Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in the midst of all of this tax debate and the partisan wrangling and the gridlock that has ensued--and today we will have another couple of tax votes, and, again, real progress will be stalled--I would like to offer a bipartisan thought that will lead to a solution. As a matter of fact, I think there are over 50 Senators of the 100-Senator body who agree that deficit reduction can be done, and done in a comprehensive way. I think partisan politics, all mixed up in election-year politics of a Presidential election, is getting in the way, and I think that is what we are going to see being played out this afternoon on the floor of the Senate. What would that solution be? Well, if our target is that we want to reduce the deficit over a 10-year period by at least $4 trillion--that was clearly where the Simpson-Bowles Commission was going; that was clearly where the Gang of 6, which morphed into 45 of us who last summer stood and had a press conference and talked about $4 trillion- plus in deficit reduction, was going--if that is what our goal is, and as others have spoken out here, if we could get that kind of deficit reduction agreement for a 10-year period, what we would have is a shot of confidence into the economy, and we would see this economic engine start to roar more to life, other than the gradual economic recovery we are seeing--indeed, a recovery of 27 straight months of private sector job growth, but albeit a slow economic recovery. If over 50 of us were to come together and strike that agreement, indeed, that is what we would have, and the stock market would take off, the bank lending would take off, the credit ratings would go up, and all of the incidental things that would flow from that. You know what. At the end of the year that is what we are going to have to do, and most every reasonable Senator knows that. That is why there are a number of Senators on this side and that side of the aisle who have spoken the same message. What is that message? No. 1, that we have to have some spending cuts, but if we are doing $4 trillion-plus, we cannot do it all with spending cuts. We have to have revenue produced. How do we get the revenue? What over 50 Senators in this body would agree to is we reform the Tax Code in a comprehensive way by starting to eliminate some of the tax preferences, otherwise known as tax loopholes, tax deductions, tax credits, that have ballooned out of control. The last time I voted for tax reform I was a young Congressman and President Reagan was President. It was 1986. When we reformed the Tax Code back then, the tax expenditures for a 10-year period were worth about $2 trillion to $3 trillion. Do you know, that has ballooned now to over $14 trillion over a 10-year period, just in tax preferences-- that is individual tax preference items for different special interests--which means revenue is not coming in. As a matter of fact, there is more going out in tax preferences than there actually is coming in each year in individual income tax. Well, if we reform it in the way that a lot of us are talking about, then we take that revenue and we do two things with it: No. 1, we simplify the Tax Code and we lower everybody's tax rates--individual income tax rates, as well as corporate income tax rates--and we take the rest of the revenue and pay down the annual deficit. Now, that is fairly common sense, and it is fairly simple. Of course, to get in and comprehensively reform the Tax Code is going to be quite a task, and the committee that is designated to make the first cut at it would be the Finance Committee, of which I have the privilege of being a member. We have heard similar statements by a number of Republican Senators. We will continue to hear statements from other Democrats--such as me-- about what I just said. And we will hear that because the commonsense people know that is what it is going to take to get our budgetary house in order. But we are not there. We are in the middle of a partisan war, all wound up in the crucible of an election year for President, and as a result we are going to have two tax votes today that do not pass. The Republican version of the tax cut is going to be all of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. They stay in effect for all levels of income. Oh, by the way, in their bill, they say to make up for that $405 billion that will not go into the Treasury as a result of the continuation of the Bush tax cuts--in 1 year, $405 billion--we cannot do anything with revenue. So they are going to prohibit what half of the Senate knows ultimately is the solution to this problem. That is one version. The other version is what is being brought forth by the majority leader, which is, give the tax cuts for everybody, including the top 2 percent. But the top 2 percent--above $250,000 adjusted gross income on a joint return--that tax rate will go up a little over 4 percent just on the income above the $250,000 adjusted gross income, not on the income underneath, for which everybody continues to have the continued tax rate. In that same proposal, 97 percent of the small businesses will not get any kind of tax increase. Likewise, if they are a subchapter S corporation, they will have the same benefits of the tax cut up to that level of $250,000. We heard comment out here about, oh, we have to keep the exemptions on the estate tax up, which I certainly agree with. Well, in this version the majority leader is going to offer, it has no provisions in it on raising the estate tax. What would be my preference? I am going to vote for the majority leader's proposal, but my preference is that we would take that tax cut up to the level of adjusted gross income of $1 million on a joint return, which would mean far less than 1 percent of the people in this country would be affected by a 4-percent increase in that income above $1 million. That is my preference. That is what I voted on a year ago. But that is not the choice before us today. So I have no choice but to vote as I just indicated. But at the end of the day, this is not going to solve the problem. It is going to be more political posturing all the way up to the November election. Then in a lameduck session we are going to get down to work. We are going to let common sense and bipartisanship operate, and we are going to solve this deficit problem. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, lest we get totally off track and before the Senator from Alabama leaves the Chamber, I wish to thank him and congratulate him. The system works when Democrats and Republicans come together. The Senator from Alabama and I have worked on many issues together, including the Nation's national security. Just recently, the Senate showed how it can work together on the RESTORE Act in the Gulf of Mexico when we added a provision directing the fine money to be imposed by a judge in New Orleans and redirected that fine money to come back to the people and the environment and the critters of the gulf. That passed in this Chamber 76 to 22--a huge bipartisan vote. I have had the privilege of working with the Senator from Alabama on many other issues, including the times the two of us led the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee on some of the Nation's most significant things, such as our overall strategic umbrella protecting this country. There again, it was Democrats and Republicans working together. So to hear a lot of the rhetoric, someone outside the Senate would think we are totally in gridlock. That has not been the case. However, we come to a point of gridlock again because of the Senate rules requiring 60 votes to shut off debate so we can go to this bill called the DISCLOSE Act. What the DISCLOSE Act does is common sense. It is common sense to say, if someone is going to affect the political system by giving money to influence the votes at the end of the day in an election year, all the campaign laws say they have to disclose that money, and but for a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision--which is contorted at best and is way over the edge at the very least--its ruling says that because of freedom of speech, outside the political system, one can make advertisements, one can speak freely; in other words, by spending money, buying ads, and one does not have to disclose that. Oh, by the way, that whereas the campaign finance law prohibits in Federal elections corporations from donating, this contorted Supreme Court decision says that can be corporate money and it doesn't have to be disclosed. That is what we are seeing in abundance in that kind of political speech right now in all these attack ads, and these attack ads are going rapid fire. We look at who it is sponsored by. It is not sponsored by the candidate; it is sponsored by some organization that has a high-sounding name, but we don't know where the money is coming from. This piece of legislation in front of us yesterday got 53 votes, and we need 7 more votes to cut off the debate just to go to the bill. This vote is coming at 3 o'clock. We are not going to get it. It is going to be the same result--53 to 47. Why? Because these outside, unlimited sources of funds that are not disclosed are affecting elections and they are achieving the result and we know it. If we put enough money into TV advertising, one can sell a box of soap, whatever the brand is. That is the whole theory behind this. The undisclosed donors giving unlimited sums elect whom they want, and that is going to completely distort the political system. We start from a basis of old Socratic ideas, going back to Socrates; that in the free marketplace of ideas, the crosscurrents of those ideas being discussed, that out of it truth will emerge and the best course of action will emerge. It is upon those ideals that this country was founded; this country, wanting a representative body such as this to come forth and freely and openly discuss the ideas and hammer out policy. Yet what we are seeing is that in bringing those elected officials here, by electing them by overwhelming advertising from unlimited sources, those elected representatives will be beholden to those particular sources and will not have an independence of judgment, will not have the Socratic ability in the free marketplace of ideas to hammer out the differences of ideas and achieve consensus in order to determine the direction of the country. So the very underpinnings of the country are at stake. Why is this being fought--something that ought to be like a motherhood bill. One is for disclosure of those giving money to influence the political system, just like all the Federal candidates have to disclose; and, oh, by the way, are limited in the amounts of contributions to each candidate. What is such common sense is being thwarted. If this legislation were to pass and they had to disclose who is giving the money, do we know what: Most of them would stop giving it, and they would have to operate under the normal campaign finance laws which say to report every dime of a contribution and they are limited as to the amount they can give and the candidate is limited as to the amount they can receive. That is fair, but it is more than fair. It is absolutely essential to the functioning of the electoral system in order to elect a representative democracy. That is what is at stake, and that is what we are going to vote on again. Unfortunately, we know what the outcome of the vote is going to be: 53 in favor of disclosing and 47 against, and we are not going to know who is giving all this money. I can't say it any better. It is old country boy wisdom that says this ought to be as easy as night and day, understanding the difference. Yet that is what we are facing. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, before the Senator from Montana leaves, I want to ask him a question. Did he hear, earlier this evening, a Senator come out here and say he thought the DISCLOSE Act would intimidate people from participating in the political process? Is the fact of disclosing where the money is coming from supposed to be an intimidation?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are going to divide this among five Senators so I will just take a few seconds to say corporations are having a field day because they can put all this money in to influence the political system while at the same time being anonymous. They do not have to disclose what every other donor has to disclose when they make a political contribution. Are they interested in my State, in the quality of the representation of my State? I think they are interested in their own agenda and buying elections. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Yes, indeed. I thank the Senator for his comments. My comments will be very similar because the DISCLOSE Act is a very simple piece of legislation, and it is about letting people know who is spending money and how much in order to influence elections, and therefore not to allow the democratic process of electing officials to be taken over by a few superdonors who pay for these slash-and-burn negative ads that are also, by the way, patently false. I have had $8 million of negative attack ads run against me. Every independent fact-checking organization has said they are either false or pants-on-fire false. Yet the public doesn't know where the money is coming from in order to run these kinds of ads. I really have never seen this kind of situation we are facing this year because this 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision has left the door open for these megadonors to secretly finance and propel the flow of false information. It is not just happening in my State; we are hearing that it is happening in a bunch of States. It is not just in Senate elections; it is happening in elections at all levels, including the Presidential election. What is happening is that these people and these organizations are donating so they can satisfy their own agendas, and they do so in their own self-interest, to see that it is going to be protected in Washington. The ones who are running ads in my State of Florida clearly don't care about Florida; they care about their own political agenda. In essence, they are trying to buy elections. So with this new crop of secretive donors seemingly popping up--new ones every day--there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. That is why we need a law like the DISCLOSE Act. Voters need to know who is influencing the elections. We as Federal candidates have to know basically every dime of political contributions and--oh, by the way, we are limited in the amount of contributions per contributor that we can take, and we can only take from people, not from a corporation. We are obviously seeing how distorted the implementation of this 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision is in this law. That is why we have to pass a bill to at least bring it out into the