Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise today for the solemn purpose of commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day. I just returned from an overseas visit with Senators Levin and Collins to examine missile defense issues in Russia, the Czech Republic, and Poland. In Poland, I visited the Warsaw Ghetto memorials, one of which was built on the location where the Jews were transported to the death camp at Treblinka, beginning in July 1942. I was moved by visiting that place. We saw another monument built to the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. The death camps would not be liberated until 1945, but we remember this courageous struggle against overwhelming odds. In America and throughout the world, Jews are observing this day in synagogues, reciting prayers. Young people listen to the testimonies of survivors who witnessed and were victims of the worst crimes committed by humankind, so that the Holocaust is not forgotten by future generations. Florida has the largest number of Holocaust survivors in the entire country. These survivors remind us that the Holocaust was a tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions. Today we remember those who lost their lives, not because of any crime they committed, but simply because of their faith and their heritage. And, though Jews were indeed the primary victims, we also remember the others who suffered persecution and were murdered by the Nazis: Gypsies and Poles, Jehovah's Witnesses, the handicapped, gays, political dissidents and Soviet prisoners of war. In addition to marking this day, we in Congress are doing what we can to ensure that we never forget what happened during the Holocaust and that it never happens again. Earlier this year, two of my distinguished colleagues, Senators Collins and Cardin, introduced an important resolution that I cosponsored, which condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms. In respect for the victims of the Holocaust and surviving relatives, I will introduce a resolution on restitution or compensation for property and other assets seized by the Nazi and Communist regimes in postwar Europe, in anticipation of the International Conference on Holocaust Assets that will be held in Prague at the end of June. This conference is a followup to the International Conference that was held 10 years ago in Washington, which established the framework compensation programs that were established throughout western Europe during the past decade. I would point out that we still must determine how to address the cases of the remaining Holocaust victims who have yet to be compensated for the unpaid value of insurance policies they held before the war. I would support legislation that actually helps survivors to obtain just compensation and avoid dragging out compensation efforts or giving false hope to survivors. I will also be introducing the World War II War Crimes Accountability Act to encourage foreign governments to prosecute and extradite wanted criminals, and to bring them to justice. Despite the efforts of the U.S. Government, particularly the Department of Justice, and of groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a number of perpetrators of crimes against humanity remain at large. What is worse, we know exactly where some of the individuals are living, but the countries where they reside refuse to extradite them to face justice. We are in a race against time. Each year, more Holocaust survivors are laid to rest. Let us work together quickly to let them see a measure of justice done in their lifetime. Finally, our Government has made solemn commitments in the past that the horror of the Holocaust will never be repeated. And yet we are all well aware of the grim stories of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the mass murder of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, and now the ongoing genocide in Darfur. America as a nation must be a leader on the world stage to prevent genocide. I urge President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and UN Ambassador Rice to continue the battle against ignorance, intolerance, and instability that seem to contribute to genocide, and to confront those governments that engage in genocide. And America must make every effort to ensure that those who commit these horrific crimes face justice.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, imposes what has become known as the ``widow penalty,'' requiring the deportation of individuals whose pending applications for green cards are rejected because their citizen spouse died within the first two years of marriage. Today, joined by Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry and Menendez, I am introducing the Fairness to Surviving Spouses Act of 2009. My bill will amend the INA to remedy this unintended and unjustified administrative procedure. This legislation is needed because, under current law, when a US citizen marries a non-citizen, the non-citizen is eligible to become a legal permanent resident and receive a green card. During the first two years of marriage, the only way this can be accomplished is through a petition that the citizen files on the non-citizen spouse's behalf. The non-citizen cannot self-petition for legal permanent resident status during this time. If, however, the citizen spouse dies while the petition, through no fault of the couple, remains pending--and delays in the process are often caused due to bureaucratic delay--the petition automatically is denied, and the non-citizen is immediately deemed ineligible for legal permanent residence and therefore becomes deportable. This is the case even if ample evidence of a bona fide marriage, such as cohabitation, and shared finances, exists. It is even the case if a couple had a U.S. born child. Because of the widow penalty, law-abiding and well-intentioned widows who have played by the rules face immediate deportation. During the 110th Congress, efforts to persuade the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, to address the issue administratively were unsuccessful. In the current administration, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has directed that the Department of Homeland Security review a number of immigration issues, including the widow penalty. Although this review is welcome, there is some question regarding the Secretary's authority to end the penalty administratively. That is why a clean legislative fix is needed, as scores of women and children face immediate deportation today. There have been more than 200 widow penalty victims throughout the country, including a woman whose husband died while serving overseas as a contractor in Iraq; a woman whose husband died trying to rescue people who were drowning in the San Francisco Bay; a woman whose husband was killed while on duty with the U.S. Border Patrol; and a woman who was apprehended by Federal agents when she went to meet with immigration authorities to plead her case, placed in shackles, and sent to a detention facility. The widow penalty has received national extensive national media attention, including from 60 Minutes, which profiled Raquel Williams, a widow who lives with her in-laws in Orlando, in a segment entitled, ``For Better or For Worse--A Loss of Love and Country.'' After she was deemed deportable following the sudden death of her husband from sleep apnea and heart problems, Ms. Williams and her in-laws have been telling their story to raise awareness about this issue. The harsh and unfair widow penalty can be eliminated by allowing the petition to be adjudicated even though the citizen spouse has died. The proposed legislation affects only a small group of individuals who still would be required to demonstrate that they had a bona fide marriage before receiving a green card. Thus, USCIS would retain the discretion to deny petitions, but they would no longer deny them automatically in response to the death of the citizen spouse. Today, Rep. Jim McGovern is introducing identical legislation in the House. His bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee during the 110th Congress with bipartisan support, including from Republicans who led the charge against comprehensive immigration reform. The widows who face deportation today should not be forced to wait for the Congress to take up comprehensive immigration reform. This legislation is needed now because it simply corrects an arbitrary and unjust sanction, one which would never have occurred but for the Government's failure to act more in a more timely manner and the unfortunate fact that the citizen spouse died before the couple's second anniversary. 