Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I can explain this in 60 seconds. This is the widows and orphans offset. It is a moral issue because under the Veterans' Administration, someone who dies service connected gets compensation of about $1,100 a month for their widow. At the same time, many of those people have a life insurance contract, an annuity, called a survivor benefit plan. It pays equally the same amount. Current law offsets the two. The Senate has passed this six times in the last decade, and we have whittled away at that offset in conference, but the major part of the offset is still there. That is the essence for the widows and orphans. We have seen the movie ``Lincoln.'' Remember what Lincoln said in his second inaugural address; that the cost of war is borne not only by those who fight but by their widows and orphans.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I call up amendment No. 3073.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I move to waive and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the chairman has asked me to manage the bill in the meantime while he is working out with the leadership a list of amendments. Seeing no other Senator who wants to speak at this point, if I may, then I will talk about an amendment that would be offered in the future. I am going to offer an amendment to repeal the offset in the Department of Defense and the VA benefits for military widows and widowers. The standalone bill, S. 260, has widespread support from military organizations and has 51 cosponsors in the Senate. This is the ninth time that I have and will bring this amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. It has passed the Senate six times over the past decade, including last year by voice vote. The Senate has supported eliminating this offset for years. I hope this body will remain steadfast in its support for military widows and survivors. The Presiding Officer will recall in a number of addresses that President Lincoln gave he spoke of the responsibility the government has to take care of the veteran and his widow and orphans. That is an ingrained principle within the law. That is an ingrained principle as we uphold the finest fighting force in the world, which is our military. What this amendment does is it addresses the longstanding problems faced by those survivors of people who are killed in action or whose death is related to the service in the military. The requirement for the dollar-for-dollar reduction of the Department of Defense Survivor Benefit Plan--it is an annuity--is offset by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation that is received from another department, the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Survivor Benefit Plan from the Department of Defense is an optional program for military retirees offered by the Department of Defense. Military retirees pay premiums out of their retirement pay to ensure that their survivors will have adequate income upon that servicemember's death. That is an insurance plan paid for by the military retiree. On the other hand, the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation is a completely different survivor benefit. It is administered by the VA. When military service caused the servicemember's death, either due to service-connected disability or illness or Active-Duty death, surviving spouses are entitled to a monthly compensation. Most recently that has been $1,154. That comes from the VA. That is as a result of death with a service-connected disability or illness or Active-Duty death. Now, of the 270,000 survivors that are receiving, under the insurance plan, the Survivor Benefit Plan, about 54,000 of those widows and orphans are subject to the offset. According to the Defense Actuary, 31,000 survivors' SBP, the insurance plan, is completely offset by the dependency and indemnity compensation, meaning that the widow or the widower must live just on the DIC, which is $1,154. Well, that is simply not fair because if you engage in an insurance contract and you pay premiums to give you a certain return upon the happening of an event--in this case, the death of a retired military member--then that contract ought to be offered. But because this has been an expensive item in the past, what has happened over the years that this Senator has been trying to eliminate this offset is we have whittled it down but not completely done the complete offset. The fact is that the group of people affected, the group of widowers or widows, is getting smaller and smaller and therefore is going to cost less. I know of no purchased annuity plan that would deny payout based on the receipt of a different benefit, which is the case here. Retirees bought into the SBP, the insurance plan, in good faith, these military families planned for the future, and the government failed to hold up its end of the bargain. The military has a longstanding tradition never to leave a comrade behind, but that is what we are doing to the military survivors, the widows and the orphans. We are not taking care of those who are left behind. We must meet our obligation to the widow and the orphan with the same sense of honor as was the service their loved one rendered. We must eliminate this SBP-DIC offset. It is the right thing to do, and it is going to cost a lot less than when I tried this 11 years ago, but there will be costs. But we have to start by setting the policy of what is right. