Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside in order that I might call up amendment No. 1515.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is the widows and orphans amendment. This is the dastardly subject we have been dealing with for years, where there is an offset from an insurance payout, that servicemembers pay insurance premiums and/or retirees pay premiums, which is offset by Veterans Department disability compensation, which otherwise the veteran's surviving spouse and children would be able to, under existing law, be eligible for both, but there is an offset. This particular amendment is going to eliminate that offset. Every year, we come to the floor on the Defense authorization bill and we offer the amendment and we have an overwhelming vote in the Senate. Every year, it goes to conference and, for years and years, in the conference committee with the House, they would say you cannot pass an amendment that would even reduce the offset for widows and orphans. Only in the last couple years have we had some modest reduction of the offset. Then, on an earlier piece of legislation this year, we had a little bit more reduction of the offset. What this amendment will do is completely eliminate the offset. I wish to point out at the outset, I have a letter from the Military Coalition, and I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. This letter supports this legislation. It is from the Military Coalition. The Military Coalition is a group of 34 organizations, and their signatures are on the letter--alphabetically, from the Air Force Association all the way to the last one on the list of 34, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. All those organizations that you would expect are in between; there are 34 of them endorsing this amendment. I wish to tell you about this particular amendment. I filed this bill--and this is nonpartisan--years ago with Senator Sessions and eight other original cosponsors. It will repeal the law that takes almost $1,200 per month from families who have lost a loved one because of military service. This survivors benefit plan, otherwise known by its initials as SBP, is an annuity paid by the Defense Department. Survivors receive the benefit when either a military retiree pays a premium as income insurance for their survivors or when a servicemember dies on Active Duty. The other law is dependency and indemnity compensation, referred to by its initials DIC. It is a survivor benefit paid by the Veterans' Administration. Survivors receive this benefit when the military service caused the servicemember's death. What this amendment will do is fix this longstanding problem in the military survivor benefits system. The problem is, it requires a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the survivor benefits from the SBP, paid by the Department of Defense, offsetting against the dependents and indemnity compensation, DIC, paid by the Veterans' Administration. You know the great quote, following one of America's bloodiest wars, by President Lincoln in his second inaugural address--and the war was still raging at that point. He said that one of the greatest obligations in war is to ``finish the work we are in; to bind up the Nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle''--in other words, the veterans--``and for his widow and his orphan.'' Following Lincoln's advice to honor truly our servicemembers, they need to know their widows and orphans, their survivors, will be taken care of. We certainly agree that the U.S. Government must take care of our veterans, their widows, and their orphans. In keeping with that principle, we need to repeal this offset that denies the widows and orphans the annuity their deceased loved ones have earned on Active Duty or have purchased for them. A retired military member can purchase this SBP, and it is an insurance policy so their survivors will have income. Over in the Veterans' Administration, we have a law that says, if you are disabled a certain percentage, we are going to take care of you. One should not offset the other--particularly, when somebody has paid premiums on an insurance policy. Well, that dollar-for-dollar offset is what has me so agitated for a decade now. I have already explained that, for the survivors benefit plan, there are two ways to qualify: The military retiree goes out and voluntarily pays into an insurance program with their retirement income. Later, the statute was added that the survivors benefit plan is available to an Active-Duty servicemember if they are killed as a result of military service. For retirees, the SBP is an insurance program that protects the income of survivors; and for Active-Duty military members, SBP is compensation for the servicemembers' beneficiaries. On the other hand, the dependents indemnity compensation is a benefit payment to the survivors of a servicemember who dies from a service- connected condition. For almost a decade, I have fought to repeal the law that requires the dollar-for-dollar offset of these two very different benefits. Back in 2005, the Senate took the step in the right direction and passed, by a vote of 92 to 6, my amendment to repeal that offset. When it got down to the conference committee, you know what happened. In the 2008 Defense authorization bill, we cracked the door to eliminating the offset. In the conference committee negotiations with the House, we made some progress when we got a special payment of $50 per month, which would now increase to $310 per month by 2017 because of money savings found in the tobacco legislation passed earlier this year. Our efforts have been important steps in the right direction, but they are not enough. We must meet our obligation to the widows and orphans with the same sense of honor as was the service their loved ones had performed. We need to completely offset this SBP and DIC. We must continue to work to do right by all those who have given this Nation their all and especially for the loved ones they may leave to our care. In that letter that I have had entered into the Record, it says: The elimination of this survivor benefit inequity is the top legislative goal for [the Military Coalition] in 2009. I will not take the time to read the names of the 34 organizations that signed the letter, but they are all fairly well known to every one of us. On February 24 of this year, during a joint session of the Congress, the President said: To keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits they have earned. I say amen to that. I ask that President Obama help us end this injustice to widows and orphans of our Nation's heroes. Mr. President, may I inquire if there is someone else who wants to speak now, because if there would not be, I would like to speak as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I merely inquired if another Senator wants to speak. Certainly, I would withhold asking for a unanimous consent.