Florida cigar manufacturers, than cigar manufacturers from other States. This new provision creates an assessment on cigar manufacturers to pay for the buyout of tobacco farmers even though they do not use the types of tobacco being bought out. It amounts to a $282 million price tag, leaving Florida companies to pay more than 75 percent of this assessment. There are a number of other small issues in this bill that may be overlooked, but which mean a great deal to local economies. One that will have a profound effect on Florida deals with motorsports facilities. As you know, Florida is home to a great racing tradition and to the world famous Daytona International Speedway, as well as the Miami-Homestead International Speedway, and a host of other smaller race facilities. For decades, these tracks have been allowed to depreciate their property over 7 years. Recently, however, the IRS has questioned this classification. I am delighted the FSC/ETI bill encourages continued investment by codifying the 7-year classification from the date of enactment through January 1, 2008. This is an excellent start. I am hopeful the IRS will recognize the legislative intent of this body and reconsider any new interpretation of the law. The action taken in this tax bill indicates the revenue procedures were not clear, so Congress acted to provide clarity. I urge Congress to revisit this issue as soon as possible to provide the ongoing certainty that is needed to plan substantial investments in new track construction and expansion. As with any conference report, I am not completely satisfied with this package. It is not perfect. There are omissions. It does not go far enough in some respects, and I would argue it goes too far in others. But legislating is all about compromise, and all in all, this bill is a good compromise. It adhered to the tenets of the Senate- passed bill, and will achieve its stated goal--finally ending the tariffs that have so burdened American manufacturers. I am comfortable rising in support of this tax relief package, and I am confident any inadequacies will be addressed in due time.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as I direct my comments to the Senator from Louisiana, this is one of the most impassioned personal statements that I have heard on the floor of the Senate, and I suggest that our colleagues take heed. The Guard and Reserve have had to carry the burden in Iraq. That is one of the main points of discussion in this Presidential race. It has been one of the main points of discussion in our Senate Armed Services Committee, headed by the esteemed chairman, who is on the floor. Do we have enough active duty? We have concluded that we do not have enough active duty, and we have seen that the Guard and Reserve are being asked over and over again, on several rotations, to take up the slack because of the needs. It was called by Senator Kerry the other night in Missouri a backdoor draft. So I ask the Senator, does this----

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Louisiana if her experience in Louisiana, in talking to the Guard people as well as the reservists, that often she finds, as I have found in Florida, that many of them, their employers, the fact that they are first responders, that they are local law enforcement or they are firefighters or they are EMS personnel-- if she has found that, as we have seen today on the front page of the Washington Post, that a lance corporal in the Marine Corps went into the Marines because he wanted to get revenge after 9/11? He was a firefighter in New York, and that is the patriotism, as it has been expressed by so many of these first responders. Would the Senator, if she has had that similar experience as I have had in Florida, would she explain that her provision also involves a tax credit for the employers of first responders?