sunshine. In this Citizens United 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision which allows these unlimited donations, the Supreme Court even said in a part of the opinion that there is a need for transparency. Well, that is what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation. The Supreme Court, in its opinion, said that voters should be well informed about the group or the person who is speaking in what they consider free speech. Well, that is exactly what this legislation intends to do. It informs the electorate, makes sure they have the information they need to judge the message for themselves. This onslaught of unlimited, anonymous contributions puts everyday folks at risk of having their voices drowned out by the billionaires and the corporations. If the campaign law says the average person has to disclose their contribution to a candidate, why shouldn't billionaires and millionaires have to do so as well? It is a question of fairness. There should not be two sets of standards for political contributions. That is why we are here on the Senate floor well into the night supporting the DISCLOSE Act. We ought to pass this bill. Yet you see partisan politics at its worst when the votes are being recorded. It is simple. It says what has already been described: The person who wants to donate $100, even $1,000, if they are going through a super PAC, they don't have to disclose that, but if they are donating $10,000 or more, then that ought to be disclosed and we ought to know where that money is coming from and what their agenda is by virtue of us knowing where the money is coming from. This legislation will stop the special treatment for the super PACs by making sure they play by the rules everybody else has to play by. Mr. President, there is going to be a lot of commentary tonight. I thank the Chair for the opportunity, and I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on the battlefield there is a code among the military that you don't leave anybody behind. That principle ought to apply to our returning veterans as well. It is essential for us to care for our veterans when they get home and show them the same respect and loyalty they showed us during their service. This economic downturn has been especially tough for many of our veterans as they come back from Iraq and Afghanistan. The unemployment rate among veterans returning from those two countries was 9.5 percent in June. While this is clearly an improvement from last year, and an improvement in the entire economy over the last couple of years, it is still more than a point higher than the national average. For our youngest veterans, it is even worse--29 percent in 2011. Our servicemembers have already done the toughest jobs out there. They are highly trained and extremely skilled. We ought to give them as many opportunities as possible to succeed when they get home. That means when veterans come back from war, they shouldn't have to do battle with bureaucrats. I wanted to make a commonsense suggestion, so I filed a bill--which recently passed both the House and the Senate--to remove some of those bureaucratic obstacles in our veterans' way and to make it easier for them to get occupational and professional licenses when they get home. The Veteran Skills to Jobs Act is a bipartisan bill cosponsored by 17 Senators and supported by veterans organizations such as the American Legion. I ask unanimous consent that the American Legion's commentary on this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The bill directs Federal agencies to recognize relevant military training when certifying veterans for Federal occupational licenses. It is common sense. If veterans have skills learned in the military, they ought to be able to utilize those skills, that training, without having to go through duplicate training when they get into a specialized civilian job. If the military training is found to be comparable to the civilian requirements, the veteran would be deemed qualified for that occupation. These are the licenses people need in order to get jobs in the civilian sector. I want to give an example. Let's say an Air Force or Navy aircraft mechanic gets out of the service. That veteran may want to use those skills learned in the military to work in the commercial airline business. To do so, that veteran must be certified as an aircraft mechanic technician, certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. This requires an airframes and powerplant license from the FAA. Although the veteran has trained to do this, this highly skilled occupation for our military, what we are seeing all too often is common sense goes out the window, and that veteran may have to go through redundant and expensive training to get that airframes and powerplant license. Of course, that does not make sense. This is not just a Federal issue. Many States are starting to recognize military training when certifying veterans for State licenses, such as nurses and truckdrivers. I am pleased that the Federal Government will now move in this direction as well. We have already passed it unanimously in the Senate; likewise, they have passed it in the House. Both bills are down in the other's respective Chambers. We need to go ahead and pass this legislation. Today I will move for final passage of the bill, and I know of no objection since we got it out of the Senate unanimously. One of the greatest honors I have in my job is getting to meet and thank our veterans and current members of our military and all of our national security apparatus. It is up to us to stand by these folks. Passing legislation to help employ veterans, such as the Veteran Skills to Jobs Act, is one way we can thank them. Exhibit 1 The American Legion, Office of the National Commander, Washington, DC, March 30, 2012. Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Nelson: On behalf of the 2.4 million members of The American Legion, I would like to express support for S. 2239, the Veteran Skills to Jobs Act of 2012, which provides for Federal certification of veterans who have been qualified for licensure through relevant military training. With an anemic economy and a downsizing military, it is essential veterans be given the ability to quickly find civilian employment upon separation from the military. Without these types of opportunities, separating military personnel could add to the unemployment problem currently faced by millions of Americans. Federal certification and licensure of veterans who have received relevant training will assist in this process of ensuring that veterans are able to smoothly and quickly transition between military and civilian employment. Matching qualified veterans with Federal licenses which require their expertise is good for veterans, good for the economy and good for the country. Again, The American Legion fully supports enacting S. 2239 and applauds your leadership in addressing this critical issue facing our nation's veterans and their families. Sincerely, Fang A. Wong, National Commander.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as a courtesy to Senator Inhofe, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe be recognized after my remarks.