Bill Nelson

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, Volkswagen has become part of the lexicon of the American economy, American culture. Volkswagen Beetles, at the time when I was growing up as a kid, were all a part of the America we know and love. Now we find out that Volkswagen for years has been purposely deceiving the American public--for that matter, their customers around the world--on their diesel cars by deceptively telling them what the mileage is on the cars. And oh, by the way, in the United States, because they were supposedly getting great mileage, there was a tax benefit to the purchasers of those vehicles. What in the world is happening to the American automobile industry and those foreign manufacturers that are selling automobiles here to take advantage of the American automobile- consuming public? It is an outrage that VW would take advantage of its consumers by purposely deceiving them on their mileage on diesel vehicles. First there was General Motors. Over 100 people died as a result of a defective ignition switch that General Motors did not tell us about, and in the process just recently--last week--announced a fine of $900 million. Where are our U.S. regulatory agencies? What is the Obama administration doing about this in its regulatory agencies? Why are they not dropping the hammer on corporations and corporate executives that are purposely deceiving the American people about faulty automobile products that cause the loss of lives and property? It was General Motors. Then it was Takata airbags, which are in a lot of automobiles but especially in Hondas and Toyotas. We know that a number of people have lost their lives, a number of people have been maimed, and they are driving around with an airbag in the middle of the steering wheel--which now there have been millions and millions of recalls--and in the middle of that steering wheel is an explosive grenade because it hasn't been replaced. Today, Volkswagen admitted, over the course of the last half dozen years, that they have deceived people on their diesel vehicles by deceptively telling them what the gas mileage was. Has the corporate culture in what is an automobile society shrunk so low that we can't be upfront when our products are defective or when we are trying to gain competitive advantage? I lay this not only on the corporate culture, I lay it at the feet of the U.S. regulatory agencies that ought to be doing their job and ought to be doing it in a forceful way. Then there ought to be some prosecutions, and corporate executives who knew this and have done it ought to be going to jail. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I will vote for the joint agreement. I want the Senate and my colleagues from Florida to understand. I gave a lengthy speech as to why I would support this some 5 weeks ago, in the early part of August before we adjourned. Indeed, I, like most every other Senator here, feel this is one of the most important votes we will cast. I bring to the table the attempted insight given the fact of 6 years being a member of the Intelligence Committee and now having the privilege of being a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The question is, Does this agreement prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb? That is the essential question. Does this agreement do that? This is not an agreement to stop the bad behavior of Iran, which, of course, I wish we could. This is not a question of whether we are going to get Iran to suddenly change its attitude about Israel, which I wish we could. This is a question of preventing Iran from building and producing a nuclear bomb. I believe this agreement does it, and I believe it does it at both the declared sites and a future cheating at a covert site. Now, there are three declared sites. Those are going to be completely dismantled. The whole program is going to be dismantled. This is misunderstood when you talk about their centrifuges, of which they have the generation of centrifuge that is very modernized. All of those are going to be cut in a third, from approximately 19,000, and they are all going to be first-generation, which is not the modernized centrifuges. That is one thing. But also they have 12,000 kilograms of enriched uranium. Do you know how much that is? That is over 13 tons, to put it in the lingo Americans understand. That is going to be reduced under this agreement by 98 percent to 300 kilograms--in other words, less than one-fifth to make a bomb. And by the way, that enriched uranium is going to be cut down not to 90 percent to build a bomb but 3.67 percent enriched uranium. Also, going forward, we are going to have the inspection from cradle to grave, from the very uranium mines where they dig up the uranium rocks, to the processing, which is crushing it into the yellowcake--we are going to have constant surveillance of all of this--taking the yellowcake, making it into a gas, putting that gas into centrifuges, and spinning it so that the uranium comes out of the gas in more concentrated forms, and in the cascade of these centrifuges, then bringing it down to the enriched uranium in order to make a bomb. The same thing with plutonium. What about plutonium? In the one declared site, Arak, they are going to fill it up with concrete, and all of the existing plutonium is going to be shipped out of the country. I hope we are going to have lots of pictures of that as they do this. Oh, by the way, as they shut down this program--talking about this money which is held in the banks of five foreign countries, which is the Iranian oil money they will eventually get--you hear all these figures: 150, 100. When you subtract the Iranian obligations, the net amount is still a lot of money--$56 billion--but they don't get that until they do all of this. And when is that going to be? It will probably be a year from now before they ever get the money that is held in the banks of Japan, South Korea, China, India, and Taiwan, banks that are in countries that need oil, that want Iranian oil, especially if in the future Iran sells them oil at discounted prices. Do you think those banks, those countries are going to keep that money if we walk away from this deal? No. The sanctions are going to dissipate. The money is going to flow. Thank goodness, because of the joint agreement, that money is not going to flow--probably a year from now--until they have done all of these things that are required in the agreement of dismantling their program. What this agreement does is it vastly reduces their ability to produce a bomb unless they cheat. Let's talk about that. Now, I said from the very beginning--and this was part of my speech 5, 6 weeks ago. President Reagan said ``trust, but verify'' in dealing with the Soviet Union. I say don't trust, but verify. So the whole point is that if we think they are going to cheat--and I can tell you that this Senator thinks they are going to try to cheat, although I think they clearly are going to comply with this. And I think the outset--the preamble of the agreement says that it is understood that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Never ever. But are some elements of their society, their government, going to try to cheat? This Senator thinks they will. Can we catch them? Well, I think we clearly will. First of all, we are going to have a lot more insight into their attempted nuclear program than we do now. And by the way, we have a vast intelligence network out there, along with our allies, that will penetrate. But on top of that, other than the three declared sites of Iraq, Natanz, and Fordow, which will all be dismantled in the reductions that I just mentioned--we will have immediate access to those sites. Any other site that we suspect, that we say we want to inspect, the max that they can rope-a-dope us is 24 days. So if they are trying to cheat, could they do a nuclear detonator? Probably. But can they build a bomb? The answer is no. Why is it no without us knowing? Because when that site is suspected and we go in and have the inspection, you cannot hide energized, enriched uranium or plutonium. The half-life of this stuff is thousands of years. You can't paint over it. You can't asphalt over it. We will find it because the radioactivity will be there. If they cheat, what happens? The fact that we have caused them to reduce all of these things that I have mentioned means we have a year in advance to deal with it, whether it is a military strike, whether it is the sanctions going back into place. By the way, this is structured so that the United Nations sanctions go right back into place. You say: How in the world can you do that? The U.N. Security Council--any one of those other countries, such as China or Russia, can object. No, that is not how this deal is structured. With the United States saying the sanctions go back--by ourselves--if they have cheated, the economic sanctions of the P5+1--the UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the United States--go back into place. So we are going to have a year advance if they are cheating. Compare that, please, to if we walk away from the deal today. They can have a nuclear bomb within a few months, and the sanctions of our allies will dissipate because they have all told us they will dissipate if we walk away from the deal. I will conclude with this: If this Senator knows that we are in a situation where if we reject the deal, Iran is going to have a nuclear bomb in a few months as opposed to any prospect in the future of them having a nuclear bomb with us having a year's advance notice but the likelihood that it is 10, 15, 20, 25 years--this Senator feels that the world is going to be a very different place in 15 to 20 years and that for the protection of the interests of the United States and our allies right now, including our strong ally Israel, it is important that Iran not have a nuclear weapon, that we are dealing with an Iran that does not have a nuclear weapon in the immediate future and instead that we penetrate their society with a much better understanding with them not having the capability of a nuclear weapon until years and years in the future. For all of those reasons--and you can tell this is coming right out of my heart and is not some written, read speech--it is in the interest of the United States that this Senator will vote to support the deal. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, tourists flock every year to enjoy the inviting waters of the South Florida--sunbathing on Miami Beach, boating in Biscayne Bay National Park, snorkeling on treasured coral reefs of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. And you might take a souvenir picture at the Southernmost Point in Key West. Standing there, you are closer to Cuba--90 miles away--than you are to Miami, which is 160 miles away. In 1977, the U.S. negotiated a Maritime Boundary with Cuba for fisheries and other continental shelf activities, like oil exploration, roughly halfway between our nations--or 45 miles from the Southernmost Point in Key West. Since 2005, several oil companies have leased blocks in Cuban waters south of that line to drill for oil. Can you imagine the damage to our environment and our economy if oil was to coat two national parks, a national marine sanctuary, a national wildlife refuge, iconic coral reefs, world-class fisheries, and beloved beaches? It would be catastrophic. In fact, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was created specifically to protect against threats like an oil spill. In 2012, four companies tried and failed to find oil. But recently, an Angolan company has ramped up plans to drill in late 2016. We are simply not prepared to protect U.S. interests from an oil spill off Cuba. The loop current that saved South Florida from the brunt of the damage from Deepwater Horizon becomes the Florida current as it runs between the Keys and Cuba and then those waters enter the Gulf Stream hugging the coast of Florida and heading north along the eastern seaboard. An oil spill in Cuban waters would almost certainly follow that same path. For a decade, I have fought tooth and nail to protect our environment and economy from a Cuban spill. Given the news that drilling will resume next year, it is imperative that the agencies we rely on to prevent and respond to oil spills are prepared. And even though Cuba is the closest threat, an oil spill off Mexico, Bahamas, or Jamaica could enter U.S. waters. So today, I am introducing the Caribbean Oil Spill Intervention, Prevention, and Preparedness Act--a comprehensive framework to protect U.S. interests from foreign oil spills. The bill would strengthen the authority of the Coast Guard to intervene and make sure that we have up-to-date accurate information about the ocean currents off of Cuba's coast so that we know where an oil spill might go. It requires the relevant Federal agencies to negotiate oil pollution prevention and response with countries bordering the Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida especially to protect our National Marine Sanctuaries like the Florida Keys. The bill ensures we have a plan to protect coral reef ecosystems all through the Straits of Florida-- because domestic fisheries rely on healthy corals. Finally, it requires any oil company that wants to drill in both U.S. waters and Cuban waters to show they have the resources and plans to adequately prepare for a worst-case oil spill in both areas. These common-sense provisions should have broad support. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, tourists flock every year to enjoy the inviting waters of the South Florida--sunbathing on Miami Beach, boating in Biscayne Bay National Park, snorkeling on treasured coral reefs of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. And you might take a souvenir picture at the Southernmost Point in Key West. Standing there, you are closer to Cuba--90 miles away--than you are to Miami, which is 160 miles away. In 1977, the U.S. negotiated a Maritime Boundary with Cuba for fisheries and other continental shelf activities, like oil exploration, roughly halfway between our nations--or 45 miles from the Southernmost Point in Key West. Since 2005, several oil companies have leased blocks in Cuban waters south of that line to drill for oil. Can you imagine the damage to our environment and our economy if oil was to coat two national parks, a national marine sanctuary, a national wildlife refuge, iconic coral reefs, world-class fisheries, and beloved beaches? It would be catastrophic. In fact, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was created specifically to protect against threats like an oil spill. In 2012, four companies tried and failed to find oil. But recently, an Angolan company has ramped up plans to drill in late 2016. We are simply not prepared to protect U.S. interests from an oil spill off Cuba. The loop current that saved South Florida from the brunt of the damage from Deepwater Horizon becomes the Florida current as it runs between the Keys and Cuba and then those waters enter the Gulf Stream hugging the coast of Florida and heading north along the eastern seaboard. An oil spill in Cuban waters would almost certainly follow that same path. For a decade, I have fought tooth and nail to protect our environment and economy from a Cuban spill. Given the news that drilling will resume next year, it is imperative that the agencies we rely on to prevent and respond to oil spills are prepared. And even though Cuba is the closest threat, an oil spill off Mexico, Bahamas, or Jamaica could enter U.S. waters. So today, I am introducing the Caribbean Oil Spill Intervention, Prevention, and Preparedness Act--a comprehensive framework to protect U.S. interests from foreign oil spills. The bill would strengthen the authority of the Coast Guard to intervene and make sure that we have up-to-date accurate information about the ocean currents off of Cuba's coast so that we know where an oil spill might go. It requires the relevant Federal agencies to negotiate oil pollution prevention and response with countries bordering the Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida especially to protect our National Marine Sanctuaries like the Florida Keys. The bill ensures we have a plan to protect coral reef ecosystems all through the Straits of Florida-- because domestic fisheries rely on healthy corals. Finally, it requires any oil company that wants to drill in both U.S. waters and Cuban waters to show they have the resources and plans to adequately prepare for a worst-case oil spill in both areas. These common-sense provisions should have broad support. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise to announce my decision on the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This decision of mine comes after considerable study of the issue--as have our colleagues in the Senate taken this quite seriously. I have talked with folks on all sides of the issue. These include colleagues as well as constituents. It includes experts on the Middle East and Central Asia, arms control experts, foreign allies, and, as we say in my constituency, it includes just plain folks. I want to say that Secretary Moniz, a nuclear physicist, has been especially helpful. Needless to say, I wish that the three Americans jailed in Iran and Bob Levinson, a former FBI agent missing in Iran for 8 years, had been a part of an agreement--of this agreement--to return them. The Levinson family in Florida is anxious for information and help to return Bob. This is personal for me. I am a strong supporter of Israel, and I recognize that country as one of America's most important allies. I am committed to the protection of Israel as the best and right foreign policy for the United States and our allies. I am blessed to represent Florida, which also has among our citizens a strong and vibrant Jewish community, including many Holocaust survivors and Holocaust victims' families, some of whom I have worked with to help them get just compensation from European insurance companies that turned their backs on them after World War II and would not honor their insurance claims. In our State we are also proud to have a Floridian, a former U.S. and Miami Beach resident, as the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. Ambassador Ron Dermer grew up in Miami Beach. His father and brother are former mayors. He is someone I have enjoyed getting to know and have had several conversations with over the years and recently spent time talking to him about his opposition to this joint agreement. I acknowledge that this has been one of the most important preparations and will be one of the most important votes that I will cast in the Senate because the foreign and defense policy consequences are both huge for the United States and our allies. Unless there is an unexpected change in the conditions and facts before the vote is called in September--and it will be called on the very first day that we return in September--unless there is an unexpected change, I will support the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1--which are the United States, the UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany--because