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Of course. It is my understanding the Senator from South Carolina had just spoken as in morning business. That is why I was inquiring. I am very grateful to the ranking member of the committee for us to go ahead and dispose of this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. NELSON of Florida pertaining to the introduction of S. 1484, S. 1485, S. 1486, and S. 1487 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last year we were all transfixed by the non-stop news coverage of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike as they grew into monster storms, crossing the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and leaving a trail of misery in their wake. Ike, the third most destructive storm in the history of the U.S., made landfall in Galveston, Texas, and then tracked through Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, killing 112 people and causing more than $24 billion in damage. Since 2003, hurricanes and other tropical cyclones have caused more than 2,000 deaths in the U.S. Forty percent of all hurricanes that make landfall in the U.S. hit Florida. Insured losses from hurricanes average more than $5.2 billion per year. A recent study of hurricane-related damages over the last century suggests that economic losses will double every 10 years. With more than 50 percent of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of the coast, and with 180 million people visiting the coast annually, the risks to life and property are growing. Hurricanes, however, do not just impact the coasts. These extreme events also have national consequences, such as increased fuel prices, displaced populations, and severe inland flooding. The American public is increasingly aware of the potential for high recovery costs and financing of natural disaster losses. I cannot overstate the importance of prior preparation and insurance coverage for large catastrophic risks--including natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes--as well as efforts to promote a stable, affordable catastrophic insurance market. This is why today Senator Martinez and I are introducing four bills: the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009, S. 1487, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2009, S. 1486, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009, S. 1484, and the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009, 1485. These bills take a pro-active approach in addressing these natural catastrophe concerns. The National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009 will expand the scope of fundamental research on hurricanes. The bill is aimed at improving hurricane forecasting and tracking and helping us find better ways to mitigate their impact. The Act will establish a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant program for hurricane and tropical cyclone research and bring together a task force, jointly chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and NSF. The second bill, the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009, establishes the bipartisan Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance. This commission will assess the condition of the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance markets in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, as well as the four major hurricanes that struck the U.S. in 2004. It will also evaluate the country's ongoing exposure to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and floods. Finally, the commission will recommend and report legislative and regulatory changes that will improve the domestic and international financial health and competitiveness of property and casualty insurance markets, assuring the availability of adequate insurance when an insured event occurs, as well as the best possible range of insurance products at competitive prices. The Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2009 amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow property and casualty insurance companies to create tax-exempt disaster protection funds and to make tax deductible contributions to those funds for the payment of policyholders' claims arising from certain catastrophic events, such as windstorms, earthquakes, fires, and floods. Finally, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009 amends the Internal Revenue Code to create tax-exempt catastrophe savings accounts. Individuals could take tax-free distributions from these accounts to pay expenses resulting from a presidentially declared major disaster. The bill limits catastrophe savings account balances to $2,000 for individuals with homeowner insurance deductibles of not more than $1,000, and the lesser of $15,000 or twice the homeowner's insurance deductible for individuals with deductibles of more than $1,000. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the entire country experiences financial losses when hurricanes hit. It is time for us to take the bull by the horns and pass legislation that plans in advance for these and other natural disasters. As we are in the hurricane season, it will become painfully apparent just how precarious a lot of the construction is, how precarious building codes are not being fairly and judiciously administered, and it will become evident what an economic disaster even a mild hurricane can cause when it hits the coast. And Lord knows, if the big one hits an urbanized part of the coast--and the big one is a category 4 or a category 5 hurricane--it is going to create economic chaos. It is going to cause the insurance industry to be on the brink of total collapse. And it will ultimately, just like Katrina, end up having the U.S. Government pay a major part of the economic bailout consequences of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane or an earthquake hitting the United States. We ought to get ahead of it and we ought to plan for it, and that is what this package of four bills Senator Martinez and I are offering will do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last year we were all transfixed by the non-stop news coverage of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike as they grew into monster storms, crossing the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and leaving a trail of misery in their wake. Ike, the third most destructive storm in the history of the U.S., made landfall in Galveston, Texas, and then tracked through Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, killing 112 people and causing more than $24 billion in damage. Since 2003, hurricanes and other tropical cyclones have caused more than 2,000 deaths in the U.S. Forty percent of all hurricanes that make landfall in the U.S. hit Florida. Insured losses from hurricanes average more than $5.2 billion per year. A recent study of hurricane-related damages over the last century suggests that economic losses will double every 10 years. With more than 50 percent of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of the coast, and with 180 million people visiting the coast annually, the risks to life and property are growing. Hurricanes, however, do not just impact the coasts. These extreme events also have national consequences, such as increased fuel prices, displaced populations, and severe inland flooding. The American public is increasingly aware of the potential for high recovery costs and financing of natural disaster losses. I cannot overstate the importance of prior preparation and insurance coverage for large catastrophic risks--including natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes--as well as efforts to promote a stable, affordable catastrophic insurance market. This is why today Senator Martinez and I are introducing four bills: the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009, S. 1487, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2009, S. 1486, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009, S. 1484, and the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009, 1485. These bills take a pro-active approach in addressing these natural catastrophe concerns. The National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009 will expand the scope of fundamental research on hurricanes. The bill is aimed at improving hurricane forecasting and tracking and helping us find better ways to mitigate their impact. The Act will establish