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last week, we passed some significant legislation, and it was one little glimpse of a bright shining moment of bipartisanship. The overall Transportation bill passed overwhelmingly. The magnificent leadership of the chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer, and the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, was a good example of how government, in general, and this institution, the Senate, should operate to get things done. We went through the amendatory process, and I noticed the two leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee fought off all the amendments that would have been killer amendments. They accepted some they believed strengthened the bill, and then we passed the bill seventy-four to nineteen. So it was overwhelming and it was bipartisan. As a part of the process of that bill, several months ago, when the Transportation bill was on the Senate floor, I had the privilege of offering an amendment--again, bipartisan--to restore the Gulf of Mexico after the effects of the BP oilspill. That emanated from the fact that we have a fine that will be levied by a Federal judge in New Orleans. The law allows for the judge to assess a fine per barrel of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico. In this case, we are talking about some real money. We are talking about almost 5 million barrels spilled in the Gulf of Mexico. The fine could be anywhere from a $5 billion fine all the way up to a $20 billion fine. So the question became: Once the fine is determined and approved by the court, where is that money going to go? The Gulf State Senators argued we should be able to have this come back to help the people and the environment of the gulf who were harmed. There are so many effects, and we do not know what is going to be the ultimate result of all of this, particularly on the health of the gulf. Five million barrels in the gulf is a lot of oil. The question is, the natural processes of the bacteria in the water that consume oil that naturally leak through the ocean floor--is the gulf so overwhelmed with all that oil that the bacteria are not able to consume it? Since this came from a ruptured well 5,000 feet below the surface of the water, how much oil is still down there, where it is hard to get any kind of research done because of the depth and the pressure. That is what we need to know. We need to know for the future and we need to know for all the people who have their livelihood by the gulf, be it the seafood industry--but that not only affects the gulf. The gulf provides seafood for the entire country. I am coming here to say we have an incredible success in a bipartisan way. I remind the Presiding Officer that we passed that amendment on to the Transportation bill, the RESTORE the Gulf of Mexico Act, in this Chamber 76 to 22. It was a huge bipartisan vote. Last week was a time to celebrate, and it was a time to celebrate for our whole country for a lot of reasons. Yesterday, I went back to the shores of the gulf to share with the people what the specifics are of the legislation we passed and, once the court decides what the fine is, how that money is going to flow and what it is going to do for our people to improve their economies and the environment and for the long-term outlook of the health of the gulf. I wish to bring this to the attention of the Senate because the gulf doesn't just belong to the gulf coast counties of five Gulf States; it belongs to all Americans, and the President signed it into law last Friday. I wish to thank those people in the Senate, in the House, and the President for signing it, a wide array of staff and stakeholders, the cities and the counties whose tireless efforts led to the enactment of the RESTORE Act. It aims to make sure the gulf does recover. The chorus of support behind the success of this bill is enormous, and it would take me until the next Congress to thank everyone. But in addition to Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, I wish to mention the spark plug behind this whole effort was Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, whose State has suffered mightily. Senator Shelby and Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who helped us come up with sources of revenue that we had to have to satisfy the General Accounting Office, Senator Whitehouse, all these Senators were involved. Indeed, when we filed the bill 1 year ago, we had Senators from all 5 Gulf States as cosponsors, another display of bipartisan cooperation. Think back to 2 years ago when this disaster began. It was about 10 at night on April 20, 2010, 52 miles off the coast of Louisiana. The Macondo 252 oil well suddenly kicked, leading to an explosive blowout that claimed the lives of 11 Americans. For the next 87 days, almost 5 million barrels of crude oil gushed into the gulf. Fishermen pulled the gear off their boats and replaced it with booms and skimmers, tourists canceled their vacations, waiters came to work to find that there were no customers, and the oil continued to coat the marshes that are the nursery habitat for juvenile shrimp and so many of the other critters that spawn in and around the marshes. Some of the beaches that draw tourists every summer were coated. Even for those beaches that did not have oil, the perception was that there was oil on our beaches and the tourists did not come and it killed an entire tourist season. That is why, in addition to Louisiana being affected with their environment and their shrimping industry and their fishing industry, the economy of Florida, where oil got onto the westernmost beaches--as a matter of fact, there was that famous photograph of Pensacola Beach with the white sugary sand beaches, and it looked like the entire beach was covered. That shot around the world and people started canceling vacations. Only a few tar balls got as far east as Panama City Beach, and the rest of the gulf coast beaches all the way down to the southern tip of Florida, no oil, but the tourists stopped coming. When the tourists stop coming, there is nobody in the hotels and the hotel workers can't work, there is nobody in the restaurants and all those workers aren't working and all the ancillary businesses that depend on that major component of the economy. Then, of course, the seafood industry--the source of one-third of our domestic seafood in this country, the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, the fishing industry was devastated, even those who could fish outside the danger zone of where the oil was lurking. People stopped buying gulf seafood because they were afraid it was tainted. Even when the oil was finally shut off after 3 months, the gulf was left with this public perception that the gulf was tainted. If we remember back, the President asked the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, to recommend a strategy to restore the gulf. Why Ray Mabus? Because he had been a Gulf State Governor, Governor of Mississippi. After he did his first tour, Secretary Mabus labeled the gulf a national treasure, and he recommended that a significant portion of the Clean Water Act fines to be levied against BP be sent back to the region for environmental and economic recovery. Over the last couple weeks, the President, the Congress, stakeholder groups from across the country and across the political spectrum have made this commitment to restore this national treasure, and the result is that we passed the RESTORE Act. Over the next 6 months, the Department of Treasury is going to develop procedures in which to implement the RESTORE Act. The Ecosystem Restoration Council, established by the act, will build on the recommendations of Secretary Mabus, the task force, and others