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, the Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, imposes what has become known as the ``widow penalty,'' requiring the deportation of individuals whose pending applications for green cards are rejected because their citizen spouse died within the first two years of marriage. Today, joined by Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry and Menendez, I am introducing the Fairness to Surviving Spouses Act of 2009. My bill will amend the INA to remedy this unintended and unjustified administrative procedure. This legislation is needed because, under current law, when a US citizen marries a non-citizen, the non-citizen is eligible to become a legal permanent resident and receive a green card. During the first two years of marriage, the only way this can be accomplished is through a petition that the citizen files on the non-citizen spouse's behalf. The non-citizen cannot self-petition for legal permanent resident status during this time. If, however, the citizen spouse dies while the petition, through no fault of the couple, remains pending--and delays in the process are often caused due to bureaucratic delay--the petition automatically is denied, and the non-citizen is immediately deemed ineligible for legal permanent residence and therefore becomes deportable. This is the case even if ample evidence of a bona fide marriage, such as cohabitation, and shared finances, exists. It is even the case if a couple had a U.S. born child. Because of the widow penalty, law-abiding and well-intentioned widows who have played by the rules face immediate deportation. During the 110th Congress, efforts to persuade the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, to address the issue administratively were unsuccessful. In the current administration, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has directed that the Department of Homeland Security review a number of immigration issues, including the widow penalty. Although this review is welcome, there is some question regarding the Secretary's authority to end the penalty administratively. That is why a clean legislative fix is needed, as scores of women and children face immediate deportation today. There have been more than 200 widow penalty victims throughout the country, including a woman whose husband died while serving overseas as a contractor in Iraq; a woman whose husband died trying to rescue people who were drowning in the San Francisco Bay; a woman whose husband was killed while on duty with the U.S. Border Patrol; and a woman who was apprehended by Federal agents when she went to meet with immigration authorities to plead her case, placed in shackles, and sent to a detention facility. The widow penalty has received national extensive national media attention, including from 60 Minutes, which profiled Raquel Williams, a widow who lives with her in-laws in Orlando, in a segment entitled, ``For Better or For Worse--A Loss of Love and Country.'' After she was deemed deportable following the sudden death of her husband from sleep apnea and heart problems, Ms. Williams and her in-laws have been telling their story to raise awareness about this issue. The harsh and unfair widow penalty can be eliminated by allowing the petition to be adjudicated even though the citizen spouse has died. The proposed legislation affects only a small group of individuals who still would be required to demonstrate that they had a bona fide marriage before receiving a green card. Thus, USCIS would retain the discretion to deny petitions, but they would no longer deny them automatically in response to the death of the citizen spouse. Today, Rep. Jim McGovern is introducing identical legislation in the House. His bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee during the 110th Congress with bipartisan support, including from Republicans who led the charge against comprehensive immigration reform. The widows who face deportation today should not be forced to wait for the Congress to take up comprehensive immigration reform. This legislation is needed now because it simply corrects an arbitrary and unjust sanction, one which would never have occurred but for the Government's failure to act more in a more timely manner and the unfortunate fact that the citizen spouse died before the couple's second anniversary. 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 a bill, the U.S.-Paraguay Partnership Act of 2009, to add Paraguay as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. I want to thank my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator John Cornyn, for joining me in sponsoring this legislation. I understand a companion bill is being introduced in the House today as well by Representatives Engel and Burton. Paraguay, located in the important Tri-Border region of South America, shares borders with Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina. Paraguay is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere, with 30 percent of its population surviving on less than $2 a day. In 2007, U.S. exports to Paraguay exceeded $1.2 billion, while Paraguayan imports to the U.S. totaled just $68 million. Florida has historically served as a key source and transit point for U.S. two-way trade with Paraguay and will likely benefit from increased economic links between our two countries. Florida's deep-water ports serve as the main shipping points for goods coming from or going to Latin America. In addition, Paraguay, a major drug transit hub, has been a reliable U.S. partner for many years in our counternarcotics and counterterrorism efforts in the region. Nevertheless, we have neglected to include Paraguay in the important Andean trade program. I believe that Paraguay is deserving of inclusion in this program. The Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act is a preference program that was established in 1991 and reauthorized with the drug cooperation element in 2002. It currently grants duty-free access to a range of exports from four Andean countries including Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. This bill will add Paraguay as the fifth beneficiary country of this program, which will help connect Paraguay to the U.S. market and foster closer cooperation on a range of important anti-drug trafficking and national security issues. Currently, Paraguayan products are not competitive in U.S. markets because they are subject to higher tariffs than other Latin American and Caribbean countries that ship these same items duty-free to the U.S. You may recall that the very first Summit of the Americas was held in 1994 in Miami, FL, where delegates discussed trade, combating drugs, and promotion of democracy. The new administration and our international partners will continue to grapple with these vital issues at the 5th Summit of the Americas, which will take place in Trinidad from April 17 to 19. President Obama, who will be leading the U.S. delegation to the Summit in Trinidad, has said that we must work to develop a ``partnership based on respect that the people of Latin America are looking for and that will be beneficial to the United States.'' The upcoming Summit of the Americas is dedicated to promoting prosperity and democracy in the Western Hemisphere. Surely, the thirty- four democratically elected heads of state who will be in attendance in Trinidad must focus on the situation of poverty-stricken countries such as Paraguay and Haiti. The election of President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay in May 2008 marked the democratic transfer of power in Paraguay after six decades of uninterrupted rule by the Colorado Party. It is in America's interest to support democracy and economic prosperity throughout the Hemisphere and I believe that adding Paraguay to this trade program is a positive step in that direction. The proud Paraguayan-American citizens of Florida and of other States, who have made important contributions to American society, will no doubt support this move. In the spirit of the Summit of the Americas, we should strengthen our relationship with Latin America as a whole. We should continue to support representative democracy and expand prosperity in the Hemisphere. Therefore, I urge the Senate to include Paraguay in the Andean Trade Preference Act, a decision that will benefit both our countries as trade expands. Together with the other nations of the Western Hemisphere, we must strive to find common solutions to common problems, given the tremendous challenges we face today.