I am convinced it will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years. No other available alternative accomplishes this vital objective. The goal of this almost 2-year negotiation--culminated in this deal-- was to deny Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This objective has been fulfilled in the short term. For the next 10 years, Iran will reduce its centrifuges--the machines that enrich the uranium--by two- thirds. They will go from more than 19,000 centrifuges to 6,000. Only 5,000 of those will be operating, all at Natanz, all the most basic models. The deeply buried Fordow facility will be converted to a research lab. No enrichment can occur there, and no fissile material can be stored there. For the next 15 years, Iran's stockpile of low- enriched uranium--which currently amounts to 12,000 kilograms; enough for 10 bombs--will be reduced by 98 percent, to only 300 kilograms. Research and development into advanced centrifuges will also be limited. Taken together, these constraints will lengthen the time it would take for Iran to produce the highly enriched uranium for one bomb--the so-called breakout time. It will lengthen it from 2 to 3 months that they could break out now to more than 1 year. That is more than enough time to detect and, if necessary, stop Iran from racing to a bomb. Iran's ability to produce a bomb using plutonium will also be blocked under this deal. The Arak reactor--which as currently constructed could produce enough plutonium for one to two bombs every year--will be redesigned to produce no weapons-grade plutonium. And Iran will have to ship out the spent fuel from the reactor forever. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, in which they agreed they would not pursue nuclear weapons. Iran has reaffirmed this principle in this joint agreement. Iran also says they want to eventually make low-grade nuclear fuel, as other NPT-compliant nations do, in order to produce electricity. If they comply, they will eventually be allowed to do so under this joint agreement. Our expectation is that in 15 years, when Iran can lift the limit of 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, if they have not cheated, they will continue to abide by their NPT obligations and use their fuel only for electricity and medical isotopes. If they deviate from those civilian purposes, then harsh economic sanctions will result, and, very possibly, U.S. military action. The world will be a very different place in 10 to 15 years. If we can buy this much time, instead of Iran developing a nuclear bomb in the near future, then that is reason enough for me to vote to uphold this agreement. If the United States walks away from this multinational agreement, then I believe we would find ourselves alone in the world with little credibility, but there are many more reasons to support this agreement. The opponents of the agreement say that war is not the only alternative to the agreement. Indeed, they, as articulated by the Israeli Ambassador, say we should oppose the agreement by refusing to lift congressional economic sanctions, and the result will be that the international sanctions will stay in place, that Iran will continue to feel the economic pinch, and therefore Iran will come back to the table and negotiate terms more favorable to the United States and our allies. If the United States kills the deal that most of the rest of the world is for, there is no question in this Senator's mind that the sanctions will start to erode, and they may collapse altogether. We just had a meeting with all the P5+1 Ambassadors to the United States, and they reaffirmed that exact fact. Sanctions rely on more than just the power of the U.S. economy, they depend on an underlying political consensus in support of a common objective. China, Russia, and many other nations eager to do business with Iran went along with our economic sanctions because they believed they were a temporary cost to pay until Iran agreed to a deal to limit their nuclear program. That fragile consensus in support of U.S. policy is likely to fall apart if we jettison this deal. I think it is unrealistic to think we can stop oil-hungry countries in Asia from buying Iranian oil, especially when offered bargain basement prices. It is equally unrealistic to think we can continue to force foreign banks that hold the Iranian oil dollars--banks in China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan that have sequestered Iranians' oil dollars--it is unrealistic to expect that they will hold on to that cash simply because we threaten them with U.S. banking sanctions. How will such threats be taken seriously when these countries, taken together, hold nearly half of America's debt, making any decision to sanction them extraordinarily difficult. Killing this deal by rejecting it means the sanctions are going to be weaker than they are today, not stronger, and the United States cannot simply get a better deal with Iran, with less economic leverage and less international support. That is a fact we are having to face. Of course, if we rejected it and if the sanctions crumbled, all of this would probably happen while Iran would be racing to build a bomb. Without this deal, Iran's breakout time could quickly shrink from months to a handful of weeks or days. It is reasonable to ask why Iran would agree to negotiate a delay in their nuclear program that they have advanced over the years at the cost of billions of dollars. The simple answer is they need the money. The Iranian economy is hurting because of the sanctions, and Iran's Supreme Leader needs to satisfy rising expectations of average Iranians, who are restless to have a bigger slice of the economic pie with more and better goods and supplies. So they have an interest in striking a deal, but does that mean we trust Iran's Government? No, not at all. The Iranian religious leadership encourages hardliners there to chant ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel.'' Therefore, this agreement can't be built on trust. We must have a good enough mechanism in place to catch them when and if they cheat; in other words, don't trust but verify. I believe the agreement sets out a reasonable assurance that Iran will not be able to hide the development of a bomb at declared or undeclared sites. The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors will have immediate access to declared sites--the Arak reactor and the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow. For the next 20 to 25 years, inspectors will also have regular access to the entire supply chain, including uranium mines and mills, centrifuge production, assembly, and storage sites. That means inspectors will catch Iran if they try to use the facilities we know about to build a weapon or if they try to divert materials to a secret program. To confirm that Iran is not building a covert bomb, this agreement ensures that inspectors will have access to suspicious sites with no more than a 24-day delay. I know there has been a lot of conversation about that. It is broken off into days. At the end of the day, it must be physical access. Now, would this Senator prefer they get in instantaneously? Of course. Could Iran hide some activities relevant to nuclear weapons research? Possibly. But to actually make a bomb, Iran's secret activity would have to enrich the fuel for a device--and they couldn't cover that up if they had years, let alone do so in a few weeks. Traces of enriched uranium or a secret plutonium program do not suddenly vanish, and they can't be covered up with a little paint and asphalt. So I am convinced that under the agreement, Iran cannot cheat and expect to get away with it. On top of the unprecedented IAEA inspections established by this deal is the vast and little understood world of American and allied intelligence. This Senator served on the Intelligence Committee for 6 years and now has clearances on the Armed Services Committee. I can state unequivocally that U.S. intelligence is very good and extensive and will overlay IAEA inspections. Remember, we discovered their secret activities in the past, even without the kinds of inspections put in place by this joint agreement. So if Iran tries to violate its commitment--its commitment not to build nuclear weapons--and if the IAEA doesn't find out, I am confident our intelligence apparatus will. What about the part of the joint agreement that allows the conventional arms embargo to be lifted in 5 years and missile technology to be lifted in 8 years? I understand it was always going to be tough to keep these restrictions in place, and I don't like that those restrictions are not there. Fortunately, even when the arms embargo expires, five other U.N. resolutions passed since 2004 will continue to be in force to prohibit Iran from exporting arms to terrorists and to militants. These have had some success, albeit limited, as in the case of the U.S. Navy stopping arms shipments to the Houthis in Yemen. These same U.N. resolutions will stay in place to block future Iranian arms shipments to others. We also have nonnuclear sanctions tools we can--and we must--continue to use to go after those who traffic in Iranian arms and missiles. Will this agreement allow Iran to continue to be a state sponsor of terrorism? Yes, but they now have the capability to develop a nuclear weapon within months and still be a state sponsor of terrorism. I believe it is in the U.S. interest that Iran is not a nuclear power sponsoring terrorism. As dangerous a threat that Iran is to Israel and our allies, it would pale in comparison to