Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I, like many of my colleagues, have just flown in our Nation's airways, going through a fairly crowded airport in Florida, coming into a crowded airport here in Washington, and in 30 days those TSA lines are going to get longer. For the international flights, I and others have worked very hard to get additional customs agents to cut the time it takes to process our international visitors. In airports such as Miami and Orlando where there is quite a bit of international traffic, getting those additional customs folks has meant a great deal because we even had some airlines that would come in, for example, to Orlando, and they would have to keep the international passengers on the airplane for upwards of an hour before they could get off the airplane so that there was room, with the personnel available. Well, you see where I am going, because all of that is going to change unless--as the Good Book says, come, let us reason together. Unless our sharply divided politics--be it partisan, be it ideological--unless we can come together and reach consensus to stop this ridiculous thing that went into effect last Friday called the sequester, which was never intended to go into effect, but because of the inability of the parties to come together, in fact, it is in effect, and it is cutting, in an indiscriminate way, like a meat cleaver across the board. In certain agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, it even gets exacerbated because the cuts can only occur in certain accounts. Thus, civilian employees are going to be furloughed. It is also happening in the Department of Defense. In my State of Florida alone, there are going to be 31,000 defense civilian employees who are going to be furloughed. What does a furlough mean? It means that after the 30-day notice, so about 30 days from now, that number of employees--in this example, in the Defense Department--is going to be laid off 1 day a week, under the law, for up to a maximum of 22 weeks. Is that in the interest of national security? Of course not. Why is it exacerbated in the Department of Defense? Because the existing appropriations law--remember, we are not operating on a current law; we are operating on last year's appropriations law. That has so constrained the managers--in other words, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary--that they can't move the money around, and what they are having to do is to take the sequester cuts out of operations and maintenance instead of out of acquisitions of systems or programs. That is the worst possible place--out of operations and maintenance. Now, I am an optimist. I couldn't be in this business if I were not an optimist. I have ultimate faith in the American people. And I know every one of these Senators here, from the extreme left to the extreme right, are all good people, and there can be consensus found if everybody would get out of their little silos and realize the greater good. Senator Claire McCaskill and I want to help them, so we are filing a bill today. Since this was never intended and all these civilian Federal employees are going to be furloughed, our bill will say that Members of Congress will get docked the same percentage of their pay that the furloughed workers are docked in the percentage of their pay. Now, the question is, Will this pass? I hope it doesn't pass because I hope it is not necessary to pass. We have 30 days of notice before the furloughs take place. I am certainly hopeful that happens by the end of this month, clearly by the time of March 27 when the existing appropriations bill--which is last year's appropriation--ceases to exist and the government can come to a screeching halt unless we continue the appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year. I am hopeful our legislation will not pass, but somebody needs to understand how ridiculous this whole thing is. Conservatives want to cut spending. You can do it in a more intelligent and rational way. If we are going to get serious about $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the decade--and we have already enacted policies that will take us down about 2.5 trillion of deficit reduction--we have about $1.5 trillion to go in enacting policies over that decade and we ought to be able to do that in a nanosecond. Senator McCaskill and I want to try to help nudge the process along. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are going to dock all of these civilian employees who have lives, who have families, who have children, who have expenses, who need to buy milk and so forth and so on. You are going to dock them their pay because of the inability of the Members of Congress to get together to do what should have been done, by the way, a year and a half ago when this whole thing was enacted. The meat cleaver sequester was put there because it was so ridiculous that surely it would encourage, a year and a half ago, the supercommittee of six from the House, six from the Senate, half and half of each party--surely it was going to encourage them to come together in agreement. All it needed was one vote. Instead of a 6-to-6 deadlock it would have been 7 to 5. It did not happen, and here we are a year and a half later. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to dock Federal workers' pay because you are going to force them into a furlough which was never intended, is not rational policy, is not good administration, then you are going to be docked your own pay. This is not pontificating. Again, I say I hope this never passes because I hope it is moot. But it is trying to bring into focus just how ridiculous the goings-on here are right now. So I am very hopeful. I say I love the Members of the Senate, every one of these Members of the Senate. I have a great relationship with almost every one of these Senators. They are all good people. We need to come together, give a strong statement of consensus building, and then send it down there to the House and tell them they have to get off the dime.