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Saturday we mark another World AIDS Day dedicated to showing our support of people living with HIV. In the 24 years since the first such day, we have seen great progress in the fight against the spread of this disease. But there is still much more that needs to be done, not the least of which includes increasing public awareness. So this World AIDS Day, especially in memory of those who have died from this disease, let us recommit to ending this epidemic once and for all. My State of Florida has been hit particularly hard by this epidemic: over 100,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS. And for too long, Florida had a long waiting list of low income residents waiting for assistance to afford the high cost of life saving medications. At times, this list grew to over 4,000 Floridians. Thankfully, we have made great progress over the past year through increased State and Federal investment--and, Florida's wait list is now down to 56 individuals. But no one should have to forgo life saving drugs because they can't afford them. In the days ahead when Congress is considering ways to tighten our belt, I would urge my colleagues to avoid blindly slashing these life saving programs. We also must remain committed to funding the goals of President Barack Obama's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief globally. Among the goals is to provide care for the more than 12 million people with HIV around the world, including some 5 million orphans and children. Mr. President, this is not, and should not be partisan issue for lawmakers. As former President George W. Bush noted in 2008, it's a question of our moral interest. ``We believe in the timeless truth,'' the president said, ``to whom much is given, much is required.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while we are waiting for further debate on the Defense authorization bill and any possible amendments, I wanted to offer a couple of comments regarding all of the concern in the Nation about the fiscal cliff as we approach that fateful day of December 31 and the need to get something done. In the opinion of this Senator, sequestration, which is this additional cut of $1 trillion in a most unorthodox way, is like a meat cleaver coming down and cutting off--I am rounding here--$\1/2\ trillion off defense and $\1/2\ trillion off nondefense discretionary. Sequestration, let us remember, in the historical context was never supposed to happen. Sequestration was a mechanism that was set up in the Budget Control Act in August 2011, almost a year and a half ago. The act called for $1 trillion to be cut off of the top to begin with, and it set up a process by which additional deficit reduction over a 10-year period would occur. That process was--after the $1 trillion was whacked off, which it already has been--a supercommittee of six from the House and six from the Senate would deliberate and a majority vote of that committee of 12 could determine additional deficit reduction that would apply over the next 10 years. To give a little incentive for that supercommittee not to deadlock, the process of sequestration was set up which, in effect, was this meat cleaver that in a nondiscriminate way was going to drop a meat ax approach of another $\1/2\ trillion out of defense and $\1/2\ trillion out of nondefense discretionary, which nobody wanted. It was never contemplated sequestration was going to go into effect because the effects were going to be so onerous that surely people of goodwill could come together on a 12-member committee and not deadlock. But, instead, at least one would provide the majority, even if it were only 7 to 5 out of the 12, because the alternative was so unpalatable. Of course, we know what happened. People of goodwill, in this highly charged atmosphere of the coming Presidential election--this is almost a year and a half ago--could not agree. The ugly head of excessive partisanship raised itself, and the ugly head of excessive ideological rigidity raised itself, and the supercommittee deadlocked 6 to 6 which, under the law, left the meat cleaver to drop, the budget meat ax to drop. That is what we are facing today. We are facing something that nobody ever intended to go into effect. So how do we get out of this? We have people of goodwill that have to be reasonable and utilize a little common sense, lessen their partisanship, lessen their ideological rigidity. That is the atmosphere under which we can come together. I wish to tell a story and then I am going to sit down. I wish to tell the story about one of the brightest shining moments in government which occurred back in 1983 when this Senator was a young Congressman. We were within 6 months of Social Security running out of money. Two old Irishmen, one who was President, and his name was Reagan, and the other one who was Speaker, and his name was O'Neill, decided they were going to do something about this. They were reasonable people who could operate in a bipartisan way and in a nonideological way. They said: What we are going to do is take this subject that is so thorny--namely, Social Security--so thorny at the time of elections, and we are going to take it off the table at the next election so as not to use it as a hammer to beat your opponent over the head, and we are going to do it in the mechanism of a blue ribbon panel that is going to make recommendations on the solvency of Social Security. That committee met. They reported to the Congress in a bipartisan way, and the Congress passed that recommendation overwhelmingly. The President signed it into law, and that made Social Security solvent for the next 50-plus years from 1983. I think the most current estimates are that it is now something like 2034. So we see what was done so effectively. But we have to have people of good will who will come together and will do so