the threat posed to them and to us by a nuclear-armed Iran. Would I prefer a deal that dismantles their entire program forever and ends all of Iran's bad behavior? Of course I would. But how do we get a better deal that the opposition wants? We don't have that opportunity if the sanctions fall apart, and that is exactly what would happen if we reject this deal. Iran will emerge less isolated and less constrained to build a nuclear weapon. Under the deal, we keep most of the world with us. That means, if the Iranians cheat, they know we can snap back the economic sanctions and cut off their oil money. This joint agreement declares that Iran will never ever be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. If they break their agreement, even in 10 or 15 years, every financial and military option will still be available to us, and those options will be backed by ever-improving military capabilities and more and better intelligence. So when I look at all the things for the agreement and against the agreement, it becomes pretty obvious to me to vote in favor of the agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, before us this evening is a decision whether or not to take money away from Planned Parenthood. For close to 100 years, Planned Parenthood has provided critical health services to millions, providing care to 2.7 million people in 2013 alone. In fact, many Planned Parenthood affiliates operate in rural and medically underserved areas. In some cases, closing these facilities could cause patients to travel great distances to receive health services. Now, that said, I find the videos at issue to be extremely disturbing and I believe we have a responsibility to determine all the facts. More investigation is needed before we even start talking about taking away vital health services like annual wellness exams and cancer screenings from the millions who rely on them for care.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to a remarkable foundation that has benefited thousands of young Americans. The Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation was established by Congress to honor the public service of the Udall brothers. During the past 20 years, the foundation has effectively leveraged modest Federal appropriations into unique learning experiences for over 3,000 young Americans who are committed to public service in natural resources, Native nations, and environmental areas. The Udall Foundation has rewarded over 1,400 scholarships to college students in all 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and 44 tribal nations, for their work in public service. One of the distinguished college students receiving a scholarship from the Udall Foundation comes from my home State of Florida. Ms. Steffanie Munguia is a junior at the University of South Florida and is receiving a scholarship for her dedication to environmental conservation. Additionally, the Udall Foundation has provided more than 200 students, from 110 tribal nations, the opportunity to gain practical experience in the Federal legislative process, through their Native American Congressional Internship Program. The foundation strives to educate underserved middle school youth to the joys of outdoor exploration through their Parks in Focus program. Thus far, it has introduced more than 1,500 youth to 22 national parks, monuments, and other natural areas. The Udall Foundation benefits countless groups and many areas of our environment, and I would like to congratulate them on 20 outstanding years. The foundation has delivered real results for people in every State in the Nation since its establishment and has earned our continued support now and in the years ahead.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for votes on S. 1177, the Every Child Achieves Act from Monday, July 13, 2015, through Thursday, July 16, 2015. Had I been present I would have voted in favor of invoking cloture on the substitute amendment No. 2089, cloture on the amended underlying bill, and final passage of S. 1177. I also would have voted in favor of amendments Nos. 2169, 2194, 2093, 2176, 2171, 2161, 2241, 2177, 2243, 2247, 2100, and 2242. I would have opposed amendments Nos. 2132, 2162, and 2180.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, on Monday, July 13, 2015, I was necessarily absent for a vote on amendment No. 2080 to the Every Child Achieves Act. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the amendment.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2015. I introduce this bill with Senator Blumenthal, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security, as well as Senator Markey, a valued Member of the Commerce Committee. Takata airbags. GM ignition switches. Toyota unintended acceleration. By now, we all know the tragic stories: automakers and suppliers hiding dangerous defects for years right under the nose of a weak, under- resourced regulator. The result? Scores of deaths, hundreds of injuries, and millions of vehicles still under recall that are endangering lives both inside and outside the cars. Every year, over 32,000 people die on our roadways--32,000 lives cut short, 32,000 families without a loved one. Car accidents are by far the top cause of accidental deaths. But it doesn't have to be this way. Congress can adopt practical solutions to help make cars safer and improve the recall process and, in turn, save lives. That is exactly what this legislation is designed to do--to take the lessons we have learned from exploding Takata airbags, defective GM ignition switches, and several other recent serious recalls to ensure that a company can never again hide a lethal defects from the public, to improve the way we recall dangerous cars, and to harness American innovation and ingenuity to make vehicles safer. Many of the concepts in today's bill are not new. Indeed, many of the provisions in the bill have passed the Senate before with bipartisan support. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2015 that Senators Blumenthal, Markey, and I introduce today includes provisions from bills introduced by myself, Senators Blumenthal, Markey, Gillibrand, Schatz, Booker, and former Chairman Rockefeller. Like the earlier bills, this legislation is predicated on improving four things: transparency, wrongdoer accountability, vehicle safety, and recall effectiveness. First, government transparency. The Department of Transportation Inspector General identified several problems with how NHTSA processes early warning data. This bill seeks to help remedy those problems and increase the transparency of the information the agency receives. For example, the bill would require NHTSA to upgrade its online databases to improve searchability and to consider early warning data when investigating potential safety defects. The bill would also require NHTSA to disclose information submitted by manufacturers to NHTSA through the Early Warning Reporting system unless the information is exempt under FOIA. Finally, motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers would have to automatically submit documentation that first alerted them to a fatality involving their vehicle or equipment to NHTSA's Early Warning Reporting database. Second, wrongdoer accountability. The bill would remove the cap on NHTSA's civil penalty authority, which is currently at $35 million NHTSA's civil penalty authority must be bolstered to deter highly profitable corporations from violating safety laws. Otherwise, we get what we have now: companies treating NHTSA's civil penalties as a mere cost of doing business. Just look at the GM case, where the maximum $35 million civil penalty represented less than 1/1000 of GM's quarterly revenues, which is over $35 billion. In addition, the bill would impose criminal penalties on corporate executives who knowingly conceal the fact that their product poses a danger of death or serious injury. Corporate executives who hide serious dangers from the public shouldn't get off the hook. Third, vehicle safety. The bill would authorize NHTSA to conduct new research and implement life-saving standards to make vehicles safer. For example, it would require large commercial trucks to have crash avoidance technologies, and it would improve car hoods and bumpers to reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries. The legislation also would task NHTSA with evaluating whether technology exists to help prevent children from being left in hot cars. These changes just make sense, and they would save lives. Lastly, recall effectiveness. The major lesson from the Takata, GM, and other defect debacles is that we need to improve the recall process so that unsafe vehicles get fixed as quickly as possible. This bill would do just that by improving NHTSA's recall authority, asking dealers to adopt commonsense practices, and exploring new ways to notify consumers of recalls. First, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2015 would give NHTSA the authority to expedite recalls in the case of substantial likelihood of death or serious injury. Second, the legislation would ensure that used car dealers fix cars under recall before selling them. The fact that used car dealers can still sell vehicles under recall without bothering to fix them is appalling-- several individuals who died from exploding Takata airbags had purchased used cars that hadn't been fixed. My legislation would also require authorized dealers to check for open recalls when a car is brought in for any service--something that should already be very quick and doable for dealers. Third, the bill would create grant programs to allow states to participate in the recall notification process by notifying drivers of open recalls when the DMV sends registration renewals. Finally, NHTSA would have promulgate a rule requiring new vehicles have a warning feature--similar to tire pressure monitor or oil change light on the dashboard--that would notify consumers that their cars are subject to a safety recall. With innovations like backup cameras and connected cars, we've seen how technology improves safety. I am very excited about the possibility that technology can also ensure that a driver knows his or her car is under recall and, as a result, prevent injuries and deaths from safety defects. The American public demands that we do something meaningful to keep them safe on the road. There will be more recalls in the future--it is inevitable. And the consequences can be deadly. But they don't have to be. Improving the recall process can and will save lives. I realize our bill may not get us to l00 percent completion of recalls or perfect motor vehicle safety, but I am confident that it would go a long way towards improving recall effectiveness, adding practical safety technologies to vehicles, and making Americans safer on our nation's roads and highways. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Blumenthal and Markey, for helping me on this extremely important bill and for their dedication to making our roads safer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2015. I introduce this bill with Senator Blumenthal, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security, as well as Senator Markey, a valued Member of the Commerce Committee. Takata airbags. GM ignition switches. Toyota unintended acceleration. By now, we all know the tragic stories: automakers and suppliers hiding dangerous defects for years right under the nose of a weak, under- resourced regulator. The result? Scores of deaths, hundreds of injuries, and millions of vehicles still under recall that are endangering lives both inside and outside the cars. Every year, over 32,000 people die on our roadways--32,000 lives cut short, 32,000 families without a loved one. Car accidents are by far the top cause of accidental deaths. But it doesn't have to be this way. Congress can adopt practical solutions to help make cars safer and improve the recall process and, in turn, save lives. That is exactly what this legislation is designed to do--to take the lessons we have learned from exploding Takata airbags, defective GM ignition switches, and several other recent serious recalls to ensure that a company can never again hide a lethal defects from the public, to improve the way we recall dangerous cars, and to harness American innovation and ingenuity to make vehicles safer. Many of the concepts in today's bill are not new. Indeed, many of the provisions in the bill have passed the Senate before with bipartisan support. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2015 that Senators Blumenthal, Markey, and I introduce today includes provisions from bills introduced by myself, Senators Blumenthal, Markey, Gillibrand, Schatz, Booker, and former Chairman Rockefeller. Like the earlier bills, this legislation is predicated on improving four things: transparency, wrongdoer accountability, vehicle safety, and recall effectiveness. First, government transparency. The Department of Transportation Inspector General identified several problems with how NHTSA processes early warning data. This bill seeks to help remedy those problems and increase the transparency of the information the agency receives. For example, the bill would require NHTSA to upgrade its online databases to improve searchability and to consider early warning data when investigating potential safety defects. The bill would also require NHTSA to disclose information submitted by manufacturers to NHTSA through the Early Warning Reporting system unless the information is exempt under FOIA. Finally, motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers would have to automatically submit documentation that first alerted them to a fatality involving their vehicle or equipment to NHTSA's Early Warning Reporting database. Second, wrongdoer accountability. The bill would remove the cap on NHTSA's civil penalty authority, which is currently at $35 million NHTSA's civil penalty authority must be bolstered to deter highly profitable corporations from violating safety laws. Otherwise, we get what we have now: companies treating NHTSA's civil penalties as a mere cost of doing business. Just look at the GM case, where the maximum $35 million civil penalty represented less than 1/1000 of GM's quarterly revenues, which is over $35 billion. In addition, the bill would impose criminal penalties on corporate executives who knowingly conceal the fact that their product poses a danger of death or serious injury. Corporate executives who hide serious dangers from the public shouldn't get off the hook. Third, vehicle safety. The bill would authorize NHTSA to conduct new research and implement life-saving standards to make vehicles safer. For example, it would require large commercial trucks to have crash avoidance technologies, and it would improve car hoods and bumpers to reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries. The legislation also would task NHTSA with evaluating whether technology exists to help prevent children from being left in hot cars. These changes just make sense, and they would save lives. Lastly, recall effectiveness. The major lesson from the Takata, GM, and other defect debacles is that we need to improve the recall process so that unsafe vehicles get fixed as quickly as possible. This bill would do just that by improving NHTSA's recall authority, asking dealers to adopt commonsense practices, and exploring new ways to notify consumers of recalls. First, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2015 would give NHTSA the authority to expedite recalls in the case of substantial likelihood of death or serious injury. Second, the legislation would ensure that used car dealers fix cars under recall before selling them. The fact that used car dealers can still sell vehicles under recall without bothering to fix them is appalling-- several individuals who died from exploding Takata airbags had purchased used cars that hadn't been fixed. My legislation would also require authorized dealers to check for open recalls when a car is brought in for any service--something that should already be very quick and doable for dealers. Third, the bill would create grant programs to allow states to participate in the recall notification process by notifying drivers of open recalls when the DMV sends registration renewals. Finally, NHTSA would have promulgate a rule requiring new vehicles have a warning feature--similar to tire pressure monitor or oil change light on the dashboard--that would notify consumers that their cars are subject to a safety recall. With innovations like backup cameras and connected cars, we've seen how technology improves safety. I am very excited about the possibility that technology can also ensure that a driver knows his or her car is under recall and, as a result, prevent injuries and deaths from safety defects. The American public demands that we do something meaningful to keep them safe on the road. There will be more recalls in the future--it is inevitable. And the consequences can be deadly. But they don't have to be. Improving the recall process can and will save lives. I realize our bill may not get us to l00 percent completion of recalls or perfect motor vehicle safety, but I am confident that it would go a long way towards improving recall effectiveness, adding practical safety technologies to vehicles, and making Americans safer on our nation's roads and highways. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Blumenthal and Markey, for helping me on this extremely important bill and for their dedication to making our roads safer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I want to address something that I was absolutely shocked about when I saw it over the weekend. We hear the term ``age appropriate,'' and when it comes to our children, that is necessarily something that parents should be concerned about because we parents--all of us who are parents--want our children to be able to take advantage of the Internet's vast resources to learn, to stay connected. But we as parents do not want our children, especially small children, to encounter inappropriate content. Well, unfortunately, there is a lot of violence, profanity, and sexualized material on the Internet, and kids can too often access this material with the click of a mouse. We have all been dealing with that. That is nothing unusual. And what are we parents to do? We can monitor our kids' activities, but we can also depend on parental controls and filters in the marketplace. We have seen the development of many of these services for kids that promise a safe space for children. The problem is when companies do not completely deliver on that promise. So I have read recent news reports and I watched Google's YouTube Kids mobile application for smart phones, and I see that it contains material that is not, in fact, appropriate for small children. According to the press accounts--and what I saw repeated--the app has apparently been found to include videos with explicit language; mature subject matter, such as child abuse, drug use, pedophilia; demonstrations of unsafe behaviors; and--get this--advertisements for alcohol. I want to show you a picture. This is on Google's