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I, like many of my colleagues, have just flown in our Nation's airways, going through a fairly crowded airport in Florida, coming into a crowded airport here in Washington, and in 30 days those TSA lines are going to get longer. For the international flights, I and others have worked very hard to get additional customs agents to cut the time it takes to process our international visitors. In airports such as Miami and Orlando where there is quite a bit of international traffic, getting those additional customs folks has meant a great deal because we even had some airlines that would come in, for example, to Orlando, and they would have to keep the international passengers on the airplane for upwards of an hour before they could get off the airplane so that there was room, with the personnel available. Well, you see where I am going, because all of that is going to change unless--as the Good Book says, come, let us reason together. Unless our sharply divided politics--be it partisan, be it ideological--unless we can come together and reach consensus to stop this ridiculous thing that went into effect last Friday called the sequester, which was never intended to go into effect, but because of the inability of the parties to come together, in fact, it is in effect, and it is cutting, in an indiscriminate way, like a meat cleaver across the board. In certain agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, it even gets exacerbated because the cuts can only occur in certain accounts. Thus, civilian employees are going to be furloughed. It is also happening in the Department of Defense. In my State of Florida alone, there are going to be 31,000 defense civilian employees who are going to be furloughed. What does a furlough mean? It means that after the 30-day notice, so about 30 days from now, that number of employees--in this example, in the Defense Department--is going to be laid off 1 day a week, under the law, for up to a maximum of 22 weeks. Is that in the interest of national security? Of course not. Why is it exacerbated in the Department of Defense? Because the existing appropriations law--remember, we are not operating on a current law; we are operating on last year's appropriations law. That has so constrained the managers--in other words, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary--that they can't move the money around, and what they are having to do is to take the sequester cuts out of operations and maintenance instead of out of acquisitions of systems or programs. That is the worst possible place--out of operations and maintenance. Now, I am an optimist. I couldn't be in this business if I were not an optimist. I have ultimate faith in the American people. And I know every one of these Senators here, from the extreme left to the extreme right, are all good people, and there can be consensus found if everybody would get out of their little silos and realize the greater good. Senator Claire McCaskill and I want to help them, so we are filing a bill today. Since this was never intended and all these civilian Federal employees are going to be furloughed, our bill will say that Members of Congress will get docked the same percentage of their pay that the furloughed workers are docked in the percentage of their pay. Now, the question is, Will this pass? I hope it doesn't pass because I hope it is not necessary to pass. We have 30 days of notice before the furloughs take place. I am certainly hopeful that happens by the end of this month, clearly by the time of March 27 when the existing appropriations bill--which is last year's appropriation--ceases to exist and the government can come to a screeching halt unless we continue the appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year. I am hopeful our legislation will not pass, but somebody needs to understand how ridiculous this whole thing is. Conservatives want to cut spending. You can do it in a more intelligent and rational way. If we are going to get serious about $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the decade--and we have already enacted policies that will take us down about 2.5 trillion of deficit reduction--we have about $1.5 trillion to go in enacting policies over that decade and we ought to be able to do that in a nanosecond. Senator McCaskill and I want to try to help nudge the process along. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are going to dock all of these civilian employees who have lives, who have families, who have children, who have expenses, who need to buy milk and so forth and so on. You are going to dock them their pay because of the inability of the Members of Congress to get together to do what should have been done, by the way, a year and a half ago when this whole thing was enacted. The meat cleaver sequester was put there because it was so ridiculous that surely it would encourage, a year and a half ago, the supercommittee of six from the House, six from the Senate, half and half of each party--surely it was going to encourage them to come together in agreement. All it needed was one vote. Instead of a 6-to-6 deadlock it would have been 7 to 5. It did not happen, and here we are a year and a half later. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to dock Federal workers' pay because you are going to force them into a furlough which was never intended, is not rational policy, is not good administration, then you are going to be docked your own pay. This is not pontificating. Again, I say I hope this never passes because I hope it is moot. But it is trying to bring into focus just how ridiculous the goings-on here are right now. So I am very hopeful. I say I love the Members of the Senate, every one of these Members of the Senate. I have a great relationship with almost every one of these Senators. They are all good people. We need to come together, give a strong statement of consensus building, and then send it down there to the House and tell them they have to get off the dime.