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the U.S.-Paraguay Partnership Act of 2009, to add Paraguay as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. I want to thank my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator John Cornyn, for joining me in sponsoring this legislation. I understand a companion bill is being introduced in the House today as well by Representatives Engel and Burton. Paraguay, located in the important Tri-Border region of South America, shares borders with Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina. Paraguay is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere, with 30 percent of its population surviving on less than $2 a day. In 2007, U.S. exports to Paraguay exceeded $1.2 billion, while Paraguayan imports to the U.S. totaled just $68 million. Florida has historically served as a key source and transit point for U.S. two-way trade with Paraguay and will likely benefit from increased economic links between our two countries. Florida's deep-water ports serve as the main shipping points for goods coming from or going to Latin America. In addition, Paraguay, a major drug transit hub, has been a reliable U.S. partner for many years in our counternarcotics and counterterrorism efforts in the region. Nevertheless, we have neglected to include Paraguay in the important Andean trade program. I believe that Paraguay is deserving of inclusion in this program. The Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act is a preference program that was established in 1991 and reauthorized with the drug cooperation element in 2002. It currently grants duty-free access to a range of exports from four Andean countries including Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. This bill will add Paraguay as the fifth beneficiary country of this program, which will help connect Paraguay to the U.S. market and foster closer cooperation on a range of important anti-drug trafficking and national security issues. Currently, Paraguayan products are not competitive in U.S. markets because they are subject to higher tariffs than other Latin American and Caribbean countries that ship these same items duty-free to the U.S. You may recall that the very first Summit of the Americas was held in 1994 in Miami, FL, where delegates discussed trade, combating drugs, and promotion of democracy. The new administration and our international partners will continue to grapple with these vital issues at the 5th Summit of the Americas, which will take place in Trinidad from April 17 to 19. President Obama, who will be leading the U.S. delegation to the Summit in Trinidad, has said that we must work to develop a ``partnership based on respect that the people of Latin America are looking for and that will be beneficial to the United States.'' The upcoming Summit of the Americas is dedicated to promoting prosperity and democracy in the Western Hemisphere. Surely, the thirty- four democratically elected heads of state who will be in attendance in Trinidad must focus on the situation of poverty-stricken countries such as Paraguay and Haiti. The election of President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay in May 2008 marked the democratic transfer of power in Paraguay after six decades of uninterrupted rule by the Colorado Party. It is in America's interest to support democracy and economic prosperity throughout the Hemisphere and I believe that adding Paraguay to this trade program is a positive step in that direction. The proud Paraguayan-American citizens of Florida and of other States, who have made important contributions to American society, will no doubt support this move. In the spirit of the Summit of the Americas, we should strengthen our relationship with Latin America as a whole. We should continue to support representative democracy and expand prosperity in the Hemisphere. Therefore, I urge the Senate to include Paraguay in the Andean Trade Preference Act, a decision that will benefit both our countries as trade expands. Together with the other nations of the Western Hemisphere, we must strive to find common solutions to common problems, given the tremendous challenges we face today.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, let's see what we start with when we start to draw a budget. In this current fiscal year, there is going to be a deficit of $1.7 trillion; that is, Federal revenues are going to be less than Federal expenditures by $1.7 trillion. Why did that occur? It occurred for a number of reasons over the last several years and budgets that were developed that caused the Federal Government to have a huge deficit. On top of that, you have a declining economy with the tax receipts of the Federal Government, because of the declining economy going south. As a result, what you have is an ever- expanding deficit because expenditures are going up in times of a down economy, particularly with regard to the stimulus bill and with regard to the completion of the appropriations bill for this current fiscal year. All of that spending, with the declining revenues, based on past practices, has brought us to this point. So we inherit a deep hole from which we start. The question is, how do we get out of that hole and, at the same time, how do we stimulate the economy in order that we can get our economic engine running again and get America moving again? I think the chairman of the committee, Senator Conrad, has done a magnificent job in his mark that takes this present $1.7 trillion deficit in this year, 2009, downward, or increasing the margin to a narrow margin by which the Federal revenues are exceeded by the Federal expenditures and puts that on a path to where you bring the Federal deficit down to less than 3 percent of gross domestic product 5 years out. What this budget document does is take us from a position of $1.7 trillion in this year, and then, over the next 5 years, takes it down to a position that is about $500 billion--still a huge deficit, but when you compare it to $1.7 trillion or compare it to the fact that all of the economists will testify that any deficit within the range of 3 percent is an acceptable deficit to keep the economy going and, in fact, the deficit 5 years away is less than 3 percent--it is 2.9 percent--then you should have a budget document that puts us on a path for economic recovery. I have heard all of these comments about how this budget is spend, spend, spend, and how this is going to run us into bankruptcy, and all that. Well, consider a few facts. First, there is a series of reserve funds for necessary legislation that we want to achieve, such as reforming the health care system. Unless we can get a health care reform enacted into law, we will have very little chance of getting our arms around an exploding budget in the future, because you have to rein in these health care costs. So a series of reserve funds is set up in the budget. Some would say that is budgetary sleight of hand, until you get into the details of the budget and find out that these reserve funds have to be fiscally or financially neutral and, if they are not, the budget law of the