YouTube Kids app. Here is a lady hawking red wine. This is an advertisement for little kids? It is there, and I hope the offending parties will take heed to my remarks. We all recognize what is shown in this picture--most appropriate for advertisements for the Super Bowl, but on a Google YouTube app for little children, preceded by the Clydesdales pulling the wagon with the Dalmatian--an icon in America. But for little children, an ad, the King of Beers? And how about unsafe behaviors. Here is someone striking a match and taking this match down to a pile of unlit matches, and then, of course, you know what happens--it all goes up in flame. Have we lost our common sense? When Google rolled out its YouTube Kids app, it said: ``The app makes it safer and easier for children to find videos on topics they want to explore . . . .'' That is a good thing. It went on to say: ``Now, parents can rest a little easier knowing that videos in the YouTube Kids app are narrowed down to content appropriate for kids.'' Well, I certainly agree with Google on that statement. Parents should be able to trust these online venues for children, especially when they are designed and marketed as being safe. But is this safe for children? And, Madam President, is that safe for children? I do not think so. If a company creates an online safe haven for kids, it must do everything it can to make sure children are not unnecessarily exposed to the very content parents want their children to avoid. Google certainly has the technical expertise to make sure that videos which are unsuitable for kids are screened or filtered out, especially when Google markets the app as being suitable for children. Indeed, section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits deceptive marketing practices. I applaud Google for its efforts to create healthy online experiences for children, but in this case, their efforts fell short, and I would expect Google to change this right away. Furthermore, YouTube Kids should also be sensitive to the fact that younger children often do not understand the difference between advertisements and noncommercial content. So kids' online services that have commercial advertising should make sure that advertising is clearly distinguished from the other content. Google should not take advantage of this well-known vulnerability among children. Video advertisements should be easily and clearly distinguishable from other videos the kids are watching. I should not have to come here and the Senator from Utah be so gracious to give me the time. It ought to be common sense that we should not be doing this. But this Senator, who is the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, is compelled to come here and speak of this kind of comment. We want companies to create online services and products that allow children safe access to age-appropriate content, and we understand that companies want to tap into the kids' market, but everyone knows just how much Internet content is out there that is completely unsuitable for children. Madam President, need I say any more? It is very clear, and I hope there will be quick action for appropriate content. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I will be back at 5 o'clock to speak on behalf of our nominee for TSA, Admiral Neffenger.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, before I speak about the two nominees who are before us this afternoon, I feel compelled to make a couple of brief comments about the tragedy that occurred in South Carolina. Sometimes it is difficult to understand why there still seems to be so much hatred in the world. I remember the President and First Lady of Rwanda telling my wife and me what had happened that led up to that genocide back years ago in which 1 million people were hacked to death with machetes because of the enmity and hatred between two tribes, where people didn't think of themselves as Rwandan, they thought of themselves as Hutu or Tutsi. And that enmity, that rivalry turned into hatred, and the hatred was spurred on by hate-talk over the airwaves. So we know about that sad chapter of two peoples who did unimaginable things, and here we see this continues. I am reminded--because it is emblazoned in my mind's eye--of three decades ago and looking out the window of our spacecraft back at Earth. From that perspective, when you look back at Earth, which is so beautiful and so colorful, so creative as it is suspended in the middle of nothing, you don't see racial divisions, you don't see religious divisions, and you don't see ethnic divisions. What you see is this beautiful creation. My mind's eye carries that view constantly and that reminder that we are all in this together. Yet, on the face of the Earth, we always want to divide; we always want to separate; we want to say: You are different than I, and, as a result, I am going to take it out on you. The great genius of America is that we have overcome a lot of that by assimilating people of different colors and different races and different creeds and different backgrounds and different religions all together so that we think of ourselves as Americans first. In the world in which the Presiding Officer and I live--the world of politics--we have had a lot of that divisiveness, and we ought to be thinking of ourselves as Americans instead of as Republicans or Democrats. This tragedy has riveted the Nation. It has riveted the Nation also on the question of the battle flag of the Confederacy. This Senator's great-great grandfather, at the time of the Battle of Marianna, was well past 50 years. So he had not fought in the Civil War, but he was conscripted by the Home Guards to go into the Battle of Marianna, where he was taken prisoner and ended up in the northern prisoner-of-war camp, where so many of the prisoners died, in Elmira, NY. He probably survived because that winter that killed so many--the winter of 1864-1865--because he was past 50 years old, they probably did not put him in one of those cotton tents on the hillside where disease and cold took over. But why should we attach our allegiance to a flag that represents separation instead of embracing ``out of many, one''; ``In God We Trust''; ``e pluribus unum''--``out of many, one''? It was announced in the press this afternoon that the Governor of South Carolina said: Let's take that battle flag down from the capitol grounds in Columbia, SC, and put it in a museum. We will see the ensuing fight that occurs with regard to the legislature and changing the law. It was a few years ago that a very courageous Republican Governor led the effort to take that battle flag off the top of the capitol in South Carolina and put it at that Confederate monument still on the capitol grounds. That courageous Republican Governor lost his next election as a result of that. So it is time for us to move on. It is time for us to start thinking about unity and coming together. As the Good Book says, come, let us reason together. Those are the remarks I wanted to make. I wish to speak about our two nominees. The nominee for TSA whom the Senator from Delaware just spoke about, Coast Guard VADM Peter Neffenger, has obviously had a distinguished career. His reputation precedes him, with 34 years in a variety of capacities. He has expertise in critical areas of crisis management and port security, which will serve him well as the head of TSA, and I believe the Senate will confirm him today. He was involved in that disastrous oilspill in the gulf. He was the national incident commander and he helped lead that emergency response. We are still seeing the results of that spill, those of us on the gulf coast, and that disaster required coordination between all levels of government and all of its agencies, as well as the management of people and technology. Recently, it has been pointed out, as we receive new information about the status and condition of that ruptured well, the incident command had to weigh the risk and make difficult choices with a lot of incomplete information. Well, he exhibited strong leadership then, and I believe he will give that leadership to an agency which needs that strong leadership now. The next nominee we will consider is Daniel Elliott to be a member of the Surface Transportation Board. That is an important agency which helps ensure we have a strong and efficient rail network to move goods throughout the United States. We know how vital the railroad industry is to our economy and getting goods to market. We have to do that, and we can't do it with just trucks. We need the bulk of the materials to be carried on the rails. Decisions made by the Surface Transportation Board have long-lasting impacts on our Nation's economic competitiveness, and that is why last week the Senate passed the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015--to make the agency more efficient and effective. We need individuals who are qualified to serve, and Daniel Elliott is such an individual. Earlier this year, he was nominated to be reappointed as a member of the Board. He previously served as Chairman. He also has had a great deal of experience as an attorney, including close to two decades litigating in the transportation sector. I ask the Senate to join in and support Mr. Elliott's nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, are we in the parliamentary procedure to proceed to speak?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, tomorrow, Pope Francis will release a papal encyclical on the environment. It is basically a letter to all Catholics about high-priority issues, and he has chosen the environment.