with some common sense, which is what this place has not been operating on in a long while. I wanted to share that memory of one of the great moments of government working as our government is intended to work. With that, I yield the floor. I 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 wish to make a few comments before the chairman of the Judiciary Committee addresses the Senate. I am very happy he is here because he knows about what I am going to talk about, which were the attempts at suppressing the vote in the State of Florida, done a year and a half ago by the State legislature and the Governor. They did a number of things to try to suppress the vote. The first thing they did was to make it much more difficult to register people to vote. The League of Women Voters has been registering people for 72 years in Florida. They stopped because of the onerous provisions of up to a $1,000 fine that would be upon their members if they did not turn it in within 48 hours. That was thrown out in court as unconstitutional. But it was a year and a half later, with all those registrations not having been done. But then what they did, they constricted the number of early voting places, constricted the number of early voting days, constricted the number of early voting hours. What do you think was the result? It is what we have seen on TV--the long lines. I wish to read a passage from the Miami Herald of November 6: When the polls officially closed at 7 p.m., hundreds of people were still waiting to cast ballots in precincts around South Florida in an election that was marked by long lines and the occasional snafu. Even after the networks called the race for President Obama, people in South Florida remained in line. From Hialeah to Country Walk and to Brickell, people waited as long as 7 hours to vote. In Broward County, voting at some precincts came to a halt when the ballots ran out. This is the result of the voter suppression by lessening the number of early voting days. When this Senator asked the Governor, because of the long lines during early voting, to extend early voting on the Sunday before the Tuesday election, since it shut off on Saturday, there were long lines then in early voting, the Governor would not do it. We see the result. The Miami Herald continues: At the South Kendall Community Church, 1,000 people were in line at closing time, and at least 200 still remained three hours later. That is a determination to vote, and the people do not want their right to cast their ballot taken away. Yet this was the result of voter suppression laws not only in my State but in other States as well. I wish to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee because he and his subcommittee, headed by Senator Durbin, came to Tampa to take testimony. A professor from the University of Florida gave his study and pointed out who used--in the experience of Florida for a decade, who used the Sunday early voting? It was two demographic groups, African Americans and Hispanics. They cut out the Sunday of early voting before the Tuesday election. Yet with the constricted times and with others being forced to shoehorn in between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on election day, we see the result. As the Miami Herald said, some people waited 7 hours to vote. They were determined that the Governor and the legislature of Florida were not going to take away their right to cast that ballot. And we see again, we had again a close Presidential election in Florida. The President won by 74,000 votes. What if a number of people--such as the lady who waited and waited and she had babysitter problems and after 3 hours she left--what if that had happened to a lot of people? Well, maybe that was the design of some people in constricting the laws in an America of 2012. We went through this in the civil rights era. The right to vote--as the Senator, our chairman, can tell us, has been said over and over by the courts--it is absolutely essential in a democracy that we have the right to cast our ballot. That is what Dr. King said as well.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, before the Senator from New Jersey leaves the floor, I just wish to say this Senator's heart goes out to the Senator and his people. We take hurricanes more as a part of our lifestyle in Florida. But when we combine a hurricane in the Northeast at this time of year, during the full Moon, at high tide, in one of the most densely populated coastal areas of the United States, then we definitely have a problem. This Senator wants to help Senator Lautenberg with what is going to be necessary for the additional funding of FEMA and so forth. I want the Senator to think about an idea that we implemented in Florida, to create, in effect, a reinsurance fund against this kind of catastrophe. We call it the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. This was done when I was the elected insurance commissioner--prior to me, and then I had to implement it in the aftermath of the monster hurricane in the 1990s, Hurricane Andrew. I have talked to our colleagues in the Senate about a national catastrophic fund. People in other parts of the country do not think hurricanes are their problem. But what they do not realize is that their taxpayers are picking up the load. Whereas, if we reinsured against this kind of tragedy in a catastrophic fund that would be paid in over time, a little bit from each of the policyholders, then there would not be--there would be this fund that would become a cushion for such a disaster that the Northeastern United States is experiencing at this time and of which we have so often experienced on the gulf coast and the Atlantic coast in the Southeastern United States. I just wanted to throw that idea out there for the Senator as he speaks so movingly and so eloquently about the suffering of his people. One can just imagine what are going to be the expenses of all the infrastructure that is going to have to be replaced.