a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant program for hurricane and tropical cyclone research and bring together a task force, jointly chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and NSF. The second bill, the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009, establishes the bipartisan Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance. This commission will assess the condition of the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance markets in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, as well as the four major hurricanes that struck the U.S. in 2004. It will also evaluate the country's ongoing exposure to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and floods. Finally, the commission will recommend and report legislative and regulatory changes that will improve the domestic and international financial health and competitiveness of property and casualty insurance markets, assuring the availability of adequate insurance when an insured event occurs, as well as the best possible range of insurance products at competitive prices. The Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2009 amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow property and casualty insurance companies to create tax-exempt disaster protection funds and to make tax deductible contributions to those funds for the payment of policyholders' claims arising from certain catastrophic events, such as windstorms, earthquakes, fires, and floods. Finally, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009 amends the Internal Revenue Code to create tax-exempt catastrophe savings accounts. Individuals could take tax-free distributions from these accounts to pay expenses resulting from a presidentially declared major disaster. The bill limits catastrophe savings account balances to $2,000 for individuals with homeowner insurance deductibles of not more than $1,000, and the lesser of $15,000 or twice the homeowner's insurance deductible for individuals with deductibles of more than $1,000. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the entire country experiences financial losses when hurricanes hit. It is time for us to take the bull by the horns and pass legislation that plans in advance for these and other natural disasters. As we are in the hurricane season, it will become painfully apparent just how precarious a lot of the construction is, how precarious building codes are not being fairly and judiciously administered, and it will become evident what an economic disaster even a mild hurricane can cause when it hits the coast. And Lord knows, if the big one hits an urbanized part of the coast--and the big one is a category 4 or a category 5 hurricane--it is going to create economic chaos. It is going to cause the insurance industry to be on the brink of total collapse. And it will ultimately, just like Katrina, end up having the U.S. Government pay a major part of the economic bailout consequences of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane or an earthquake hitting the United States. We ought to get ahead of it and we ought to plan for it, and that is what this package of four bills Senator Martinez and I are offering will do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lea Shanley, a congressional science fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of my statement.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, four decades ago, in this extraordinary feat we have recently seen repeated over and over with the death of Walter Cronkite--we have seen that time he was broadcasting live when we landed on the Moon. That restrained TV anchor exhibited extraordinary excitement at the landing on the Moon. That is what the entire world felt at the time. I was a lieutenant in the Army and happened to be behind the Iron Curtain at the particular time we lifted off. I went to the Embassy in Budapest, Hungary, and asked if they had a TV so that we could see the launch. They said no, but to take your shortwave radio and go outside of the city on those hills and put your radio antenna up, and you can get the BBC, which we did. They cut into NASA control, and we three young Americans stood on that hill cheering as Apollo 11 lifted off. We fulfilled the human dream of boundless flight to another celestial body. Neil Armstrong promised us that it was ``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' It was to be the first step on our way to Mars and beyond, toward new knowledge of our universe and, perhaps, the discovery of other life. Yet today we are mired in a debate about the direction of our space program. We had a little victory last week when we had unanimously confirmed the new Administrator and Deputy Administrator of NASA. But now we are in this debate of where the space program should go. The answer should be obvious: Our thirst for knowledge requires that we explore the universe. I often say that this country is built on the character we have and that we are, by nature, explorers and adventurers. When this country was founded, our frontier was westward. Now that frontier is upward or inward. Space flight--as we continue in pushing that frontier upward, what does it do? It grows science and technology. It grows education. It grows the economy. Earlier today, I was on one of the network talk shows, and the whole idea was, what does it do for education? My goodness, look at the competitive edge America has in the global economy today from our superiority in math, science, technology, and engineering that occurred over four decades ago. Why? Because young people were so inspired by the extraordinary feats we were accomplishing in our space program that they wanted to go into engineering, math, science, and technology. That produced a generation of these people from whom we are continuing to reap the benefits. Of course, space flight improves and enriches life here on Earth. How does it do that? Well, if you think about it, four decades ago what we did was--if we were going to the Moon, we had to have highly reliable systems that were small in volume and light in weight. That led to the revolution in microminiaturization. For instance, my watch is a part of the space program. All of the microminiaturization was spawned off of that necessity to get things smaller, more reliable, and light in weight. That is just one example of how it enriches life here on Earth. If you think back to the visionary President we had who started this whole thing, President Kennedy said the opening of the vistas of space would bring high costs and grave dangers. Indeed, it did. But he said that ``this country was not built by those who rested.'' So today, on this historic anniversary, let us not rest. Our President needs to make space exploration a national priority. Our Nation needs a clear goal, and that is a lunar base, humans on Mars, and then beyond. It is up to us to continue the greatest adventure. It is up to us to reach for the stars. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Ryan Farris, Mr. Yariv Pierce, and Mr. Stratton Kirton be given the privilege of the floor throughout the duration of the debate on the Department of Defense authorization.