velvet hammer is enacted to come down that any exceeding of a budget-neutral reserve fund has the consequence that the expenditures in that reserve fund have to be paid for. In other words, the hammer is there if you are not going to produce-- in this case we are talking about health care reform--a package over 5 years--and in this case I think it is 10 years--then the hammer of the Budget Act comes down and says not only is that not allowed, you have to bring up a tax revenue in order to pay for whatever the expenditures in that reserve fund are. Other reserve funds have to be budget neutral. Clean energy and preserving the environment, higher education, child nutrition, and Women, Infants, and Children, infrastructure investments, economic stabilization and growth, America's veterans and the wounded servicemembers, the judgeships, reforming defense acquisition, investments in local governments, and strengthening the Food and Drug Administration--each one of them is a reserve fund that has to be paid for. They have to be budget neutral under this budget we are going to pass. If they are not, the hammer of the budget law comes down on them so that not only can you not enact that particular reserve legislation, but, in fact, if you go over it, you have to provide for the Federal revenues that will pay for it. I think we have an enforceable document. I will make one other point and that is that out of this 5-year budget, this document slashes some $800 billion of spending and tax relief, tax cuts from the President's budget--$800 billion. Most of that is slashing spending. Some of that is an elimination of some of the President's tax cuts. The net effect is, it has, over 5 years, a reduction of the deficit by $800 billion. That is moving in a conservative fiscal direction. People are wondering: Did the Budget Committee do anything with the President's budget? Mr. President, $800 billion is a significant amount. But that is 5 years. When we project this budget out over 10 years, how much is slashed? It is a whopping $2.7 trillion in the President's 10-year budget projections. I think it is clear by these numbers that this is a much more moderate or conservative approach to spending and tax policy, and with the hammer, the enforcement mechanism of the budget law governing these different trust funds--important legislation that we want to enact--we have a manageable way to take us from fiscal recklessness, where we are now with a $1.7 trillion deficit, to a manageable 2.9 percent of GDP 5 years from now and a deficit that is approximately $500 billion. It would be nice if, over the course of those 5 years, we could move back into balance. It would have been nice, 8 years ago when we had a surplus, had we not enacted the budgets that were enacted back then that took us from a position of surplus, to have used that surplus to pay down the national debt. Instead, a course of action was enacted that took us to huge budget deficits, where we find ourselves today. Therefore, we have a situation that is very difficult. To maintain the amount of stimulus in the economy to keep us on a stabilized economic road to the future, this budget is about the best we can have. Concurrently, if proposals by the Treasury Department to get the banks lending again are starting to work in the economy with a stabilized and moderate approach to budgeting, then we will start to see our economy come back to life. It is my hope that this is the commonsense kind of budget blueprint we need going forth for the next 5 years. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we can all be proud that we live in a country where citizens volunteer to serve their Nation. We can see this especially after any tragedy, be it national, be it local, how our citizenry responds. I am heartened to see the number of young people responding to serve. There is quite a contrast I have seen in the young people today and what we have seen over the last several decades. If we go back as far as my generation, four decades ago, we were very interested in public service. We wanted to be public servants. We wanted to contribute something to our country. It was very attractive, as a young person growing up, to want to go into government and serve the public that way. We were inspired by a young President, President Kennedy. Then along came those events that so soured so many of our young people--first of all, the split in the Nation over an unpopular war, Vietnam. We had three major assassinations over a short period, including two brothers of one family. Then this Nation went through the process of the resignation of a President. That was about the time of a lot of the protests and the drug culture. It was a tough time. There was a lot of cynicism bred out of that time. A lot of young people got turned off to public service. I am beginning to see it again, young people really getting interested in public service. If you have that heart for service, it is the exact opposite of what Time magazine chronicled on the cover of its magazine back in the late 1960s, the ``me generation.'' It was concerned about me, me. Now we see so much interest in helping our communities as being more the ``we generation.'' Now we see a lot more young Americans applying to the Peace Corps and its domestic counterpart, AmeriCorps, and so many other national service programs. Our new President has issued a call for all Americans to devote at least 1 year of their lives to national service. If I had my druthers, I would want every young person to have an obligation to serve at least 1 year in some capacity to their country. This would have tremendous benefits down the road. They could choose the military, the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, a teacher's aide--a host of these things in helping out our communities. Of course, we are not at a point, especially with the economic condition we are in, that we can afford that as a mandatory obligation. So what the new President has called for is for all Americans to devote at least 1 year of their lives to national service. We come today to discuss legislation that is an acknowledgment across the political divide of our President's call to engage people in national service. This is going to be the first substantial investment in our Nation's service programs in nearly two decades. What this bill is going to do is triple the number of participants in our national service programs from 75,000 to 250,000. These volunteers are going to serve as tutors and mentors. They are going to do that for children. They will help build affordable housing. They will teach marketable computer skills. They will repair our parks and waterways. They will run afterschool programs and help respond to disasters in communities. The legislation would create several new volunteer corps with specific missions in areas of national need such as education, health care, clean energy, and caring for veterans. We have commended over and over our colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Hatch, in crafting legislation that will inspire and encourage citizens of all ages, not just the young, and all occupations and backgrounds to engage in national service. Let me say where I see this example of public spiritedness. I see it in senior citizens, who have already had their professional lives, who are now enjoying the fruits of their labors, and they in turn want to respond and are very much as valuable in this national service as the young people. This bill should be seen as an important national achievement and a good example of how we can come together and overcome the challenges that lie ahead. Marian Wright Edelman, the first African-American woman admitted to the State bar of Mississippi, said it is a time for greatness, not for greed. She said: It's a time for idealism--not ideology. It is a time not just for compassionate words, but for compassionate action. Heeding those words, Mr. President, it is time for us to take action and to pass this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on March 11, 2009, our Nation lost a true American hero, the Air Force's first chief master sergeant, Paul Wesley Airey. During his 27 years of service, Chief Airey served during both World War II and Korea and earned numerous awards and decorations: the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal with oak leaf cluster, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the POW medal, and the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster. During World War II, Chief Airey served as an aerial gunner on B-24 bombers and became a prisoner of war from July 1944 to May 1945. After serving during Korea, Chief Airey became first sergeant for the Air Defense Command's 4756th Civil Engineering Squadron at Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, where he retired on August 1, 1970. Grace and I would like to extend our most sincere condolences to the family of this American hero, including retired CMSgt Dale Airey, who followed in his father's footsteps. Chief Airey is among the most respected and iconic figures in the Air Force. He dedicated his life to the protection of this country, and for that we honor his memory.