Mr. NELSON

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

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I wish to address the issue of America's space program. Some very disturbing news has come out over the course of the Appropriations Committee's deliberations on the House-passed Commerce- State-Justice appropriations bill, which, it is my understanding, has passed the House. It includes the funding for NASA. What is disturbing about it is that at a time when we are recognizing that Vladimir Putin is increasingly trying to thwart the interests of the United States with his aggressiveness and invasion of Ukraine, his threats to the Baltic States, his invasion of that part of Ukraine known as Crimea, and the various other semi-threats he has made to us, it would certainly seem to be in the interests of the United States that where we have a joint shared and mutually agreed-to space program which goes all the way back to 1975 when in the middle of the Cold War an American spacecraft rendezvoused and docked with a Russian spacecraft, Soyuz-- and the Apollo-Soyuz mission made extraordinary political as well as scientific history for those two crews, led by Gen. Tom Stafford on the American side and General Alexei Leonov on the Soviet side. After they docked, those two crews lived together in space for 9 days in the middle of the Cold War, 1975. That set us on the course--with the Soviet Union still in existence--of starting to cooperate. We actually had an American space shuttle rendezvous and dock with the first Russian space station, MIR. From there, we went on to build the International Space Station with the Russians as well as a dozen other nations as our partners. This space station, on orbit 250 to 325 miles high, is 120 yards long. In other words, if you sat at the 50-yard line in a football stadium, you would look from one goalpost to the other goalpost and that is how big this is, the International Space Station. There are six human beings up there. There is an international crew. There are Russians, there are Americans, and from time to time there are Italians, Germans, French, Japanese--a whole host of nations that are our partners. So it has been that as we built this space station, the Russians would launch on their Soyuz spacecraft, to and from the International Space Station, supply and human supply, and the Americans, who had the capacity of 45,000 pounds on the space shuttle, would take up the component parts of the space shuttle and assemble them in orbit. We continued that over the better part of a decade and a half, until the space station was complete. In the interim, we lost 14 souls and 2 space shuttles, the last one of which was Columbia in the winter of 2003. The investigation board, led by Navy Admiral Gehman, said: As soon as you get the space station assembled--it was necessary to fly the space shuttle to take up the component parts--you shut it down and you replace the space shuttle with a safer rocket. I won't take the time right now to explain the engineering and design of the space shuttle versus the future rocket, but for this discussion, suffice it to say that when you put the crew in a capsule at the top of the rocket, they have the capability to escape, saving the crew, even if there is an explosion of the rocket on the pad because the capsule can separate with the escape rockets and land some distance away via parachutes. By the way, one of those rockets under development right now just had its pad-abort test--SpaceX--and it was very successful. I am giving all this background to get to what was almost a dagger in the heart coming out of the Appropriations Committee in both the House and the Senate, and that is, they have funded NASA fairly well given the fact that they are trying to cut in order to satisfy this tea party-inspired sequester, which is this cut across the board, but in doing so, what they have done is cut the development funds for the humans riding on American rockets to get to and from our International Space Station, the essence of which is that if those funding cuts the committee has done are sustained, it will delay us from putting Americans on American rockets going to and from the space station until, instead of 2017, very likely 2019. Ask almost any American whether they want a successful American space program, and they will clearly tell you yes, and that means Americans on American rockets. We have those rockets. They are sending cargo to and from. But we have to go in and do the designs of the redundancies and the escape systems on these commercial rockets, the two companies of which in competition are Boeing and SpaceX. Now let me get back to Vladimir Putin. Do we think it is a matter of wise public policy that we would continue our dependence on Vladimir Putin on our ability to get to our own International Space Station by having to ride and pay what he now charges--$75 million a ride per U.S. astronaut? Do we think that is wise public policy given this President of the Russian Federation who is so predictable? I don't think so. So what the House did--the President's request for this next round of competition--and they have come a long way. They are ready to go. I just said that one of the competitors, SpaceX, just did a pad-abort test by showing that the capsule could separate from the rocket and safely land 3,600 feet away in a splashdown with the parachutes. It is not wise public policy to cut funding so this development of safe human space travel on these commercial rockets of Boeing and SpaceX--it is not good public policy, it is not in the interests of U.S. public policy that we would stay tied to Vladimir Putin in order to get to and from our own space station with astronauts. It is just a small amount of money. The President requested for this next year of competition $1.24 billion to put in the redundancies and the escape systems and have them tested. It is a critical year. It is 2015. It is the middle of 2015. We are going to start flying U.S. astronauts 2 years from now, in 2017. But when you start cutting that funding from the President's request to $900 million, as the Senate Appropriations Committee just did last week, or to $1 billion, which the House has just done in the passage of their appropriations bill-- when you do that, that is going to stretch out the development that it is very likely we can't send our own astronauts to our own space station on our own rockets. We will have to keep paying Vladimir Putin $75 million every time we go to ride on the Soyuz to go to our own space station. Now, you figure it out. How many rides is that over an additional 2 years? That is probably $300 million right there. That is only four rides, assuming he is going to be charging us in 2018 and 2019 the same price he is charging now. He could jack that up. I think it was a sad day in the Senate Appropriations Committee when the committee turned down, by a very narrow vote of 14 to 12, Senator Mikulski's amendment to restore the cut from $900 million to $1.24 billion. Sooner or later, that appropriations bill is going to come out here. It has a lot of other problems, as every appropriations bill does, as the Senate is finding out on this Defense authorization bill right now--all the funny money that is baked into it because of this so-called sequester. But when it comes out here, I am going to ask the Senators: Do you think it is wise policy that we continue our reliance on Vladimir Putin? As we have been doing the Defense bill, John McCain, our chairman, has been on a rampage against giving money to Vladimir Putin by virtue of us buying the Russian engine, which is a very good engine and which became an engine for American rockets, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as a way of keeping their Russian--formerly Soviet--scientists engaged in an aerospace industry so they did not get secreted off to become scientists for rogue nations such as North Korea or Iran. But Senator McCain has pointed out--rightly this Senator believes--that you want to reduce your reliance on those Russian engines called the RD-180 that are the main engines for the Atlas V, one of the absolute prime horses in the stable for our assured access to space. If we are going to lessen our dependence on the Russian engine, why wouldn't we lessen our dependence on Russian spacecraft being the only means by which we would get to orbit to our own International Space Station? The logic is too compelling. Yet it is this ideological furor that has lapsed over into partisanship that has so gripped these Halls of Congress into making irrational decisions. We can correct this decision when that appropriations bill comes to the floor of the Senate. I hope we will. I hope folks such as Senator McCain--one of this country's two heroes who is taking this on in the defense committee--are going to help us out here on the floor by taking this on in the Appropriations Committee. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I just learned that the CJS subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee reported a bill out that made a substantial cut in the request for commercial crew in order for us to be able to have Americans flying on American rockets to and from the International Space Station, instead of having to rely on the Russian Soyuz, which we buy and have been buying those ever since we shut down the space shuttle at something like $60 million to $70 million per passenger going up to the space station. Now, the whole idea was that since we cooperated with the Russians in building this space station, we would both have the means of transportation to get up there. We do have the means of transportation of getting cargo to and from the space station, since we shut down the space shuttle, but we are in the process of a competition between several companies--especially those that have been selected in the competition by NASA, Boeing and SpaceX. Each of them has been granted money to develop all of the redundancies and safety and escape systems in their spacecraft capsule in order to make it safe for Americans to go to and from the International Space Station. Now, I can tell you that for the average American on the street, their image of our space program is one that since the space shuttle shut down in 2011, they think the space program is over, when, in fact, it is really just beginning, and we are going to Mars in the decade of the 2030s. Well, that is the whole point of our being able to rely on our own spacecraft and on our own rockets, instead of relying on the Russians. If this cut is sustained--and this is a cut from a request of $1.24 billion for this competition for making American rockets safe and creating the spacecraft to take Americans to the space station--it will have been cut to $900 million. If that cut in the subcommittee is sustained in the full committee and ultimately in the final appropriations bill, it is going to delay us from being able to launch Americans on American rockets. Instead of 2017--just 2 years from now--it will delay us another 4 years. That is 4 more years of relying on the Russians. Now, I know there are a bunch of Senators around here that do not like the fact of the aggressiveness of Vladimir Putin. Well, this is one way to wean ourselves from having to depend on them. The final comment on this subject is that the money that supposedly is being cut, which is just a little over $300 million, we would lose in still paying that money to the Russians to fly an additional 2 years. We need to wake up to what is happening. Senator Mikulski will be offering an amendment to the full Appropriations Committee to restore that cut. I hope Senators will understand all the nuances and support Senator Mikulski. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise to give my overall support for the content of the Defense authorization bill, but my considerable concern and, therefore, my ``no'' vote on final passage in the Committee on Armed Services was because the bill, as crafted by the majority in the committee, is a travesty, using an artificial budget to authorize the necessary operations and troop readiness of our military establishment. Now, that is what the bill does. It is an artificial budget. That may not sound particularly offensive, particularly when as a policy bill there are many good things in this Defense bill; things such as providing for the increase of our military services; things such as certain weapons systems that are authorized. Historically, this bill has been recognized as being bipartisan, and it addresses the problems posed by an increasingly dangerous world. The Defense authorization bill has historically provided the military with the resources our Nation needs. But the ranking Democrat, the Senator from Rhode Island, and I are compelled to oppose this bill because it addresses these problems with an artificial budget that treats an essential part of our military, which is preparedness--the necessary operations training and maintenance, preparedness of our military--in an unplanned way. They are treating it as an expense by sending it over to an account that is not even on the budget--an account called overseas contingency operations or the funds for what used to be the Iraq war and is now the winding down of the Afghanistan war. This is an unbudgeted item--operations readiness, training--necessary for our military to be ready, and they are taking it out of the Defense Department budget and sticking it over here. Now, that doesn't make sense. Some might say: Well, why in the world would they do that? Because folks around here are concerned about something called the sequester, which is supposedly an artificial limit on keeping expenditures of the Federal Government below a certain level. That may sound like a good thing, if it is done with legitimate numbers, but when in fact you are creating that artificial limit pressing down on Federal spending, but you take a major part of that Federal spending out and put it over here in an unaccounted-for account that doesn't reach those budgetary caps, that is nothing more than--I will put it politely--budgetary sleight of hand. I will put it more directly: That is budgetary fakery. Therefore, this Senator is going to oppose the bill. The Senate Committee on Armed Services has received testimony from military leader after military leader--chief master sergeants, generals, admirals--who have said the policy of this arbitrary budget cap called sequestration is harming our national security and is putting our military strategy at risk. Our strategy is not just dependent on defense spending, but it is very dependent upon nondefense spending, which in this bill is not even being addressed because that artificial ceiling--the sequestration--is like a meat ax right across the Federal budget. That is affecting--and every one of those military leaders will tell you--that is affecting our military preparedness. These arbitrary budget caps impact this nondefense spending. It keeps us from providing funds for other agencies that are so essential to the national security. The Coast Guard, they are out there in the war zone. They are in another war zone down in the Caribbean as they are interdicting all kinds of drug smugglers. What about the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, Customs, Border Patrol, Air Traffic Control, TSA? All of those are affected and affect national security. So if we are going to continue to budget like this, the result is going to be more budget uncertainty for our military, and it is going to end up bleeding funds away from our military readiness. What we are doing is we are avoiding the obvious. The obvious is working around to bring those numbers down under those artificial budget caps. So it is time for us to get rid of the sequester. We did it before, 2 years ago, with a bipartisan budget--the one known as Murray-Ryan. We need to do it again. Otherwise, right now, we are wasting our time working on bills that have no chance of becoming law. We need to fix the budget caps for defense and nondefense spending. You do not use a bandaid when you have an artery that is gushing blood. Now, it is not just this. There are other examples. Take, for example, a program that I have some familiarity with--our Nation's space program. We have been trying since 2010, since Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican from Texas, and I passed a NASA authorization bill that put us on the course that will ultimately, as the President has now announced, take us to Mars. But we can't get the policy updated because we can't pass another NASA authorization bill. So what happens? It goes to the Committee on Appropriations. Thank goodness we have folks such as Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski who direct that. But now what is happening to appropriations bills? They are being put under this sequester, and, because of that, it is going to be hard in this Chamber to get 60 votes to pass appropriations bills. As a result, we are going to be in near cardiac arrest right at the end of the time, during a continuing resolution, which is no way to run a railroad when you appropriate money. We have to come to the altar and realize what we are facing, and that is this artificial budgetary cap. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

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

Mr. NELSON. May I be recognized.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shaun Easley, a Defense fellow serving on my staff, during consideration of the bill H.R. 1735, the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, when a child predeceases the parent, it is a grievous occasion, and we have been grieving for the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States, for what he has been going through--his whole family. It is my belief Joe Biden has known for some period of time the progression of his son, Beau's, cancer and, as a result, he has continued to carry on his public duties while at the same time carrying this huge burden. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the speech Joe Biden made to the Yale graduating class about 2 weeks ago on Class Day.