Mr. NELSON

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

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, the Special Committee on Aging has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 113th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Special Committee on Aging be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I wish to ask my colleagues to support the Hagel nomination. Let me just hit a couple of highlights. He volunteered to go into the Army during Vietnam. He was assigned to Germany. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. His brother was assigned in one part of Vietnam, he in another. His brother Tom and he asked to be in the same unit. While on patrol in the jungles at night, his brother saved his life. On another patrol at night, he saved his brother's life. He was wounded twice. He was medevaced. He asked to go back into the fight. He has served as Deputy Administrator of the Department of Veterans' Affairs with a quarter of a million employees under his management. He represented the State of Nebraska in the Senate for 12 years. He coauthored the post-9/11 GI bill with Senator Webb. Out of uniform and away from Capitol Hill, he has lead the USO. This is exceptionally capable man, who is a patriot, has given extensive testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He has cleared up the issues that have been asked over and over, including one that was raised about his role in authoring the Global Zero report. First, the report didn't propose anything. It was, in the words specifically used in the front end of the report, ``illustrative,'' proposing nothing but laying out different scenarios and possibilities. There was nothing that was proposed in a recommendation that we unilaterally disarm, reduce the arsenal, or eliminate the triad. And that would especially be so since another of the coauthors was General Cartwright, the former commander of U.S. Strategic Command and the eighth Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. This is a critical time for national defense. It is a critical time for our country. We need to get on and approve the nomination so he can get on with his duties as Secretary of Defense. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``30 Million New Patients and 11 Months to Go: Who Will Provide Their Primary Care?'' on January 29, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2013, at 3 p.m.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I just wish to compliment my colleague from Florida. As I gave a number of interviews yesterday on his initiatives with regard to comprehensive immigration--not to speak of the issue at hand, more about the specialized necessity of visas, but on overall comprehensive immigration, which I certainly favor and have voted for in the past--a huge step was taken because of the initiative of a number of courageous Senators, among whom I would include my colleague from Florida. Thank you.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I say to Senator Coons, would the Senator yield just for a moment for a compliment?

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I just wish to compliment my colleague from Florida. As I gave a number of interviews yesterday on his initiatives with regard to comprehensive immigration--not to speak of the issue at hand, more about the specialized necessity of visas, but on overall comprehensive immigration, which I certainly favor and have voted for in the past--a huge step was taken because of the initiative of a number of courageous Senators, among whom I would include my colleague from Florida. Thank you.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I say to Senator Coons, would the Senator yield just for a moment for a compliment?