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, every time I see you sitting in the presiding chair, I can't help but think how proud your uncle, the late senior Senator from Florida and the late former Governor of Florida, Lawten Chiles--your uncle, since your mom was Lawton's sister--how proud he would be and what an enormously wonderful contribution and addition you are to the Senate. Thank you for the recognition. It is with a heavy heart that I have to speak on this continuing saga of Wall Street, the continuing saga that the executives of big corporations in this country--and I am not talking about all corporations but a limited number of corporations with high-flying executives who, in the midst of us trying to work out this economic devastation we are in, do not understand that what they do and what they say, whether it is reality, has perception to it. As a result, they have angered a lot of people. A lot of that anger, that disbelief, that ``oh my'' moment comes when you hear about what we heard over the weekend about AIG, American Insurance Group, one of the largest insurance companies in the world, which got into trouble. Last fall, we were presented with what in effect became an $85 billion bailout. I will never forget, as the new Secretary of the Treasury was coming through the confirmation process and the members of the Finance Committee had a chance to talk to him, I asked him: Why did we let Lehman Brothers go down and yet we propped up AIG? The answer was that AIG was too big, the hole was too big, that it would have had too many ramifications across the global marketplace to let it go down, whereas contrasted with Lehman Brothers, the financial hole was too big that it just simply could not be repaired. Originally, they were talking about $40 or $50 billion to bail out AIG. Then it became $85 billion. If we had known that $85 billion, when we first agreed to let this happen last fall, if we had known that was going to go in taxpayer money to upwards of $170 billion, and if we had known that money was going to prop up other financial institutions to which they had an economic obligation, many of those financial institutions across the world, would we have done it? Well, I doubt we would have because $85 billion was big enough, but now closing in on $170 billion of taxpayer money, I don't think we would have agreed to that. I sure don't think we would have agreed if we knew that money was going to--now get this--almost $13 billion to Goldman Sachs; to a French financial company almost $12 billion, Societe Generale; almost $12 billion--all of this taxpayer money--to Deutsche Bank of Germany; $8.5 billion to Barclays; Merrill Lynch, which eventually bit the dust, $6.8 billion; Bank of America, which is in deep trouble right now, $5.2 billion, in deep trouble because they acquired Merrill Lynch; UBS, $5 billion--the list goes on through DNP, HSBC, Citigroup, Calyon, Dresdner Kleinwort, Wachovia, ING, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of Montreal. That is American taxpayers' hard-earned money that was going to pay off those insurance policies called credit default swaps that were a kind of guarantee, a derivative that if they made a wrong bet, they would be protected by that insurance company. And lo and behold, that insurance company, the full weight and credit and finances of the United States Government--re: the American taxpayer--is going in, you can't say it with any other word, to bail out these companies. Would we, the Senate, had we known $170 billion was going to bail out AIG, and of that money what I just listed was going to these corporations around the globe, half of which are foreign corporations? I don't think we would. Is it any wonder people are upset? Is it any wonder the President of the United States has just had a press conference today saying he wants the Secretary of the Treasury to go back to find out what they can do to stop those bonuses from being paid or to get them back if they have already been paid? And, oh, by the way, why did AIG, last fall, when it made all of these payments, refuse to identify the individual financial institutions it was giving the money to? It all the more adds insult to injury. No wonder people are so mad and upset. Now, I just came from a townhall meeting in Ocoee, FL. It is little town west of Orlando. A lot of the towns' city councils, mayors in that region of west Orange County--the Chamber of Commerce--all came today. I can tell you, this was on their mind. But they want to know something more. They want to know what has happened to old-fashioned right and wrong? What has happened to old-fashioned ethics? When this Senator went to high school, we did not have ethics classes. It now seems we have to teach ethics classes, not only in our elementary and secondary schools, but all the way in our universities now. What is it that has gotten our leadership so askew they cannot get beyond their own blinders to see what they are doing and how it is affecting everybody else? Now, it is no--I was going to say it is no secret, but it is not a secret, it is just a fact that I have had the privilege of being a public servant virtually all of my adult life. When I was a kid growing up, that was one of the highest callings for a person. I am starting to see some of that rekindled in young people now. But, my goodness, when they hear about all of this stuff--banks and bankers are public servants. They are entrusted with the people's money, to use it and invest it wisely, and then to be accountable for what happens to it. We elected officials are not the only public servants. There are public servants in every walk of life. If you are a teacher, if you are a doctor, a nurse--whatever your field--you are a public servant, and you owe a responsibility and accountability to the society and the country that has given you the opportunities you have. That seems to be going out of control. We read another story a couple days ago. Bank of America bit off something they could not chew, which was Merrill Lynch. They said they were duped. Merrill Lynch gave a whole bunch of bonuses. The CEO of Bank of America, which bought Merrill Lynch, said he told them not to, and yet they did anyway. Well, since when did the captain of the ship not control the ship? And, oh, by the way, are the CEOs of these institutions that are receiving taxpayer money not reading the papers? Did they not hear about the backlash as to the three executives of the Detroit Big Three automakers when they came to testify for a bailout of Federal taxpayer money, and they all came in their private jets? There was so much scorn and derision. They could have, of course, gotten on one of the three jets. They seemed to learn the lessons, so the next time they came to Congress asking for a bailout again, they drove their own vehicles. Well, what happened to the CEO of Bank of America, who has taken $45 billion of taxpayer money? Of course, he is a busy man and very talented, but he flies his Gulfstream V for a meeting in New York. It is