to develop a draft comprehensive plan to address the environmental needs of the gulf. It is a Federal-State council. Once we know the outcome of the Justice Department's lawsuit against BP--and there are rumors that there is a settlement in the works. If that settlement were to be true and the judge approves it, the money will be ready to flow under the procedures being set up under this Federal-State council as initially determined by the Department of the Treasury. The reason I wish to speak is not only to thank the many people who helped us accomplish this major milestone, but I also want to put into the Congressional Record why certain provisions in the RESTORE Act are there. As the sponsor of the amendment, I want this legislative intent to be understood as the law is implemented. Certainly, I want understood from my perspective, as one of Florida's two Senators, what we have done. But it is important to flesh it out, if it hasn't been said already in testimony in committee as well as testimony as given in the speeches on the floor. The RESTORE Act sends 80 percent of all the Clean Water Act fines back to the gulf through four mechanisms. The first is to direct equal allocation among the five Gulf States. In the spring of 2011, in our State, the Florida legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation to ensure that the most affected counties receive the bulk of any oil spill funding that comes to the State. This is different in the allocation of this first pot of money in the State of Florida from what was indicated in the other four Gulf States. In the case of Florida, it is memorialized in law that 75 percent of the funds for Florida in this first pot of money would be spent in the eight disproportionately affected counties in the Florida Panhandle--so from the west, Escambia County all the way to the east to Wakulla County--while the remaining 25 percent would be spent in other counties. That allocation of funding is mirrored in the RESTORE Act and it is now law. This is important. Because while there are places across the State that suffered from the misperception of oil, the panhandle counties were some of the hardest hit. So when it comes to the first allocation, the intent was to have those eight counties receive 75 percent of the funds in that first pot and for the other counties along the gulf coast of Florida to receive the remaining 25 percent. If that State law is changed in the future, I want it clearly known that the legislative intent of the sponsor of this bill was what was just said: the 75-25 allocation--not to be squirreled off into some other purposes in the State government but to go to the counties that were affected by the spill. The Senate-passed version of the RESTORE Act included impact allocation formulas for disproportionately affected counties and for other gulf coast counties that took into account things such as population and proximity to the oil spill. These impact allocations were meant to provide a reasonable and transparent method for accounting for impacts between gulf coast counties in Florida. The Florida Association of Counties convened working groups of the disproportionately affected counties to determine such a method. When we got into the conference committee with the House, the House didn't go along with that particular internal approach so that language was not included in the final public law. But I want the record stated that was the intent of the Senate-passed bill, and as I have just come from the gulf coast yesterday, I understand from the county commissions all up and down the gulf that they intend to work with the cities and the other affected parties to try to follow that method they had recommended to us that we put into the Senate-passed bill. The eight panhandle counties worked hard to reach a consensus, and it is my expectation they are going to continue to honor those collective decisions to come up with a fair and reasonable method of allocating the money. Throughout the spill and for the recovery efforts that are moving forward, the gulf region worked as one gulf, with Louisiana shrimpers standing shoulder to shoulder with Florida county commissions because, together, the gulf would be stronger and better. I urge all the stakeholders to continue this unified, consensus-driven process. Any one city, any one county or State restoration effort will only help the region if you look at it as a whole. I said there were four pots and each of the pots has a specified amount, a percentage of the total fine money. Each of them has certain criteria. The first pot I described will be divvied up among the five Gulf States, equal parts to each State, and distributed according to the formulas I mentioned. The second pot is an amount of money specified to be directed under a Federal-State council. It will be for the purposes of restoration of the environment of the gulf. A third pot will be according to State plans, operating under the criteria put together by all of the stakeholders, including a representative from all the gulf coast counties in Florida, and ultimately approved by the State-Federal council. The last pot, the final 5 percent of the allocation of the moneys, is to be an investment in the long-term science and monitoring of the gulf ecosystem. When the oil began to spill we immediately realized how little we knew about the gulf. Many commercially and recreationally important fish stocks in the gulf have never had a stock assessment. We did not know what the fisheries were. We knew organizations were closing down certain fish stocks to protect the species, but it was never done with up-to-date data. To know how to restore a whole ecosystem we have to know what has been harmed and how we go about straightening it out. So half of the science funding is going toward a grant program to collect data, observe and monitor the fish, the wildlife, and the ecosystem of the gulf in the long term. From the beginning this program has been a priority of mine because our fishing industry is so important--commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and charter fishing. By the way, the protection of these fisheries is not just for the fish in the gulf because so many of these critters that are spawned in the marshes and bayous of the gulf, in the near-shore habitats of the gulf, are species that migrate to all the oceans of the world. I want to reiterate that this program is intended to provide a long-term investment in gulf science. Years ago, in Alaska, after the Exxon-Valdez spill, it took 5 years for the herring population to collapse and it has not recovered in the 19 years since. We do not want this to happen in the Gulf of Mexico fisheries. If this gulf science program looks only at the short term we may not be able to adequately assess the real impacts. This funding is also meant to supplement existing efforts and not to supplant them. I want that clear in the legislative intent. The health of the gulf, the fishing industry, and the tourism industry all rely on accurate, up-to-date science--which is lacking, by the way, not just in the gulf but in all our fisheries. There is a strict cap on the administrative expenses of 3 percent so that the RESTORE funds produce on-the-ground results rather than plugging budgetary shortfalls. The science pot, the fourth pot, is divided in two. I have described the long-term science looking at the fisheries. The remaining half of the science pot will go to centers of excellence to be