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and that the Commerce Committee be discharged en bloc from further consideration of PN638 and PN639 and that the Senate proceed en bloc to their consideration; that the nominations be confirmed and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, by this action, it concludes a very happy chapter for what I think will be the future of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. PN638 is Presidential No. 638, and that is the nomination of GEN Charles F. Bolden to be the NASA Administrator, whom we have just confirmed, and PN639 is Presidential No. 639, which is the nomination of Lori Garver to be Deputy Administrator for NASA which we have just confirmed. My congratulations to the two of them. I will make one personal comment. General Bolden is someone who has known adversity but has always been an overcomer. This was certainly true in South Carolina, in 1964, when, as an African American, he could not get an appointment from his congressional delegation to Annapolis. The Defense Department found Charlie and arranged for a Chicago Congressman to nominate him. When Charlie arrived as a freshman at Annapolis, he was promptly elected president of the freshman class. So you can see the progression of being an overcomer. Upon graduation from Annapolis, choosing the Marines, choosing to fly, becoming a marine test pilot, applying to the astronaut office, becoming an astronaut, flying twice as shuttle pilot and twice as commander--four times--returning to active duty in the Marine Corps, and rising to the level of major general, after having commanded several Marine wings; and now the dream is fulfilled that Charlie has now been confirmed as head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I think it is interesting that at 6:03 this evening the space shuttle lifted off into a successful mission. This space shuttle holds the second record for the most delays--six. It is exceeded by the first space flight that General Bolden took, of which I had the privilege of being a member of that crew in January of 1986. We were delayed seven times--scrubbed four times on the pad before launching on the fifth try into an almost flawless 6-day mission. General Bolden takes over NASA at a critical time. NASA is in drift. It needs a leader. But also for General Bolden to be successful as the leader of NASA, he has to have the backing of the President of the United States, who is the one who can give the ultimate leadership to our Nation's space program. So it was such a privilege for me, Mr. President, to come and propound this unanimous consent request and to see the Senate confirm, by your order, unanimously, the nominations of the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator of NASA. Needless to say, there are a lot of smiles that are going to be across America as a result of this action. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I am happy to be here to support our committee work product. We had a full complement of hearings and briefings for the Members in a very complicated area: the strategic defense systems of our national defense policy. I have the privilege of chairing the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. I wish to give a few examples. On the whole question of missile defense, which has been so controversial over the course of the last two and half decades, we had a good bit of consensus when we got down to the end. It is funded at the amount of the budget request by the President. We did a little bit of rearranging from what the President had recommended but stuck basically with the theory that we will have 44 ground-based interceptors, and 30 of them will be in the actual silos so that they will be reliable, available, and effective. This has been a system where we are absolutely insisting that there is robust testing, testing not only of a missile that would be fired at an incoming threat but that there would be a volley of them, that there would be a missile that would shoot at a target. It would assess that target, and it would shoot a second missile at that target to make sure, if that were an inbound ICBM coming into the United States, that we would be sure we could hit it before it ever reached its target in the United States. Part of this was, we adopted an amendment that would be part of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Ballistic Missile Defense Review which are now both underway. It would give a detailed assessment of the ground-based midcourse defense system. That report would also require a detailed plan for how the Department of Defense is going to sustain the planned ground-based missile deployment capability. The Department would provide that assessment and the plan to Congress with the submission of next year's budget. At the end of the day, what we are looking for is that we have a missile defense system that works and that we know it works in case some rogue state, such as North Korea or Iran, were to try to pull off an attack on the United States so we could knock that attack down. We have a lot of other systems in place besides the ground-based interceptors. For example, we have our Aegis system of ships. We have the standard missile 3 that is land based that, on a lot of these threats coming, as I suggested, if it were from Iran or North Korea, we could get them in the boost phase of their threatening missile. But this missile defense system we are talking about, the ground-based interceptors in the silos in Alaska and California right now, this would get them in midcourse so that when an ICBM would be launched against us, if we did not get it in its initial phase, the boost phase, we would get it in its midcourse phase before it comes in to its terminal phase. The terminal phase would be the last part coming into the target. We are going to have a layered system that is going to give us a lot of capability to protect ourselves in the future from anybody who wants to try to threaten us with an ICBM. That is a part of what we have done. The Secretary of Defense has said he wants 44 of these missiles. We are planning for that. But at any one time, 30 of them would be in the silos in the ground, ready to go, knowing that if the balloon went up and that we had to strike, we would strike with accuracy and with redundancy in order to knock those threats out of the sky before they ever got to us. In other strategic systems, we want to look at the bombers. We want to make sure we have the future technologies that, if it is the decision of the United States Government to develop a future bomber, in addition to what we have now, which is the B-52s, the B-1s, and the B- 2s, we would have that capability by developing the technologies. Part of our strategic systems are also our space systems; that is, the satellites in orbit that watch and listen in order to protect our national security. We have funded something called operationally responsive space. It includes funds for a new satellite which was not in the Air Force budget. It was on what they called their unfunded priority list. Our recommendation is to develop that satellite, an ORS- 1 satellite. Then we are looking to the future to go out for competition on developing a next generation kind of satellite that would be a very small satellite that would be to observe but would be a lot more economical and quicker to launch. We want the Air Force to have space situational awareness information at all times, including from our commercial operators. We have a lot of commercial satellites up there. They take a lot of pictures. That is of a value to us in the government, to utilize those pictures in addition to the others we receive. We also have added funding to look at a new low cost imaging satellite for future application. In our Strategic Force Subcommittee we also deal in intelligence. We have asked the Department of Defense to look at some of these commercial imaging satellites to utilize that information, maybe even a new kind of commercial imaging satellite that would be capable and would give us information on how to disseminate that information. We also, being concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons, have