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I want to speak about the extraordinary public service that has been rendered by the Secretary of State and whose long record of public service I want to commend. I rise on behalf of my friend, our former colleague, our honorable Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. She has represented the United States. She is a world figure. She has represented America to the world, especially with her diligence, her grace, her hard work, and her incredible diplomatic skills. She has traveled to 112 countries. She has racked up 1 million miles, met with thousands of foreign dignitaries. She has reached nearly every corner of the globe and made history on the way. In each assignment she has left an indelible mark empowering women, supporting sustainable development, supporting the establishment of civil societies, and promoting the tenets of democracy: one man, one vote; one woman, one vote; human rights; and the rule of law. I might also note that she particularly has underscored the plight of women. Of course, we know we see societies that live almost in another time and age centuries before in the way they treat women. The Secretary of State has tried to help modernize those societies. She has done so by empowering and appointing one of her personal friends, Melanne Verveer, to be the Global Ambassador for Women's Affairs. That position has taken Ambassador Verveer all over the globe. I might say it has been my privilege to have a glimpse of that by seeing my wife Grace Nelson work with Melanne on the plight of poor women in so many different countries across this planet. When our Secretary of State confronts major national security challenges, her support has been pivotal--from the support she gave the President in the raid that took out bin Laden, to the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. She has been at the forefront of some of the toughest decisions of our time. The Secretary has also been steadfast in persuading the international community to enact crippling sanctions on Iran to isolate and to punish the regime for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. I might say on a personal note, a Floridian has been missing for almost 6 years who was suddenly swept up and disappeared on the Iranian tourist island of Kish in the Persian Gulf. The Secretary has kept very vigilant in continuing to search for any piece of evidence of Bob Levinson and to ultimately bring him home. I thank the Secretary not only for Floridians such as myself, but for his wife, Christine Levinson, and seven children who want their father home. That quest continues unrelentingly by many people. I wanted to say thank you to Secretary Clinton for the efforts she has lent to this effort. She has been one of the driving forces behind NATO's no-fly zone over Libya in order to prevent Qadhafi from massacring his own people. Through deft diplomacy, she has slowly opened Burma to the outside world. She is encouraging them to free political prisoners, hold parliamentary elections, and finally permit foreign investment. It is happening before our eyes. Of course, she has taken special interest in the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, an island nation right off of the east coast of the United States, also less than an hour-and-a-half flight from Miami; that is, the island of Haiti. The island nation of Haiti--which is the island that Christopher Columbus was expected to have landed on, Hispaniola--now encompasses Haiti and the Dominican Republic. She has made Haiti one of the top foreign policy priorities, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over one-quarter of a million people. In no small measure has her husband President Clinton been a part of that attempt at restoration of Haiti from that devastating earthquake. Last week, during Secretary Clinton's final appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she said: Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words ``United States of America'' touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor it is to represent the world's indispensable nation. Madam Secretary, you have truly honored us with your indispensable leadership. On behalf of all our Senate colleagues, we thank you for your extraordinary service to this country. I want to say that your position will be in capable hands with our colleague and your former colleague, Senator John Kerry, who will serve, as we confirm him in the next 24 hours, as the 68th Secretary of State. Senator Kerry has served in this Senate in a distinguished amount of public service since 1985. He grew up traveling the world with his father in the Foreign Service. He fought in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze and Silver Stars, along with three Purple Hearts. I know he is going to build upon and continue the legacy and the extraordinary record of Secretary Clinton and will enhance America's leadership in the world. I look forward to his speedy confirmation. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I want to speak on one of the topics of the day. A group of bipartisan Senators has had a press conference today announcing their support for a comprehensive immigration reform piece of legislation. This is a significant step. Perhaps the biggest step was--on the way to immigration reform--the result of the November 6 election. As a matter of fact, it has been chronicled in all of the newspapers that the Hispanic community in every State voted overwhelmingly for the candidate that was perceived to be fair on the immigration issue. I think that has propelled political motivation to address this issue and to address it fairly. I want to commend that bipartisan group of Senators for doing this. There are a number of key elements that as we get into the specifics of the legislation are going to be important. Notice they want to lay everything on the predicate that there is going to be the essence of a real border security effort done. It is hard to patrol a border of thousands and thousands of miles like we have, particularly where there is no geographical barrier and people can merely walk across the border. But it has to be done in the context of overall immigration reform. Another interesting part that has been very thorny in the business community is the fact of verification by employers. When this Senator was a young congressman and voting on immigration back in the 1980s, as a matter of fact there was supposed to be verification by employers of those they were hiring that they were here in a documented status. Well, that never happened. As a result, you see all of these head fakes in implementing the law about whether somebody was here in a documented status. Then when they were found not to be, everybody was pointing like this: Well, it is the other guy's fault. There has to be a verification system put in place. Some have suggested electronic verification. That needs to be explored. They are going to have to be a lot of new things being explored in order to make sure, if we are going to have comprehensive immigration reform, those who are being employed here, in fact, are in a documented status. But the big question in the past politically has been, What about the 11 million who are estimated to be in this country working and in an undocumented status? I think the principles laid out by the group earlier today are very good: They must play by the rules; they must not have a criminal record; they must pay back taxes; They must pay a fine; and then go to the end of the line. Even though they would be allowed a legal status to stay here and to continue working--and that is another one of the elements--they must have a job and demonstrate they have had a job in the past. It would not be fair for all of them to suddenly get at the head of the line when others have been waiting patiently in the legal process to get a green card. Thus, we would not have this economic upheaval as some here have approached this issue in the past year. We have not heard a lot about this since the election, but previous to that we heard a lot about, for example, sending them all home, self- deportation, deporting all of the illegals. Well, first of all, there would be an economic collapse of part of the economy of this country if we suddenly eliminated all of those workers upon whom the economy certainly is dependent. It, also, in many cases would not be fair. There is another part of this that needs to be added. This is the fairness question for the children who came here through no fault of their own. They have grown up thinking they are only an American, and then the current law is they have to be deported. Well, this Senator has intervened in a number of cases for children who wanted to go into the military after high school, wanted to go on to college. They were at the point of being deported. As a matter of fact, we had a Bahamian child who came when he was 6 months old. He only knew he was American. He served two tours in Iraq in the U.S. Army, came back, went into the Navy Reserve, had a top secret clearance and was a photographer for the Navy at Guantanamo prison. When he came back, the authorities put him in jail--a veteran, someone who was still Active-Duty U.S. Navy Reserve. A U.S. Federal judge of Cuban-American descent made a very harsh statement in Miami toward the prosecutors for them putting a child, now an adult, now a veteran, having served both the Army and the Navy, with a top secret clearance, putting that Bahamian, now adult, in jail. This is how ridiculous the system has gotten. This Senator had to intervene in this case, and once we raised enough Cain, finally people came to their senses and said: What is the commonsense thing to do? The commonsense thing now for us to do is all to pass a comprehensive immigration reform law and, hopefully, that is going to occur. The question is, though, what is going to happen at the other end of the hall, down there in the House of Representatives? Because there are a lot of people in the other party down there who haven't changed their attitude since the election. They still are expressing that they don't want anything but deportation. I think we are just going to have to use common sense and moderation and try to explain why this is the fair thing to do. As a young Congressman, I favored this comprehensive approach decades ago. I voted for it as a Senator. I will gladly, once they knit together the legislation, be one of the cosponsors of this legislation. I wish to thank the bipartisan group of Senators who got together, which includes my colleague from Florida, Mr. Rubio, for their willingness to take the initiative and to start plowing new ground of legislation that ought to be able to be passed this year. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NELSON