established in each of the five Gulf States. University and research institutions in Florida have been a vital part of the response to the Deepwater Horizon incident. Since the 1960s, Florida research institutions have worked together to benefit oceanographic science in the State. This coordinated effort is called the Florida Institute of Oceanography. This institute is essentially Florida's marine science brain trust and its members have done excellent science work, particularly since the oil spill. This model has produced excellent results that avoid the duplication and make the most effective use of the resources in the State. That is why the RESTORE Act includes language that specifies that in our State of Florida, a consortium of public and private research institutions in the State--a total of 20 with 7 associate additional members, including the two State resource agencies--is going to be the ones named to carry out the center of excellence in our State. This language is intended to provide for the Florida Institute of Oceanography to carry out this program as the centralized voice of the ocean science in Florida. I want that clearly understood for any who read about this legislation in the future. That was the legislative intent with regard to the center of excellence in the State of Florida. Each of the other States has their own procedures. This past week I have been on the gulf coast quite a bit to tell folks about what I am sharing here today. This new law is going to provide some of the necessary resources and a framework to restore the gulf coast and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Just like plugging the Macondo well was a step in the right direction, this is another monumental step. But obviously our work is not done here. The Department of Justice is still negotiating with BP to ensure that they are held responsible for the damage done, and it is time to implement RESTORE, because we want to eat gulf seafood forever at Fourth of July barbecues. Parents want to see their children playing on the white sand beaches of the gulf. They want them to visit the Gulf Islands National Seashore and all up and down, from the Perdido River in the west all the way to the tip of the Florida Keys at Key West. I am going to continue to work with our colleagues to move this process forward in a way that adequately restores this national treasure of the Gulf of Mexico for many future generations. I appreciate the opportunity to share this and I yield the floor.

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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, our Nation faces an alarming judicial vacancy rate. I am grateful that today we will be voting to confirm U.S. Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum to fill a judicial emergency in the Southern District of Florida for a Federal district judgeship. She earned her undergraduate degree at Cornell, her law degree from Miami. She began her legal career in the U.S. Attorney General's Honors Program where she worked as a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division. She has worked in private practice at Holland & Knight and as a law clerk to Judge Stanley Marcus, U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and she has worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney down in the Southern District of Florida. Our State has a great tradition of bipartisan support for our Federal judicial nominees going back a couple of decades. Of course, through this judicial nominating commission, she has come forth with their stamp of approval. The two Senators from Florida agree. I am happy to recommend her to the Senate. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for debate only on S. 3240 be extended until 5 p.m., and that the majority leader be recognized at that time.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, as I was heading to the Capitol today, I could not help but think about the jolting news from my State that the U.S. Department of Justice will have to sue my State of Florida over its purge of the voting rolls. Being a native Floridian whose family came to Florida 183 years ago, and having the great privilege of serving the people of my State for a number of years, it is simply hard for me to conceive that the State of Florida is trying to deliberately make it more difficult for lawful citizens to vote. But the Governor did sign a new law that the legislature passed over a year ago to reduce early voting days, to make it more difficult to vote if you move to another county, to blunt registration drives, and to eliminate the Sunday before the Tuesday election in early voting. And then Governor Scott launched his massive purge of the voting rolls, hunting for suspected noncitizens. In so doing, he is now defying Federal authorities, who point to Federal law and say you cannot conduct a purge of voter rolls so close to an election. We are 2 months away from a primary election in the middle of August. We are a little over 4 months away from the general election. Yet the Governor and his administration end up doing this. What they ought to do is ensure the credibility of our voter rolls, not suppress citizens from voting under the fiction of some perceived fraud. But above all else, the State of Florida must ensure that every lawful citizen who has the right to vote can do so without hindrance and impediment. It was quite a while ago, but something Dr. King once said about voting rights seems very appropriate again. Dr. King said: The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic traditions. It is democracy turned upside down. I hope the Governor of Florida will heed those words. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on April 19, 2012, I introduced S. 2325, the Iron Dome Support Act, along with my colleagues Senators Boxer and Kirk. This bipartisan bill authorizes further assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system. As of today, 17 of our colleagues have also joined us on this bill, because we all recognize that an investment in the Iron Dome is an investment in peace and security in the region. The Iron Dome system uses small radar-guided missiles to blow up Katyusha rockets and mortar bombs in midair coming from 3 to 45 miles away--and can do so in any weather condition. The Israeli Defense Force reports that Iron Dome has already proven itself to be 90 percent successful intercepting rockets well before they could potentially hit residential neighborhoods, busy highways, shopping centers, or crowded streets in southern Israel. This is an incredible piece of technology. Right now, there are 3 Iron Dome batteries in the south of the country. But Israel remains vulnerable to attacks on other fronts from terrorist groups. That is why I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 2325. Increased support for this legislation will send a strong message to include additional funding for Iron Dome batteries in order to protect all of Israel. The Iron Dome is just one of the ways the United States supports Israeli missile defense. The Arrow Weapons System and David Sling protect Israel from medium and long distance threats to the country's existence. We are developing these systems in cooperation with the Israeli government, so we can harvest the technology for future American systems. Our backing is important to keep the deployment of these systems on track as they must keep pace with the aggressive development of threat missiles. As the markup of the various defense bills moves ahead this month and next, I urge my colleagues to fully support the accelerated deployment of anti-missile systems vital to the survival of our Israeli allies.