requested a report on the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials. The Department of Energy is a part of our Strategic Forces Subcommittee. That is the part that is involved in weapons activity. We decided to increase their budget by $106 million to a total of $6.4 billion. It is focused on making sure that the stockpile we have is effective and that it is safe and that we continue the process, under the treaties, of dismantling. There is a provision that directs the Department of Energy to carry out a stockpile life extension program, to do what I had said, which is to modernize and maintain the stockpile and to make it even safer, and to do all of that without testing. We have added additional funds for nuclear weapons laboratories to provide technical support and analysis to the intelligence community. So there is another issue; that is, what we are going to do with some of the pensions at the Department of Energy contractor-operated sites. There is another real issue which we have addressed, which is what are we going to do with some of this nuclear waste--the waste from the weapons processing plants? And how do you go about making sure that waste is safe? And, ultimately, how is it disposed of? So the Strategic Forces Subcommittee was quite active. It has been my privilege to work with the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin. What could have been a very contentious part of the Defense authorization bill ended up being where we got very wide and very considerable bipartisan support. It is my privilege to have been a part of that process. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about an issue that I have been working on for several years and which has been addressed once and for all by the amendment that Senator Hatch has proposed--No. 1428--and that I have cosponsored, along with Senators Cornyn, Bennett of Utah, Schumer, Menendez, Reid, Kennedy, and Gillibrand. The amendment contains several important provisions, including my bill to put an end to what has become known as the ``widow penalty.'' This bipartisan support for this amendment has brought out the best in the Senate, and the Senate's action today represents a great achievement. Under our immigration laws, a foreigner who marries a U.S. citizen is entitled to become a permanent U.S. resident. Yet our own immigration service has been trying to deport several hundred widows and a few widowers--foreigners who had been married to American citizens when the Americans died. To illustrate, here is a little story from a June 14 CBS ``60 Minutes'' rebroadcast: Raquel Williams, a young nursing student from Brazil, was visiting Florida when one night she and three girl friends drove into a gas station. They caught the eye of a car full of guys who were also getting gas. ``I guess they noticed that we were, you know, not from here,'' Raquel remembers, recalling when she first met her future husband. That chance meeting with Derek Williams led to love, marriage, and eventually parenthood. Two years after they met, their son Ian was born. But then the unthinkable happened. Raquel told ``60 Minutes'' she woke up about 4:30 a.m. one morning to find her husband lying on the couch. She could see something was wrong. He wasn't breathing. Raquel called 911. ``Please, please,'' she pleaded, ``come fast. Fast.'' But he was already gone. Derek had insomnia, so he would watch TV on their couch during the night. But he also had breathing problems and an irregular heartbeat, which proved fatal. After he died, Raquel and Ian moved in with Derek's parents. And 3 months after Derek died, Raquel finally had the immigration interview that she had been seeking for a year to gain status as a permanent U.S. resident. She went to the interview with Ian, and brought all the documentation needed to prove she had been married to Derek; she also brought the death certificate. Her case was denied. ``They said, `You're gonna have to go back to Brazil.' And I said, `I have my son. You know? This is my son. He's [an] American citizen.' And they said that, `You can go. He can stay.' '' Ian was 5 months old at the time. Raquel found herself caught in what is now referred to by many as the widow penalty--when a surviving spouse faces deportation because they had yet to be married 2 full years when their American husband or wife died. Tragically, there are hundreds of cases in which men and women are crying out for common sense and reason to prevail. Earlier this year, I filed standalone legislation--the Fairness to Surviving Spouses Act of 2009--to put an end to the unfair and arbitrary widow penalty. Then, 2 weeks ago, joined by Representative Jim McGovern, the sponsor of the House counterpart to my bill, I held a meeting here in Washington with a number of surviving spouses from around the country. All of them today find themselves in Raquel's situation. They included Diana Engstrom, whose husband was killed working with the Army in Iraq, and Natalia Goukassian, a Florida woman who, like Raquel, lost her American husband and then found the Federal Government moving to deport her. Natalia is but one of a few hundred spouses of deceased Americans whose legal status hangs in the balance, but her story is illustrative. She came into the country legally from Russia and met her future husband. They married on June 30, 2006, and soon after they filed for Natalia's permanent resident status in the Orlando office of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Tigran died on December 1, 2006, of an aggressive form of cancer related to his service in the U.S. military. Natalia was denied in March 2009. For now she is here legally, but that status soon will end unless this amendment becomes law. Widows and widowers facing deportation were given a potential lifeline on June 9, when the Obama administration put plans to send them to their home country on hold. But the administration says they will need a permanent fix, legislation from Congress, to be able to keep them in the country. Today, with the adoption of our amendment, we finally have given them one. Our amendment puts an end to the widow penalty once and for all. Surviving spouses would still need to prove their marriage was a bona fide marriage before receiving a green card. And they would be still be counted against the overall cap of persons allowed to immigrate to this country each year. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would retain the discretion to deny petitions, but they would no longer deny them automatically in response to the death of the citizen spouse. The significance of the Senate's action today to the surviving spouses who will benefit from its provisions cannot be overstated. Our government no longer will be ``piling on'' by responding to the tragic death of spouse with an order of deportation instead of an offer of condolences. On behalf of Diana Engstrom, Natalia Goukassian, Raquel Williams, and all the surviving spouses who will have the chance to continue their lives in this country, I thank my colleagues and look forward to seeing this provision, which reflects our values as Americans, embraced by the House so that it may finally become the law of the land.