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Of course I will.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Amen to those comments. I would conclude by saying we ought to be making it easier to vote, not harder to vote. Then, when we get down to conducting an election, we definitely need to do something about the Citizens United Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision, and we can, statutorily. We almost did, lacking one vote breaking the filibuster 3 years ago because it would require the disclosure of those corporations giving the money. If the public knew who was giving the money, then they would be very reluctant. Whereas under the guise, the mask of secrecy, they can give money and try to influence the outcome of an election--as they tried this year. It has gone out of control, and I know the chairman is going to be at the point of the spear on trying to pass the DISCLOSE Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Thanks to the Senator for his big heart, his big heart toward his people. Voter Suppression

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Of course.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I would like to respond to my friend.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, before the chairman of the committee uses the time reserved for her, I wish to respond to my friend from Oklahoma--and he is my friend--by telling him why I think he is wrong on this issue and telling him by way of a compliment to him because the Senator from Oklahoma and I, the Senator from Florida, had worked together, he being much more prominent in the efforts, to bring the budget under control 1 year ago. In having discussions across the aisle--often private discussions-- what started as a rump group known as the Gang of 6 that grew and blossomed into what, in effect, became a group of 45--and I think that was the number of us who stood in the Senate Press Gallery in the summer 1 year ago; it was the summer of 2011--and we said we wanted a big $4 trillion-plus budget deficit, and we pointed out ways we could get there. Indeed, what this Senator has said--and I have heard other Republican Senators who feel and have said very close to identical things publicly; and I will name one and that is Senator Lindsey Graham and he stated it on ``Meet the Press'' a couple months ago--that the way we get there is producing revenue through reform of the Tax Code by going after all the tax preferences which have ballooned out of control since the last tax reform bill in 1986, that this Senator, then a young Congressman, voted for, to the point that tax expenditures, tax preferences are now $14 trillion over 10 years. A lot of them have outlived their usefulness. For a lot of them, their special interests or sponsors would tell us: We would not want that if we could have a certainty of a lower rate. Therefore, we have said many times on this floor and in public statements, we can take tax preferences, restrain them, and use that revenue to do two things: lower everybody's tax rates, including corporate, streamline the Tax Code by getting all this underbrush of preferences out of the way, and then use the rest of the revenue to lower the deficit. I suspect the Senator and I feel very similar about that issue. So when he talks about reforming the spending process, the fiscal process which includes the revenue process of this country, then I think we have grounds for significant agreement, and I would hope we are going to address that in the lameduck session that starts. My plea is that we do not take it out, in this particular case, on something that can be done immediately for veterans in need returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. OK. Then what I would suggest to my friend-- and he knows he is my friend--if we have a difference of opinion, I respect that, and I would like him to share that. I wish to complete my very brief statement and then the Senator from Oklahoma may make whatever statement he wishes to make. The unemployment rate among veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan is hovering around 11 percent, and for those unemployed veterans age 24 and less it is even higher. We have taken steps to combat this problem. This past summer we passed legislation that will help veterans get Federal occupational licenses when their military training matches civilian requirements. That made sense. That made common sense. As a matter of fact, we got that through the Senate unanimously and it was signed into law. The bill recognized that a veteran gets all of this specialized training and they ought to be able to utilize that training without having to go through all the retraining and the relicensing. We could do that--and what we passed is now law--we could do that in Federal employment where there is a similar kind of requirement. What is in this bill is to do that for the State occupational requirements; to take a veteran who has a military discipline--a specialty--as that veteran is applying for a private sector job that happens to be covered by State law on the occupational requirements and requirements of licensing, that it is a consideration, instead of the veteran having to go through all of that again. That makes common sense. That particular idea was offered by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, and it