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to address the issue of gun violence. I think my colleague from Rhode Island is going to be addressing this issue on which he has shown tremendous leadership. It will be a continuing issue over the next several weeks as we get ready to consider legislation. My approach is one of common sense and moderation. I come to this issue as a hunter, as a kid who grew up on a ranch having guns all my life, being very familiar and comfortable with guns and to this day enjoying hunting, although my hunting has primarily been limited to quail, but I enjoy that so much with my son, although I might say that I was hunting Burmese pythons in the Everglades last week, but people do not have to hunt them with guns. Since they are taking over the Everglades, they are caught and then euthanized and, hopefully, we can stop this proliferation of Burmese pythons that are eating up everything in the Everglades, including alligators. But that is a subject for another day. The subject before us is gun violence. Is there anybody who does not realistically, with common sense, think we should do a criminal background check for anyone who is purchasing a gun? That is about as common sense, as moderate a position one can take given the circumstances we find ourselves in with people who go in and start slaughtering innocent children. Maybe that is the one thing we can get over 60 votes for in this Chamber in order to pass and maybe they will consider it in the other body, the House of Representatives. Secondly, is there anybody who thinks we should have clips which I showed with the sheriff of Orange County in Orlando last week--clips that are this long and hold 60 rounds? The law I voted to extend back in 2004 said clips of more than 10 would not be allowed. Is that not reasonable? Is that not common sense? I know how people say, Oh, a person can change a clip in a few seconds. But should we make it easier for a killer so he does not have to change the clip? The question is one of balance, one of common sense. When I go hunting, I don't have any need for anything more than 10; indeed, I don't have any need for anything more than a few. In quail hunting, of course, if it is an over-and-under, a hunter has two shells because that is basically the number of shots he is going to get off when the quail flush. The third element is also one of common sense. The sheriff of Orange County and I held up two guns they confiscated from people using them for criminal purposes. I held up an AK-47. The sheriff held up a Bushmaster. The AK-47 is a derivative of the same weapon used by the North Vietnamese against us in the Vietnam war. I simply asked the question: Are these guns for hunting or are they for killing? The legitimate answer is they are not for hunting, they are for killing. That is what they were designed for, as an assault-type weapon in a combat circumstance. So how do we approach the legitimate recognition of the second amendment, the right to bear arms, with assault weapons? It seems as though among people of good will using common sense and moderation, we can come to some definitions that would ban those types of assault weapons. I wish to conclude my remarks by saying this is a lot of politics. Some of us are portrayed, as a result of taking this position of moderation and common sense, as if we were not for the second amendment. That is totally false. Of course I support the second amendment. I just gave my history: growing up in the country, having guns all my life, and still having a number of guns in my house. I support the second amendment. I do so in light of the circumstances in our society today that have changed. My final comment: In all of the politics going on about this issue, the advocacy organization called the National Rifle Association is not the same NRA that grew up representing the interests of hunters and sportsmen. It has become an advocacy group for gun manufacturers that want to sell more of their manufactured products. So it becomes an economic issue to people instead of one of common sense and moderation. We need to draw that distinction. This organization--the NRA--has gone to the extreme not only, as we saw, in their response to the elementary school killings in Connecticut, but they have gone to the extreme in my State by advocating in the State legislature getting in between the doctor-patient relationship as to what a doctor can inquire about with regard to a patient concerning a wound that might have come from a gunshot. This is extremism in the extreme. We ought to call it what it is as we are debating this issue. Moderation and common sense is the answer to this issue facing us. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his courtesies extended, and I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the hour is nigh. Now Washington is awash in the rumor that there might be some progress being made. I hope so. If there was anything that was made clear to this Senator in the reelection in one of the biggest States in the Union, it was that the people want us to come together and to stop this bickering, the excessive ideological rigidity, and the excessive partisanship. That is a huge turnoff because ideological rigidity and excessive partisanship are impediments to getting people to come together with commonsense decisions for solutions. Obviously, there is an easy way. Hopefully that is what is being tweaked at the moment in a final solution, with the President to speak in about 30 minutes. I hope so. Mr. President, I am going to leave you with this thought. My colleagues know that a little over a quarter century ago, I had the privilege of seeing our home planet from the perspective of looking through the window of a spacecraft. It was the 24th flight of the space shuttle. It was early in the space shuttle program. It is indelibly etched in my mind's eye, as I looked back at Earth, what I saw. I did not see political divisions. I did not see religious divisions. I did not see ethnic divisions. What I saw is that we were all in this together, all a part of planet Earth. If we could remember that in our politics, we would all get along so much better. I hope that stays indelibly etched in my mind's eye and that we ultimately prevail in this momentous decision of avoiding the fiscal cliff. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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 wish to speak about our friend Danny Inouye. It has been a week of emotion. When we look at that black-draped desk with the white flowers, it is hard to believe that such a big part of this institution is gone, not just a living, breathing part of the institution is gone but a part of its history, its memory, its institutions, and its values. Dan epitomized all that. He was a gentleman first. Actually, we would have to say he was a patriot first. All we need do to see how much of a patriot he was is consider the fact that he had one arm missing because, as an Army lieutenant, he singlehandedly charged a German machine gun nest. He took them out, lost his arm, and ended up in the hospital for 20 months. Of course, we all know he was deservedly recognized with the Medal of Honor years later. He was a patriot, not only because he served as a young lieutenant but also by being a public servant for well over a half century. He was elected as the first territorial legislator of Hawaii in 1954 and then elected as its first Congressmen when it became a State in 1959. Since 1962, he has been a public servant serving his State. He was the first Japanese-American Senator. His name is synonymous with Hawaii, and so it is fitting, as told by his staff, that his last word was ``aloha.'' Patriot first but second he was a gentleman. That is a value which all of us in the Congress ought to remember. This all emanates from some of the greatest moral teachings on planet Earth. It is what those of us refer to in the New Testament as the Golden Rule: Treat others as you want to be treated. To say it in Old English, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is a moral principle which runs throughout every major faith on the face of the planet. Danny Inouye exemplified that uniquely American value, and somewhere along the way we seem to have gone astray. We go astray from what we have learned in Newtown, CT, and we go astray when we see how some of us treat each other in this Chamber. The old adage is not just to go along but to get along. We would get along a lot better if we get along or to say it in the context of old country boy wisdom: We can attract a lot more flies with honey than we can with vinegar. That is the life our colleague led. Some people call it a throwback to the gentlemanly days of the Senate, when there was courtliness and deference. I hope it is not a throwback. I hope we are not throwing back anything. I hope we will remember the life of Danny Inouye. He felt so strongly about this that when he was the chairman of a committee, he didn't refer to the ranking Republican as the ranking member, he called the ranking member the vice chairman. Of course, that was uniquely Senator Inouye, but it was also practical because he could get more done if he was sitting there as chairman and his vice chairman was sitting right next to him. We have a lot to learn from these emotional times of losing a valued friend and colleague, but his life exemplified the best part of the Senate. We can sure get a lot more done if we start coming together just like Danny Inouye taught us. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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, a very disturbing thing has happened in Mexico with one of my constituents--a U.S. marine who served honorably. Johnny Hammar fought in Fallujah and was honorably discharged in 2007. He and another marine, both having suffered under posttraumatic stress disorder, were taking advantage of the fact they were surfers to lessen their stress. They had surfed up and down the east coast. This is a marine whose family lives in Miami, so they had gone to Cocoa Beach, and they were going to others. They wanted to go to Costa Rica to catch the big waves in the Pacific, and so Johnny bought a camper and entered Mexico at Matamoros. As they crossed the border, he checked with United States Customs because he had a shotgun that was an antique that had been owned by his great-grandfather. He registered the weapon with U.S. Customs so that when he returned Customs would have a record of it. But when he went from the American side of the U.S.-Mexico line into Mexico, and openly showed his great-grandfather's antique shotgun, the Mexican authorities arrested him. His companion, another marine, after interrogation was released, but they put Cpl Johnny Hammar, now age 27, in the general prison population in Matamoros, Mexico. This case came to my attention last August, and I immediately responded. As a result of my contacting the Mexican Government, they moved him from the general population of the jail into an individual jail cell. But as they have gone in to interrogate him, they have manacled him, shackled him, and at one point they had him chained to the bed. This has gone on long enough. If it is against the law to take a gun into Mexico, even though he had already declared it at U.S. Customs, the Mexican authorities could have, when they released his fellow marine to go back into the United States, sent him back into the United States and told him don't bring your great-grandfather's shotgun into Mexico. If that is against Mexican law. But they didn't. They have put a U.S. Marine, who