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, today I wish to commemorate the 110th anniversary of Cuba's independence. On May 20, 1902, after a series of rebellions against foreign rule, Cuba finally gained its freedom from the Spanish empire. I am honored to join with Cubans around the world in commemorating this day. At the same time, we must remember that the island nation still remains under the tyranny of an authoritarian regime. We can never forget that the Castro regime continues to jail its political opponents, and it still holds an American hostage. Once again, I rise today to urge the Cuban regime in the strongest possible terms to immediately and unconditionally release Mr. Alan Gross. Today, we reaffirm our solidarity with the people of Cuba. Now more than ever, the United States must continue policies that promote respect for the fundamental principles of political freedom, democracy, and human rights, in a manner consistent with the aspirations of the people of Cuba.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Democratic side be equally controlled by myself and Senator Levin.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That would mean how many minutes?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. For the total?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then I will speed up my remarks until I see Senator Levin come in. Mr. President, I, too, wish to talk about the vacancies. There is no sense for all of this slow-walking. Fortunately in Florida we have a process that takes the politics out of the selection of judges. The two Senators appoint a judicial nominating commission of prominent people all over the State, and they do the interviews and they do the selections of at least three for each vacancy. Because they do this in a nonpartisan way--notice what I said. I didn't say ``bipartisan,'' I said ``nonpartisan way,'' which is the way the selection of the judiciary ought to be done. Because they do that in a nonpartisan way, all three of the nominees who come to the two Senators--any one of them can be a Federal judge because they are all so qualified. Fortunately, with the agreement we have with the White House, the President can name whomever he wants. He agrees to accept the nominee and make his pick from among the three we send him if we approve all three after the two Senators have, in fact, gone through and interviewed them. So we have a process. Why should there be a delay on judges like that? There absolutely shouldn't. For example, take one of our Federal judges. Judge Jordan was elevated by the President to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. At the end of the day, he won on this Senate floor 94 to 5, but he was held up for 4 months. Why? There is too much gamesmanship and partisanship in the process, and particularly coming out of a State such as Florida where it is nonpartisan in the selection of judges. We have two vacancies in the Southern District and two vacancies in the Middle District of Florida right now. One of the judges is up on the docket. Two others have just come through and had their hearing in committee. The fourth is being vetted by the White House. Let's go on and get approved these judges where there is no controversy. I see my colleague from Michigan is here. I will turn the remainder of my time to him. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the chairman and the ranking member, the Senator from Wyoming, for all their hard work on bringing this important legislation to the floor. Mr. President, I wanted to try to paint a personal face on some of the students whom I have met this past week on how it is going to impact them. But let me just set the table by saying we voted on this back in 2007 in order to give some relief to students, and we cut the loan interest from 6.8 to 3.4 for undergraduate Stafford loans. The whole idea was, in this time of economic trial, that we would give some little break to students. Indeed, it is and has been a break. It is something on the average of $1,000 a year we were looking at a student saving in extra interest payments on these loans. When it comes right down to the personal stories, they are wrenching. At the University of Florida, meeting with a group of students this past week, a young woman--I will not use her name because she just broke down in tears--pointed out how not only did she have Stafford loans but that her mom--who had gone through school as an adult raising a family--had gotten a degree in computer science and could not get a job, was going back to school because she had an LPN associate degree and wants a registered nurse degree where she can get a job. So the mom and the daughter both had a considerable number of loans. This young woman absolutely broke down as to what it was going to be in the way of financial burden. Over at the University of South Florida in Tampa, student body president Matthew Diaz said: You are cutting down the dreams of an entire generation. Another student at USF, Emmanuel Catalan, a political science major, said he is the first in his family to attend college. He questions, if we don't give this break on interest, whether his brother and other members in his family are going to be able to pursue higher education. Another student, Austin Prince, a sophomore microbiology and Chinese major, wondered how in the world students are going to make it in this kind of economy if they are mired in debt. He said: It reduces consumer buying power if we are paying off loans for 20 years. At the University of Florida, Madison Todd, a political science major, said she took out the maximum amount of loans available to attend the University of Florida, and her family has been scraping together everything they could in order that she could continue her education. Why is this important? Can we remember back to World War II, when we defeated two enemies on either side of the globe and all those GIs came home, and for the first time we had a major part of American youth under the GI bill going into college. What did that do? America was at the pinnacle of her power and influence in the world. Then, with that generation of young people getting educated as they never had before, all of a sudden we had an expanding middle class as we went into the 1950s and the 1960s. We will also remember that was a time of attention to high technology because we suddenly found ourselves behind the Soviets in the space race, with Sputnik and then Gagarin going up. All the more kids went into math and science and technology and look what that spawned in the generations to come because of education. A lot of that came directly out of the GI bill. Are we now to adopt policies that are going to reverse that trend? We tried to take care of it in a diminishing economy, as we slipped into the recession back in 2007, by saying it is a matter of policy that we should lower interest rates for students who want to get their education. Here we are. What this boils down to is how are we going to pay for it? It costs $6 billion for 1 year. The House of Representatives has taken a position and that has been discussed here. Their position is take it out of the health care bill. When we take it out of health care, we are taking it out of diabetes