perception. And that perception--I am not jumping on just him, I am trying to get people to understand, when you are dealing with the public's wheel, the public's business--and that certainly includes taxpayer money--then you have to be responsible and accountable. It seems somehow this goes over people's head. Well, we all make mistakes. Certainly this Senator has made mistakes. One of the things about the American people is, they are a forgiving people. If someone, when they make a mistake, will admit it, people are very willing to give a person a second chance. When you keep names secret, when you take billions and tens of billions of dollars of Federal taxpayer money, when you are insensitive to the perception of the high-flying style of life you are living, the American public is not very forgiving. That is what has happened over the weekend. That is what happened in that townhall meeting of mine today in Ocoee, FL. That is another reason the President has again stood up and spoken out and said: We are going to stop this. Why do we want to stop it? Because we all seek the same goal; that is, the resuscitation of our economy, to get the banks lending again so dollars can go out to businesses and small businesses, so they can employ people and reverse the soaring unemployment rate. That is the goal: to get America back to work, to get America moving forward again economically. It is my hope I do not have to have the kind of townhall meeting where people are upset as they were today and as they were over the weekend in the meetings. Space Shuttle Launch There was one good thing I did attend over the weekend. I saw Government dollars at work, as the space shuttle soared into the night sky at Cape Canaveral at the Kennedy Space Center. That was one of the most beautiful launches I have ever seen. It was right on time. Of course, it had had its delays, but that is part of the space program, making sure when you get down to T minus zero and those solid rocket boosters light off, you have it right. Indeed, NASA had it right, and they gave a little lift to the American people last night with that display of power: almost 7 million pounds of thrust, straight up, and then arching over into a low Earth orbit. Those astronauts now will go out and take another big section of the truss, attach it to the Space Station, and then install the final solar arrays so that the International Space Station will be up and powered with the electricity it needs for all of the scientific experimentation that is going to be done on the International Space Station, which has been designated a national laboratory of the United States. That was a moment of joy in an otherwise time of difficult economic circumstances. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank Senator Martinez again. It is important we understand that when we have that full and fair and open debate in the sunshine, we remember what Candidate Obama said during the campaign. He said what he wanted to do was go back to the status quo ante on travel to Cuba by family members every year instead of once every 3 years and to have more remittances every quarter than was cut back a few years ago by the previous administration. That seems to be common sense and family value oriented. That is what the candidate who became our next President articulated. Then once the new President announces his declaration of that policy, we can come out here and openly debate that issue. While there has been disagreement within this body over the most effective way for us to help the Cuban people, I believe if there is to be a new strategy toward Cuba, we must have the opportunity for the Commander in Chief to lay it out, not have it come from the tinkering of a few lawmakers inserting language in a must-pass appropriations bill without any opportunity for debate. I stand with our Cuban American families, many of them in Florida, who have ties to loved ones still on the island. That is why I support President Obama's efforts to allow increased family travel once a year, instead of only once every 3 years, and the increased remittances to family members. Our job in guiding U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba is to isolate the Castro regime but not to prevent families from being able to take care of their loved ones. On the basis of these letters entered in the Record today and on the personal assurance of the Secretary of the Treasury, which we appreciate very much, I have been assured by the administration as to the implications and enforcement of these regulations. Although I agree with many of my colleagues that this omnibus bill is far from perfect, I believe it is in the best interests of the country to provide the badly needed operational funding for the U.S. Government and for other important initiatives. This bill includes funding for lifesaving equipment at Florida hospitals, for sheriffs' offices, and for police departments to upgrade communications systems or to prevent kids from joining street gangs. It provides money for cleaning up blighted downtown neighborhoods, for retraining workers who are losing their jobs, and for projects to save one of the world's greatest natural treasures, the Florida Everglades. These are just a few of the reasons why this legislation is so important. If this bill, shepherded through this body by our esteemed chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye, were not to pass, NASA's contractors would have to start laying off skilled aerospace workers developing the replacement of the space shuttle. So it is my intention to vote for cloture on the 2009 omnibus bill, and I urge our colleagues to do so. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Menendez.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would like to engage my colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, in this colloquy.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I commend Senator Menendez for the conviction and passion with which he comes to this important position of influencing the Senate on this particular issue. I likewise wish to say the same thing about my colleague from Florida who has been my good friend for 31 years and who comes to this issue with equal passion and commitment. I thank my colleague from Florida for coming out here on the floor. Even though this issue was negotiated among Senator Menendez and myself and Secretary Geithner, he is willing to come and stand to embrace the product of our work. I wish to call to the attention of the Senate that our majority leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, came up to me and indicated he supports this and wanted me to state that to the Senate. I came to Congress 30 years ago. This issue has been an issue that any Floridian has lived with for a long time. I have supported an economic embargo against Cuba along with a ban on tourist travel to the island. I am a supporter of isolating the regime in Havana and giving the Cuban people the democracy they so desperately seek. The provisions in this omnibus that came out of the Appropriations Committee did not do away with the embargo but did weaken it. I think the better course is to allow our new President to undertake his own review of U.S. policy toward Cuba before pushing hasty and ill-advised language through on an omnibus bill, as Senator Menendez said, that was crafted behind closed doors, kept from public view, and kept from the rest of the Senate's view until it was disgorged from the full committee only a couple weeks ago; ``it'' being the omnibus, a must-pass piece of legislation to keep the Government functioning. As Senator Menendez has outlined, we reached out to the Secretary of the Treasury and to the White House to clarify the implementation and enforcement of these regulations. Senator Menendez has already put into the Record Secretary Geithner's letter of March 5 and his responsive clarification in a letter of March 9. I wish to enter into the Record the letter Senator Menendez and I sent to Secretary Geithner on March 6, memorializing the personal conversation we had with him, to which he so graciously then followed up with his letter of March 9. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, prepaid telephone calling cards are used by many Americans to stay in touch with loved ones around the country and throughout the world. Unfortunately, some providers and distributors of these cards are scamming consumers--by imposing undisclosed junk fees, charging exorbitant rates, and selling cards that expire shortly after consumers start using them. Over the past couple of years, a number of State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission have opened investigations and found that a number of providers and distributors are engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices. These practices include charging customers for calls where they receive busy signals, imposing weekly ``maintenance fees'' that may take away up to 20 percent of the card's overall value, and billing for calls in 3-minute increments. As a result of these investigations, some companies have been fined or have entered into consent decrees forbidding them from engaging in some deceptive practices. In addition, some states--including Florida-- have imposed certain regulatory requirements on prepaid calling card providers and distributors. To date, however, neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the Federal Trade Commission has taken any action to impose up-front nationwide consumer protection requirements on this industry. This lack of federal standards allows many of these unscrupulous operators to move from state to state, and create new ``shell companies'' to escape consumer protection regulations. This is wrong, and I think we need to fix this situation. That's why I rise today to introduce the Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009. The Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009 requires the Federal Trade Commission to draft comprehensive rules requiring all prepaid telephone calling card providers and distributors to disclose the rates and fees associated with their calling cards up-front, at the point of sale. It also requires providers who market their cards in languages other than English to disclose rates and fees in that language as well. Furthermore, the legislation requires providers to honor the cards for at least a year after the time the card is first used. To enforce these disclosure requirements, the bill gives the Federal Trade Commission, State Attorneys General, and state consumer protection advocates the ability to sue the fraudsters who violate these requirements in federal court. In addition, the law preserves additional state consumer protection requirements--such as state utility commission certification or bonding requirements. I invite my colleagues to join with Senators Snowe, Klobuchar and myself in supporting the Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009. We should waste no time in ensuring that military servicemembers, seniors, immigrants and other Americans using these prepaid telephone calling cards are protected from bad actors in the marketplace. 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, prepaid telephone calling cards are used by many Americans to stay in touch with loved ones around the country and throughout the world. Unfortunately, some providers and distributors of these cards are scamming consumers--by imposing undisclosed junk fees, charging exorbitant rates, and selling cards that expire shortly after consumers start using them. Over the past couple of years, a number of State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission have opened investigations and found that a number of providers and distributors are engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices. These practices include charging customers for calls where they receive busy signals, imposing weekly ``maintenance fees'' that may take away up to 20 percent of the card's overall value, and billing for calls in 3-minute increments. As a result of these investigations, some companies have been fined or have entered into consent decrees forbidding them from engaging in some deceptive practices. In addition, some states--including Florida-- have imposed certain regulatory requirements on prepaid calling card providers and distributors. To date, however, neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the Federal Trade Commission has taken any action to impose up-front nationwide consumer protection requirements on this industry. This lack of federal standards allows many of these unscrupulous operators to move from state to state, and create new ``shell companies'' to escape consumer protection regulations. This is wrong, and I think we need to fix this situation. That's why I rise today to introduce the Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009. The Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009 requires the Federal Trade Commission to draft comprehensive rules requiring all prepaid telephone calling card providers and distributors to disclose the rates and fees associated with their calling cards up-front, at the point of sale. It also requires providers who market their cards in languages other than English to disclose rates and fees in that language as well. Furthermore, the legislation requires providers to honor the cards for at least a year after the time the card is first used. To enforce these disclosure requirements, the bill gives the Federal Trade Commission, State Attorneys General, and state consumer protection advocates the ability to sue the fraudsters who violate these requirements in federal court. In addition, the law preserves additional state consumer protection requirements--such as state utility commission certification or bonding requirements. I invite my colleagues to join with Senators Snowe, Klobuchar and myself in supporting the Prepaid Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009. We should waste no time in ensuring that military servicemembers, seniors, immigrants and other Americans using these prepaid telephone calling cards are protected from bad actors in the marketplace. 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, exactly two years ago today, Bob Levinson went missing while on a business trip to Kish Island, Iran. Bob Levinson checked out of his hotel on March 9, 2007, and got in a taxi cab to head to the airport. But he never checked in for his flight. The authorities in Dubai and surrounding countries have verified that Mr. Levinson never arrived on any flight from Iran or passed through passport control. I would like to recognize that Bob Levinson's wife Christine Levinson is in the Senate today with her sister Suzi Halpin. Many of my fellow Senators and their staffs have met with Christine and cosponsored the resolution we are aiming to pass today. She is a tireless advocate of her husband's case and I thank her and her sister for coming to Washington on this sad, but important day. So what happened to Bob Levinson? We still do not know, although a man named David Belfield, an American fugitive from justice residing in Iran, and one of the last people to see Bob Levinson on Kish Island before his disappearance, has claimed that the Government of Iran imprisoned Mr. Levinson. Mr. Belfield himself was detained by Iranian security services after meeting Bob Levinson at the hotel on March 8, 2007, the night before Mr. Levinson vanished. The Iranians claim they do not know what happened to Bob Levinson, but I believe they are not being completely forthcoming. They promised in December 2007 that they would share the results of their investigation into Bob Levinson's case with his family. President Ahmadinejad stated in July 2008 that Iranian authorities would cooperate with the FBI. We are still waiting for the promised assistance. Meanwhile, Christine and the rest of the Levinson family pray every day for Bob's return. The past 2 years have been incredibly hard on the family. In the intervening time, Bob Levinson has missed graduations and report cards and sports events. He has missed the first steps of his grandson Ryan, and the birth of his granddaughter Grace