has honorably served his country, in a Mexican jail, and he has been there since last August. Enough is enough. I called my friend Arturo, the great and well- respected Mexican Ambassador, yesterday and I can't get a return call from the Mexican Ambassador, so I am bringing this to the attention of the Senate so we can further get through to the Mexican Government and indicate to them they have made a bureaucratic mistake. Obviously, if it is against Mexican law to take a weapon in, then under these circumstances, this young U.S. marine does not deserve the treatment he is getting--holding him in a Mexican jail at the border of the United States for the past 5 months. I hope cooler heads will prevail. If it requires me speaking on the Senate floor day in and day out to keep this issue alive, I will do so. Clearly, it has been in the press. It has been in the Miami Herald several times, a much more detailed account of his background, his service to the country, and his struggling with PTSD ever since he got home. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to bring this to the attention of my colleagues, and once again I say to the Mexican Government: Send this marine home. Now that you have a new President installed in Mexico, relations with the United States are especially important and United States citizens who are peaceful in their intent, innocent in their observation of the Mexican laws, where no harm has been done, should be treated respectfully. Send that U.S. marine back to America and back to his family in Miami. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Judge Walker on his confirmation vote today. He has been waiting patiently since he was voted out of committee in June, and the Northern District of Florida will be well served by his confirmation. A Florida native, Judge Walker was born in Winter Garden. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Florida where he graduated first in his class. He earned his law degree at the University of Florida as well. He has clerked for Justice Stephen Grimes of the Florida Supreme Court and Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida. He served as an assistant public defender of Florida's Second Judicial Circuit from 1997 to 1999, before then spending a decade in private practice where he specialized in civil litigation and criminal defense. And since 2009, he has had an outstanding record as a circuit judge, living in Tallahassee. We have another district judge nomination pending on the Senate calendar as well. Judge Brian Davis would fill a judicial emergency for the Middle District of Florida, and I urge my colleagues to take up this vote as soon as possible. I hope the Senate can work to eliminate the backlog of nominees pending on the floor. Even nominees with the support of both home State Senators are being held up. The high level of judicial vacancies across the country puts at risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair hearing in court. I yield the floor. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I want to speak to the issue that is beginning to considerably irritate the American people, and that is they cannot believe that in Washington the two parties cannot get together to come to an agreement on avoiding the fiscal cliff. It is as if some are in denial that there was an election and the President won reelection, and that a whole bunch of us won reelection to the Senate and to the House. It is as if the ideological rigidity is still as rigid and doctrinaire and that the lessons people were telling us about bipartisanship, that they demand bipartisanship--it is as if the parties and their leaders did not understand that is what the American people were demanding. And here as the drumbeat grows louder, we approach December 31 and falling off the fiscal cliff. There is an easy fix, whatever your ideology and your approach. It can be hammered out next year when we are doing major things such as a rewrite of the IRS Tax Code, and all that that can portend in producing revenue, by making the Code more streamlined and in the process get rid of a lot of the underbrush and loopholes, and utilize that revenue to lower rates. But that is for another day after long deliberation on reforming an issue that has gotten so complicated it is out of control, and that is the Tax Code. You cannot do that in the next few days. That is what needs to be done in the committee process of the Congress. What easily can be done is recognize that the President won, produce revenue with the upper 2 percent paying a little more, and eliminate the sequestration, which is $1 trillion of cuts over the next 10 years that were never intended to go into effect after the original $1 trillion which a year-and-a-half ago went into effect. This sequestration was intended to be the meat cleaver hanging over the heads of the supercommittee to get them to come to a bipartisan agreement. Of course, a year-and-a-quarter ago, they deadlocked six to six and thus that is why we are facing this sequestration--$\1/2\ trillion of cuts in defense, $\1/2\ trillion of cuts in nondefense discretionary spending. Most everybody thinks they should not go into effect. So let us, for right now, before December 31, help eliminate the sequestration. Let's reintroduce all of the tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people, and then let's prepare, in a deliberative way, to reform the Tax Code and go about the process of streamlining and cutting spending as the new Congress unfolds. That is what I wanted to share. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business