is a part of the bill. Also, Senator Murray, who is here on the floor and who is the chairman of the committee, reached out and incorporated a number--and she can address that--of the different bipartisan ideas and not just my idea, which is the one I was talking about wherein veterans can have employment up to a year--but so many others that are incorporated into the bill that came out of committee. So we already did something about matching civilian requirements, albeit what was signed into law was just with regard to Federal employment. Also, last year we passed a bill that granted tax benefits to companies that hire wounded warriors. Of course, we know what inspiration all the rest of us take from the wounded warriors. The Senator from Oklahoma and I from time to time go to Bethesda to what used to be called Bethesda Naval and now is the combined, all-military services Walter Reed. For every one of us who goes out there and suddenly sees these veterans coming in who are on these new kinds of computer-controlled prostheses where they can actually walk and run, even when their leg has been blown off above the knee, it pulls at our hearts and yet we are so glad that technology has moved forward. But those same ladies and gentlemen need jobs. Until the recovery is complete, they are having difficulty. That is why I filed this bill. The chairman of the committee and the ranking member have done their best to work across the aisle. Veterans don't care to hear about why we can't help them. They don't care to hear about technicalities of a budget point of order. They want our country to support them in the way they have supported us, and that is an obligation. A lot of us in this Chamber have served in the military. I think it is engrained in every Senator here that we have an obligation to those who have served this country. This effort here today that we are going to vote on in 20 minutes has broad support from veterans and police organizations. The Disabled American Veterans, the Military Officers Association of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the American Legion all support it. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have called and pleaded for its immediate passage. They know why: Because of their veterans' need to know that Congress has their back. So I would make a plea to the Senate. We just need a few votes from that side of the aisle to get to the threshold of 60 to waive the technicality of the budget point of order. I look forward to the comments of my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma. Madam President, since the time is controlled over here, I reserve the final 7 minutes for the chairman of the committee.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the Senator from Alabama knows the personal friendship we have and my high regard for him and the privilege I have had working with him over the years. It has been a working relationship. Regardless of what one feels about a budget and a budget point of order, we are talking about a technicality to kill a bill to help unemployed veterans at a time they desperately need help because they are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and they can't find work. Until we come out of the recession--and the recovery is under way, but veterans have a higher percentage of unemployment and especially veterans under age 24 have an even higher percentage of unemployment. So what we have is a piece of legislation to give an employment cushion for veterans for at least a year, until they can find employment in the private sector. This is employment to do things we need, since so many of our national resources, such as parks and emergency responders and firefighters and police, need help. Look at all of the deterioration in the national parks. This would be an opportunity to employ those veterans and to employ them up to a year. Everybody knows this makes common sense and it is the right thing to do. What is happening is the folks on that side of the aisle, because we are in an election year and because this happened to be a proposal coming out of the White House and is brought to the floor by this Senator from Florida, are not going to support it, and they are going to kill it on a technicality by denying us 60 votes in order to waive the budgetary point of order. That is the bottom line. That is what is going on here, and it is sad. Yet that is what is happening. Look at the votes in the last week. We passed the motion for cloture on the motion to proceed by 95 to 1. Doesn't that tell us something? Then we had the second procedural vote which was 84 to 8. All we need is 60 votes to get over this hurdle and to get to the bill and then probably pass it by unanimous consent because everybody agrees with the substance of the bill. It is clear that commonsense legislation that has bipartisan support is getting thwarted in this Chamber. We all know how important it is to help our veterans find work as they return home. Does the Senator from Oklahoma want to ask a question? The Senator from Oklahoma knows my respect for him and my personal friendship for him. I admire the Senator for the courageous stance he takes. But I hope the Senator from Oklahoma understands--and I respectfully say that--for a need so great as unemployed veterans, this is not the time to draw a technical line on a budget. I would earnestly and respectfully request of my friend that this be one of the considerations he would make. Does the Senator wish to engage in any conversation? If not, I will complete my remarks.