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, yesterday the Commerce Committee had its hearing for the NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator nominees. Charlie Bolden and Lori Garver respectively are the nominees for these two positions. I have had the privilege of knowing Charlie Bolden for the better part of a quarter of a century. In addition to all of the numerous accolades that were heaped upon him yesterday by Members of the House and Senate, it came to the Commerce Committee to say a word on his behalf. Many talked about his distinguished career as a graduate of Annapolis, a marine test pilot, an astronaut, then back into the marines--after four times flying in space on the space shuttle, twice as pilot and twice as commander--and then in his various positions in the active-duty marines, retiring at the rank of major general. Those accolades were extensive and they were accurate. I would merely add to those attributes describing him--all of which were very laudatory--the attribute, the characteristic, that Americans have come to honor, and that is that Charlie Bolden is an overcomer. One of the first instances of this characteristic occurred in Charlie's native Columbia, SC, in 1964. He could not get an appointment to Annapolis from his congressional delegation because they were still embroiled with the fact that he was an African American. The administration, at that time--the Johnson administration--had appointed a retired judge with the specific purpose of going around the country and finding qualified minorities so they could go into the academies. This gentleman found Charlie and arranged for a Congressman from Chicago to appoint him to Annapolis. When Charlie arrived, he was promptly elected president of the freshman class. Today, ADM Dennis Blair--now the Director of National Intelligence, and interestingly in the same class--alternated all 4 years at Annapolis being president of the class with Charlie Bolden. Therein is a story in and of itself where Charlie was an overcomer. But let tell you of another part of Charlie's life where he represented an overcomer. Charlie went back into the Marine Corps after four space shuttle flights, and he came back in as a full bird colonel. The Marine Corps wasn't keen on promoting marine astronauts to general officer, and so the first time that Charlie was in the zone of consideration, they passed him over. Charlie said, instead of retiring, I want to go back to Annapolis and I want to give back to the institution that gave me so much, including an education. He did so as the deputy superintendent, which is a marine slot. His superiors were so impressed by his attitude and his service that the next time he was up for consideration as general officer, they promoted him. A second instance in Charlie's life. I will mention one other instance of Charlie's being an overcomer. He was so well prepared and so expert at his task, that of a naval aviator and of a pilot astronaut, that 23\1/2\ years ago, after having the most delayed space flight in our country's history--that 24th flight of the space shuttle having been scrubbed four times in the course of a month--on the fifth try, the space shuttle lifted off. Charlie was the pilot sitting in the right seat. The commander sits in the left seat. The pilot, in NASA jargon, has all of the systems to monitor. As the shuttle had just cleared the launch tower on liftoff, on the intercom I could hear Charlie's voice: We have a problem. We have a helium leak. Had that not been a faulty sensor--which ultimately we discovered, but at the time none of us knew that was a faulty sensor--a real helium leak would have caused a serious problem to the mission. But Charlie was all over those switches and those systems. He got it under control and we went on to have an almost flawless 6-day mission in space, only to return to Earth and, 10 days later, Challenger launches and blows up. That was another instance of Charlie being an overcomer, being presented with an almost insurmountable problem which he overcame. So with this little aspect of the life of GEN Charlie Bolden, is it any wonder there were so many people who came in front of the Senate Commerce Committee yesterday to say a word on his behalf? And now, as we will consider his nomination first in the Commerce Committee--which ought to happen very shortly--and then in front of the Senate, I don't think there is any expectation of any opposition. I believe that Charlie, as the newly installed NASA Administrator, is going to take on this task where he is going to have to be an overcomer again, because NASA is at a crossroads. America's space program is at a crossroads, and it needs a vigorous leader. But NASA not only needs an administrator who will lead it, it needs to be led by the President of the United States, who is the only one who can be the leader of America's ventures into space. I am hoping the combination of the two of them will put us on a path of reliving a lot of the excitement and the magic this country lived several decades ago when we were achieving extraordinary achievements. It gave a whole new perspective to the human race when astronauts outside the bounds of Earth could look back at this extraordinary planet suspended in the middle of a void and recognize that is our home--planet Earth. When astronaut John Glenn lifted off on the first American successful orbital flight: ``Godspeed, John Glenn,'' said Scott Carpenter on that immortal day. I think we in the Senate will unite in saying: Godspeed, Charlie Bolden, in your new assignment. 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. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, tragedy has struck. It is not like we haven't been warned. With the proliferation of the Burmese python being brought into the United States, these pythons people buy as pets, and then they get so big that the people don't want them around the house anymore and they release them. Of course, in south Florida they are releasing them into a natural habitat which is the Florida Everglades, so much so that the superintendent of the Everglades National Park has now estimated that they have proliferated to the tune of 150,000 to 180,000 of these Burmese pythons. When Secretary Salazar came down a month ago for us to take him into the Everglades so he could see that extraordinary feature of Mother Nature, the river of grass, we took him in an airboat out across this river of grass. We also wanted to show him what is lurking beneath that grass now. We took him to two captured Burmese pythons. One was about an 8 footer and another one was a 16 footer. A 16-foot Burmese python in his midsection is that much in diameter. It took three grown men to hold that python. The oldest registered Burmese python in captivity has grown to 27 feet. Indeed, an 18 footer was captured and killed in the Everglades, and it was a female. They found inside of her 56 eggs that were ready to hatch. That is why we have a proliferation. We have spent a lot of money, along with the State of Florida, to restore the Everglades, one of the great natural wonders of the world. Mankind, over the course of three quarters of a century, has diked and drained the Everglades, and we are trying to restore them now. But here we have an invasive species that has been introduced that is upsetting the entire ecological balance. Already we have found, for example, somehow a Burmese python swam across the ocean to Key Largo in the upper Florida Keys. They found inside this Burmese python the endangered Key Largo wood rat. They have found a full size bobcat. They have found a full size deer. Indeed, the Burmese python is at the top of the food chain. These pythons, in fact, get into fights with alligators, and they found inside one of the Burmese pythons a 6-foot alligator. I want to show what I am talking about. I want colleagues to see this critter. This is only a 6 footer. This Burmese python is 2 feet shorter than the Burmese python 4 days ago that, after it had escaped from its glass container at midnight, the man of the house found missing. He went and got the Burmese python, put it back in the container and, unfortunately, did not