screening, heart disease screening, cancer screening for breast and cervical cancer. Do we want to do that? I don't think so. Do we want to take it out of antitobacco programs to try to keep kids from getting hooked on tobacco? I don't think so. Do we want to take it out of childhood immunizations, where the spending of $1 on childhood immunizations by the Federal Government saves the government $16 in the long run? That is a ratio of 1 to 16 because of children not getting the diseases they were immunized against. Do we want to take it out of that? I don't think so. What have we come up with in the Senate? We came up with a narrow part of the tax-paying public, subchapter S corporation individuals who pay individual tax--not corporate tax--and only those in a joint return above $250,000 gross income. They would do what? They would pay the payroll tax, Medicare, and Social Security that they do not pay under the existing law because they are treated as if they were a corporation instead of a partner which, in effect, they are, save for the tax laws. That is the choice. If this motion does not get 60 votes in order to break the filibuster or even if it does, we have to reconcile the pay- for for the $6 billion this student loan interest bill will cost. It is my hope that common sense, that bipartisanship, that nonideological rigidity would rule the day and that we would simply ask what is best for our people and for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am here today to speak in support of S. 1925, the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and I want to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo for their leadership on this important issue. Originally passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has improved the criminal justice system's ability to hold perpetrators accountable and protect victims of domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act also provides important services to women who have been victims of domestic violence to help them get their lives back on track. Now, the data tells us that the Violence Against Women's Act has been effective and is needed: In my State of Florida in 2010, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, there were 113,378 reported domestic violence offenses. This includes domestic violence crimes of stalking, threats and intimidations, assaults, rapes, and murders. (SOURCE: Florida Department of Law Enforcement. (2011). Crime in Florida, 2010 Florida Uniform Crime Report. Tallahassee, FL: DLE.) Those reports resulted in 67,810 arrests. That's about 60%. Unfortunately, we may not ever fully know the full extent of domestic violence. Many victims do not report the abuse that they experience to the police or request domestic violence services out of fear and embarrassment. Since 1994, studies estimate that reporting of domestic violence has increased as much as 51%. Across the Nation we are seeing more victims of domestic violence step out of the shadows, and come forward to ask for help. And we are seeing more prosecution of domestic violence perpetrators. And, this is a trend that we want to see continue. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to swiftly pass this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to honor one of Florida's great public servants, Mr. James A. Brennan, Jr. Mr. Brennan passed away on December 20, 2011. Mr. Brennan was a long-time aide to Florida Congressman Claude Pepper. He worked for Mr. Pepper from 1963 to 1989, when Mr. Pepper was in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was Mr. Pepper's closest advisor through the Congressman's chairmanships of the House Aging Committee and House Rules Committee. Mr. Brennan was devoted to Florida. One of his biggest priorities was helping Florida's seniors, both as Mr. Pepper's aide and later as a board member and advisor to the Claude Pepper Foundation in Tallahassee. Throughout his years working for Mr. Pepper, Mr. Brennan had the support of his wife Yolanda. They had 12 children and 28 grandchildren. Florida is lucky to have had a public servant like Mr. Brennan, and his service to the State and the country will not be forgotten.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I came to the floor today because I want to congratulate a Floridian, Rosemary Armstrong, along with her husband Sandy Weinberg. I want to congratulate Rosemary because she has been such a long-time advocate of pro bono legal work in our State. She is a marvelous lawyer, a graduate of Columbia, and why she is to be congratulated at this point is that she has received the 2012 Tobias Simon Pro Bono Service Award. It is the highest honor in the State of Florida bar for pro bono legal work in our State. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tobias Simon award, and it was named after the well-known civil rights attorney in Florida. The award honors the work of private lawyers for 30 years now, who provide free voluntary legal services to the poor. Over the past 25 years, Rosemary has used her time and she has used her talent to provide those pro bono legal services. She has volunteered with the Tampa Bay Area Legal Services Volunteer Lawyers Program since 1986. She has donated 1,200 pro bono hours directly to serve those in need. She was elected to the Bay Area Legal Services Board and she served as a board member for 22 years. She has served as president of that board for 3 years. Rosemary has handled so many cases in so many areas of the law, including elder law, housing, and juvenile dependency cases. Of particular note is the significance of her work with victims of domestic violence. Rosemary was recognized last year for her work with the Florida Bar President's Pro Bono Service Award. This award is further recognition of her commitment and dedication to making sure everyone is well represented when they have to go through the legal process. She is supported by her family. She is supported by her husband, a fellow lawyer, Sandy Weinberg. Again, congratulations, Rosemary Armstrong, for receiving the Tobias Simon Pro Bono Service Award. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for pulling up the chart that showed the amount of acres that are under lease and the minuscule portion of those acres--this is domestic production. We all know that domestic production has shot up in the last 3 years, considerably. Yet, of that domestic production, there still is so much capacity that is already leased out there. I use the example of the Gulf of Mexico. In the central and the western gulf, there are 32 million acres under lease and only 6 million acres of that 32 million are actually drilled and produced. There is ample opportunity for additional domestic energy production on top of the substantial increase of production that has occurred over the course of the last several years if we would stop fighting about this, if we would stop beating each other over the head politically with this and get serious. Senator Carper remembers when he and I were young Congressmen, we had a good example of leadership. We had Tip O'Neill, the Speaker in the House, and we had Bob Michel, the Republican leader. The two of them would get into their fights but they were personal friends, so at the end of the day when it was time to stop talking and get together and build consensus to get a workable solution, they could do it. We need that kind of model operating in Washington, DC, and State capitals around the country.