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the recess we marked a sad anniversary: 2,000 days since retired FBI agent Bob Levinson went missing in Iran. That is 2,000 days Christine Levinson has been without her husband and 2,000 days their children have missed his laugh. There has been an empty seat at the family table for far too long. Last year we received proof that Bob was alive, most likely somewhere in Southwest Asia. It is time for him to come home. Mr. President, our Government must continue doing all it can to win his safe return, and I join Bob's family in calling on those who are holding Bob to set him free.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to go ahead on this Veterans Jobs Corps bill. I had anticipated I would be speaking after the chairman of the committee, Senator Murray, but I will take the liberty of going ahead, and then with her comments coming as the chairman of the committee, which normally it would be the reverse. And I thank Senator Murray for her leadership in all of these veterans issues, but particularly the issue of unemployment among veterans when they come home from the war. Especially among veterans who are age 24 and less, the unemployment figure is even higher. It is appropriate on this particular day, September 11--11 years ago today--with the fact that those terrorists hijacked the four commercial airlines, causing the crashes at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania. What was happening also that morning was that police officers and firefighters and emergency personnel rushed to respond, and many lost their lives in attempts to save others. The events of that morning mobilized American forces like we had not seen in years. One of the first mobilizations was our U.S. military. They were called to serve bravely in remote corners of the globe. Eleven years later, the mastermind of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was taken down, we now have an al-Qaida that is severely diminished, and we are bringing our troops home from that part of the world. But for the troops, when they come home, the fight is not over. There is another fight when they get back home to America. It is a different type of battle. The unemployment rate among veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan was just under 11 percent in August. It is higher for those who are younger. This problem is likely to continue to grow as we draw down in Afghanistan, as we have already drawn down in Iraq. It is worth noting that there have been steps made in the right direction. This past summer we passed legislation that will help veterans get Federal occupational licenses when their military training matches the civilian requirements. That was a bill I had the privilege of sponsoring. It passed the Senate unanimously. It was passed by the House overwhelmingly. It was sent down and it was signed into law. Last year we passed the bill granting tax benefits to companies that hire wounded warriors. But we have to do more. So we filed this legislation that the chairman of the committee, Senator Murray, will further explain. This legislation is to create a Veterans Jobs Corps. It is modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s. The Veterans Jobs Corps would put veterans back to work restoring and protecting America's public lands and waters. The bill would also create opportunities for veterans to serve as police and firefighters and first responders. We have had some success on this with smaller scale projects, such as the Veterans Fire Corps pilot program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which trains veterans to fight forest fires. In fact, it has been so successful that folks who run these programs say they can hardly keep trainees in the program because they are picked up for full-time employment so fast. So we are expanding this idea from this pilot study that has been so successful. We are expanding it now in the Veterans Jobs Corps. Ten percent of the money in this bill will go to hiring veterans with specialties, such as those with the specialty of military police going into civilian law enforcement and those with the specialty of medics to be firefighters and first responders. Not only will this bill help protect our communities, but the Veterans Jobs Corps will help address the Federal maintenance backlog. The National Park Service has deferred maintenance totaling over $11 billion. This backlog has been caused by the gradual shifting of funding to the operations budgets of the Park Service at the expense of everything else. For example, at the Civil War battlefield in Fredericksburg, VA, a $42 million backlog in maintenance is preventing the upkeep of that vital piece of American history. I am happy to say that a number of organizations have stepped forward to support this bill. The American Legion, the Military Officers Association of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the National Association of Police Organizations--all of them support this legislation. One of the greatest honors I have in this job as Senator is getting out to meet and to greet current members of our military all over the globe and to thank the veterans back here at home for their service to our country. When you meet some of these folks, both young and old, they have already done the tough, tough job, and then they come home and they have tough times as well. These folks are hard working, they are highly trained, highly disciplined, extremely skilled. We need to give them as many opportunities as possible to succeed when they get back home here in America. It is up to us to stand by our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen. I want to urge the Senate, when we vote today at 2:15, to grant the motion for cloture so we can take up this bill and quickly pass it so those who have fought bravely for our Nation can find employment when they come home. 