secure the top of the container, put, if we can believe it, a quilt over the top and secured down the edges of the quilt. Guess what an 8-foot Burmese python can do coming out of a glass container? Tragedy struck, because that python slithered throughout the house and up into a baby crib where there was a 2-year-old little girl named Shaiunna Hare. That Burmese python attached its fangs to the forehead of that child and then did what they do, wrapped its body around the body of the little child and proceeded with all of that muscle to strangle the child to death. This is what we have been saying was going to happen. This happened with a domestic pet in a home. This is what is capable of happening with 180,000 of these pythons in the Florida National Everglades Park. Sooner or later, a Burmese python will get the endangered Florida panther. Sooner or later, for an unsuspecting tourist in the Everglades National Park, there will be an encounter with a human. Tragically, it took this event of the strangulation by one of these snakes of a child within her own home in the child's crib to bring this to our attention. This Wednesday there will be a hearing in the committee chaired by Senator Boxer. I will be testifying. I will bring further evidence than these photographs. Here are wildlife officers encountering a snake with an attachment that grabs the snake from right behind the head. In this case, it is probably a 6\1/2\ footer--relatively small. But we can see the size. This is solid muscle. That is why these constricter snakes have the capability of asphyxiating their prey before they then consume their prey. We have heard the old adage, a pig in a python. That is exactly what it is. Once they asphyxiate their prey, then their jaws are capable of totally opening and they ingest the entire victim into their body. There is the old phrase: a pig in a python with the hump. That is exactly what it is. That is the alligator that was found, the 6-foot alligator, within the stomach of the snake. That is the same thing. There is something we can do about this. No. 1, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the capability under law now to declare this an injurious species. Since they have been studying this for the last 2\1/ 2\ years and have still not acted, although I believe that Secretary of the Interior Salazar is getting them off dead center and is going to get them to start moving, there is something else we can do. We can change the law. We can stop the importation by changing this from being a species that is allowed to be imported into one that is injurious. That change of definition in the law would stop the importation of these snakes into this country and would stop the exporting of these snakes from one State across State lines to another. The State of Florida has a registration fee. They now require the implantation of a chip so that if the snake gets loose, we will have a chance of chasing it down. Nevertheless, when we have 150,000 to 180,000 of these snakes in the Everglades National Park alone, we can see that the ecological balance of Mother Nature is definitely being upset. We must change it. We must do it quickly. Therefore, in front of the Boxer committee will be the legislation I have offered with a number of other Senators, trying to put a halt to the things that led to this tragedy of this little girl being strangled to death by a Burmese python. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my colleagues Senators Ensign and Martinez, the Clean Renewable Water Supply Bond Act of 2009. While many of us do not think twice when we turn on the faucet, State and local authorities anticipate widespread water shortages in the near future, and the consequences may be severe, if not catastrophic. Rising demand and dwindling sources of fresh water raise serious questions about our ability to ensure every community has access to a clean, safe, and affordable water supply. The U.S. population has grown more than 50 percent in the last 30 years. At the same time, the amount of water used by each of us has tripled. In many States, particularly fast-growing States, water consumption nears or exceeds the renewable water supply. Several parts of the country have experienced drought or near-drought conditions requiring authorities to impose water user strictions. According to a comprehensive Government Accountability Office study, even under normal conditions, 36 States expect water shortages by 2013. Compounding the problem, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates a shortfall of $224 billion in funding for water projects over the next 20 years. Water shortages also have implications for the environment. The Everglades is a prime example. Over the years, diminished flows into the Everglades have reduced the ecosystem to half its original size. As a result of less water, the Everglades experienced a 90 percent reduction in the population of wading birds. The effects of climate change--including salt water intrusion and higher sea levels--mean our recent experiences will only intensify over the next couple decades. There is a growing consensus on the need for new investments in water supply and treatment projects. Advanced technologies offer extraordinary promise and can provide new sources of clean water, but the cost of the initial capital investment is often prohibitive. States are primarily responsible for managing the development, allocation, and use of freshwater supplies. A single advanced water project can cost as much as $400 million, an amount difficult to finance with conventional tax-exempt bonds, which require principal and interest payments by the issuer. The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today would authorize public water agencies at the State and local level to issue tax credit bonds as a financing vehicle for innovative new water supply technologies. The legislation would create a new category of Clean Renewable Water Supply Bonds, to finance innovative projects such as water recycling, desalination, and groundwater contamination clean-up. Tax credit bonds such as CREWS provide a deeper and more efficient subsidy than tax-exempt bonds. The Federal Government provides a tax credit to the bondholder in lieu of an interest payment. As a result, a public agency financing a $100 million project with CREWS would save an estimated $62 million in interest payments over the life of the bond. The issuer remains responsible for repayment of the principal. The bonds would be issued by public agencies in the same way that they issue conventional tax-exempt bonds. A project would not be eligible for CREWS unless the issuer has received all Federal and State regulatory approvals necessary to construct the project. Qualifying projects must be designed to comply with regulations that minimize negative environmental impacts. In order to limit the revenue loss to $1 billion over ten years, the bill caps the amount of annual CREWS bonding authority. Tax credit bonds are a proven and effective financing mechanism. Congress has authorized the issuance of tax credit bonds for the construction of inner city schools, renewable energy projects, energy conservation measures, forestry conservation programs, and post-Katrina and Rita reconstruction. According to an analysis prepared for the New Water Supply Coalition, an investment of $6.2 billion in construction for desalination, recycling and groundwater recovery would generate a national economic impact of $19.5 billion and approximately 143,000 jobs. Most importantly, if enacted and fully funded, the Coalition projects that over 1.8 billion gallons of water per day would be created by the new investment resulting from the Clean Renewable Water Supply Bond Act--enough new water to meet the needs of over four million families of four. Addressing the challenges of our growing water needs will require a concerted effort that involves all levels of government--Federal, State, and local. The Clean Renewable Water Supply Bond Act would create an effective tool for the shared Federal-State financing of advanced, innovative clean water supply projects. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my colleagues Senators Ensign and Martinez, the Clean Renewable Water Supply Bond Act of 2009. While many of us do not think twice when we turn on the faucet, State and local authorities anticipate widespread water shortages in the near future, and the consequences may be severe, if not catastrophic. Rising demand and dwindling sources of fresh water raise serious questions about our ability to ensure every community has access to a clean, safe, and affordable water supply. The U.S. population has grown more than 50 percent in the last 30 years. At the same time, the amount of water used by each of us has tripled. In many States, particularly fast-growing States, water consumption nears or exceeds the renewable water supply. Several parts of the country have experienced drought or near-drought conditions requiring authorities to impose water user strictions. According to a comprehensive Government Accountability Office study, even under normal conditions, 36 States expect water shortages by 2013. Compounding the problem, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates a shortfall of $224 billion in funding for water projects over the next 20 years. Water shortages also have implications for the environment. The Everglades is a prime example. Over the years, diminished flows into the Everglades have reduced the ecosystem to half its original size. As a result of less water, the Everglades experienced a 90 percent reduction in the population of wading birds. The effects of climate change--including salt water intrusion and higher sea levels--mean our recent experiences will only intensify over the next couple decades. There is a growing consensus on the need for new investments in water supply and treatment projects. Advanced technologies offer extraordinary promise and can provide new sources of clean water, but the cost of the initial capital investment is often prohibitive. States are primarily responsible for managing the development, allocation, and use of freshwater supplies. A single advanced water project can cost as much as $400 million, an amount difficult to finance with conventional tax-exempt bonds, which require principal and interest payments by the issuer. The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today would authorize public water agencies at the State and local level to issue tax credit bonds as a financing vehicle for innovative new water supply technologies. The legislation would create a new category of Clean Renewable Water Supply Bonds, to finance innovative projects such as water recycling, desalination, and groundwater contamination clean-up. Tax credit bonds such as CREWS provide a deeper and more efficient subsidy than tax-exempt bonds. The Federal Government provides a tax credit to the bondholder in lieu of an interest payment. As a result, a public agency financing a $100 million project with CREWS would save an estimated $62 million in interest payments over the life of the bond. The issuer remains responsible for repayment of the principal. The bonds would be issued by public agencies in the same way that they issue conventional tax-exempt bonds. A project would not be eligible for CREWS unless the issuer has received all Federal and State regulatory approvals necessary to construct the project. Qualifying projects must be designed to comply with regulations that minimize negative environmental impacts. In order to limit the revenue loss to $1 billion over ten years, the bill caps the amount of annual CREWS bonding authority. Tax credit bonds are a proven and effective financing mechanism. Congress has authorized the issuance of tax credit bonds for the construction of inner city schools, renewable energy projects, energy conservation measures, forestry conservation programs, and post-Katrina and Rita reconstruction. According to an analysis prepared for the New Water Supply Coalition, an investment of $6.2 billion in construction for desalination, recycling and groundwater recovery would generate a national economic impact of $19.5 billion and approximately 143,000 jobs. Most importantly, if enacted and fully funded, the Coalition projects that over 1.8 billion gallons of water per day would be created by the new investment resulting from the Clean Renewable Water Supply Bond Act--enough new water to meet the needs of over four million families of four. Addressing the challenges of our growing water needs will require a concerted effort that involves all levels of government--Federal, State, and local. The Clean Renewable Water Supply Bond Act would create an effective tool for the shared Federal-State financing of advanced, innovative clean water supply projects. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to speak to the nomination of Inez Tenenbaum to be Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Over the past few years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has faced a number of serious challenges: inadequate staffing, insufficient funding, a product testing facility that was a joke. As a matter of fact, we saw a picture of it--it was a couple of cardboard tables with all of the imported toys dumped on it--when we were having that trouble with the defective imported Chinese toys. Most significantly, it lacked leadership at the top. We took action last year, and we gave the CPSC new authority, new funding, and a new lab facility. Today we have to deal with the final issue, and that is leadership. I commend to the Senate that I think Inez Tenenbaum is going to be that leader. She had her nomination hearing earlier this week in the Commerce Committee. Throughout her career in the South Carolina Legislature, Inez Tenenbaum showed compassion and leadership on environmental and children's issues. Then she was South Carolina's superintendent of education. It was an elected position. She took charge and reinvigorated an agency with over 1,000 employees. By the time she stepped down from that post in 2007, she was recognized for her efforts to improve the accountability, standards, and performance in South Carolina's public schools. I think this is exactly the kind of leadership the CPSC needs at this time. I met with her personally, and I know her personally, and I strongly support her nomination. So my concluding comment is, we are not only having problems in Florida with Chinese drywall--Chinese drywall that is completely ruining the lives of people in their homes because of the smell and the corrosion and the sickness that it is bringing on to people--lo and behold, they are finding that Chinese drywall now in daycare centers, in commercial buildings, and it is even reported in Virginia that they are finding it in a hospital. This is going to be a big issue in front of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They have the authority under the law to do something about it. They have lacked the leadership. Now, with Inez Tenenbaum, they ought to be able to start doing the regulatory oversight that the U.S. Government should have been doing in the first place with these defective imported products into our country. That is why I think we need to go ahead and get Ms. Tenenbaum confirmed as quickly as possible. Madam President, I yield the floor.