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 wish to speak about Oswaldo Paya, a Cuban dissident, and his untimely death in Cuba in a supposed automobile accident. The Cuban people, indeed all freedom-loving people of the world, have recently lost a great advocate for freedom. He was someone who was in peaceful opposition to the tyranny that is on the island of Cuba. Oswaldo Paya died in a car crash on Sunday, July 22. He was just 60 years old. Another Cuban dissident, Harold Cepero, was also killed in the accident, and two European politicians, one from Spain and one from Sweden, were injured. Paya was one of Cuba's best known dissidents. He pushed for civil and human rights. He pushed for an end to one-party rule. He pushed for freedom for political prisoners. And he pushed for support for private businesses. In 2002, his Varela Project delivered more than 24,000 verifiable signatures in support of these ideals to the Cuban Government. It was the largest petition drive in Cuban history. Paya bravely led this initiative at great risk to himself, to his loved ones, and to his colleagues. For his work, he received the European Parliaments' Sakarov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2002, and he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The reason I am bringing this up, other than pointing out that planet Earth has lost a friend for freedom, is to note that the circumstances of the car accident are the topic of some debate. Cuban officials insist the driver was speeding and that he lost control and he hit a tree. But others are saying that witnesses saw another vehicle hit Mr. Paya's vehicle and drive it off the road. Paya's daughter Rosa Maria says she holds the Cuban Government responsible. She has told CNN en Espanol that ``we think it's not an accident. They wanted to do harm and then ended up killing my father.'' That is a direct quote. Paya's loved ones and the Cuban people and the international community deserve to have all the facts surrounding this tragic event examined and put out in the public. That is why I have submitted, along with a number of our colleagues, S. Res. 525, which honors the life, legacy, and exemplary leadership of Oswaldo Paya. This resolution also calls on the Cuban Government to allow an impartial third-party investigation into the accident. I urge the Senate to unanimously pass this resolution. This request comes on the heels of other disturbing news out of Cuba. We have learned that more than 40 prodemocracy activists were detained after Paya's funeral last Tuesday. The reason? They dared to shout ``libertad'' at that time--``freedom''--during the ceremony. Reports also indicate that several of the dissidents were severely beaten. These peaceful activists were only honoring one of their own and they ended up as victims of an authoritarian regime. Now more than ever before the United States must continue policies that promote the fundamental principles of political freedom, democracy, and human rights, to all of which Oswaldo Paya devoted his life. Senator Durbin, we are quite concerned the Castro regime continues to hold an American hostage, Alan Gross. Once again, another Senator rises to urge the Cuban regime in the strongest possible terms to immediately and unconditionally release him. We will never forget Paya's passion and dedication to freedom and faith. The least the regime can do is to release Alan Gross.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, there is such an important subject that is looming over the country right now that Congress can do something about; that is, the possibility of cyber attack. We have had this discussed by a number of people in very high and responsible positions and the threat is real. What the threat means to all of us in our everyday lives is that electrical systems could be shut down, water systems could be shut down, the banking system could be shut down, sewer systems could go awry, and we can go on and on. For months we have been stymied from passing anything because of a disagreement in the business community, which is going to be one of the main recipients of a potential cyber attack. I will choose my words very carefully as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and say this potential attack is real. It is real not only from rogue players but also some state actors, and we need to get this legislation up and going. I am most encouraged to think we are at a position to get agreement; that the chairman and vice chairman of our Intelligence Committee are going to come together in an agreement. We need to pass this--this week--because this is deadly serious. I refer to a letter that has been made public from the commander of Cyber Command, a four-star general, GEN Keith Alexander. He is also the head of the National Security Agency. He has done a remarkable job. He sent a letter, dated today, to the majority leader imploring the Senate to move. Whatever disagreements there have been over the concern of the Department of Homeland Security being the interfacing agency can be worked out. The National Security Agency--which almost all of us have enormous confidence in--is going to be directly involved. It is my hope and I am expressing optimism that we are going to get this legislation out of here and to the House. If they can't pass it before this August recess, at least we can have some items over the August recess start to be informally conferenced to iron out any differences between the House and the Senate.

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