Olivia. I want to recognize the great personal courage Christine has shown in travelling to Iran in December 2007 to seek answers from the Iranians on what happened to her husband. She has steadfastly pursued this case for 2 years now, giving press interviews to publicize Bob's plight and seek leads on the case, engaging the Iranian Mission to the U.N., talking to Swiss diplomats, speaking at rallies, making trips to Washington to meet with Members of Congress and officials at the White House, the State Department and the FBI. At the same time, she also had to juggle all her other duties as a mother of seven and grandmother of two. I do want to salute Mrs. Levinson, as well as her family and friends who have supported her during these trying times. So what is the next step? What can we do now? President Obama has called for a renewed diplomatic effort on Iran. Our new U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has stated that the new administration will engage in ``direct diplomacy'' with the Iranians. Secretary Clinton said Tehran would be invited to an Afghanistan neighbors conference in the Netherlands at the end of the month. We obviously have serious disagreements with Tehran on a number of issues, including its nuclear program, its despicable policy towards Israel, and its support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. But the U.S. and Iran have common interests as well. Peace in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, is in the interests of both Tehran and Washington. We can jointly confront the scourge caused by the narcotics drug trade. Cooperation on the case of Bob Levinson a humanitarian issue in my mind--must be a top issue if any future improvement in relations is to occur. It is but one small step we can take toward working together on this range of issues of mutual concern. During her confirmation hearing in January, I asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about Bob Levinson's case. She stated that ``it would be an extraordinary opportunity for the government of Iran to make such a gesture to permit contact, to release him, to make it clear that there is a new attitude in Iran, as we believe there will be with the Obama administration toward engagement, carefully constructed, and with very clear outcomes attempted.'' We do not have direct diplomatic relations with Iran and our relations with Iran are difficult, to say the least. But I again call on the government of Iran to work with the U.S. and our allies to ensure Bob Levinson's return to this country and allow the Levinsons to return to a normal life. Those points are included in S. Con. Res. 4 which I introduced on February 3. I hope that we will be able to pass this resolution by this evening. I want to thank Senator Voinovich, as well as 16 other Senators, for joining me as cosponsors of this resolution. We cannot and we will not forget Bob Levinson or his family.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, this is the first time I am at my new desk. As we change each new Congress, according to seniority you get to select a different location. I look into this desk drawer and see the names of so many of the giants who have been here before. Perhaps those who are watching or listening to these remarks would know it is customary that Senators actually inscribe their names in the drawers of these desks, some of which in this Chamber go all the way back to the beginning of the Senate. That is true certainly in this Chamber, and I would not be surprised if some of these desks are the same ones that were in the Old Senate Chamber, which is right down the hallway. That is a place, by the way, which used to be used by the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe the famous Marbury v. Madison case was argued there. I address the Senate for a different reason, and that is that this day is the beginning of the session after we have had a week's recess to be back in our States on the occasion of Presidents Day, which was a week ago. That gives us the opportunity to get around and see the people of our State. Over the course of Monday through Friday, I ended up having some 15 townhall meetings. I have been doing this ever since I was a young Congressman, having come to the U.S. Congress--goodness, it is hard to believe, but it is over 30 years ago. Even before that, I did it as a State legislator. That goes back 37 years. I hold these townhall meetings where anyone can come. Especially this past week, I invited local elected officials--county commissioners, mayors, city commissioners, the superintendents of education in each of the counties, the elected school board members, the administrative officers of counties, the local legislators, and the members of the State legislature. I wanted them to come. I wanted to hear from them how they perceive what is going on economically in their communities. As well, I wanted to try to answer their questions, of which they had many, about the stimulus bill we had passed Friday a week ago, close to 11 o'clock at night because of having to keep the vote open until Senator Brown, bless his heart, could get back here after his mother's funeral. His vote was necessary because it was the 60th and we had to have 60 votes of 100 Senators to pass that legislation. I wanted to hear from these local officials. Naturally, they were glad to hear that of this $780-some billion package, over a third of that was tax cuts, tax cuts to stimulate a certain kind of activity or tax cuts to put dollars in the hands of individuals so they would spend it. That is not like this so-called stimulus bill we did a year ago that was sending $500 to every taxpayer. This time, it was targeted to moderate and lower income folks who need the money. Indeed, it was targeted to taxpayers who do not have a requirement of a Federal income tax to pay but who still pay a lot of taxes because they pay a payroll tax. This time, it is different. It is $400 to an individual and $800 to joint filers--husband and wife. That is one of the tax cuts we are giving to stimulate the economy. Other tax cuts we put in--we wanted to stimulate certain activities, such as a $2,500 tax credit for moderate- and low-income families to use, to send their kid to college. You say: What does that have to do with stimulus? That has a lot to do with keeping our colleges and universities going. That is providing we are not eating our seed corn. We want the seed corn so we can plant next year's crop. That is exactly what we are trying to do in education. The future of this country's ability to compete on the world stage is our intellectual capital, and we cannot have that unless we have an educated public. There were other kinds of tax cuts. There were tax cuts to stimulate certain activity in getting green energy, removing ourselves--as we country boys would say, weaning ourselves from our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil. We do that by giving an inducement through tax incentives to businesses and individuals to produce new kinds of renewable energy instead of being so dependent, as we have been, just on oil, and in particular foreign oil. One part of the spending of this stimulus bill was to begin the planning of a smart grid system. Let me tell you, in my townhall meeting in Gainesville, FL--this, by the way, is the home of the national champion Florida Gators--the city of Gainesville is starting on their own a smart grid system. They are going to give a local business or an individual homeowner the incentive to produce their own electricity from renewables--in our case, solar--and they will guarantee in the first 2 years that any excess of that electricity which is produced by that individual in their home or that business that is collecting the Sun's rays and turning them into energy--they, the city of Gainesville, will guarantee them 32 cents per kilowatt. Then, as you get on into the third year, it gradually goes down as economies of scale get in and also as the equipment to do this becomes cheaper. Those were some of the things that I found out, that people really believed this was the kind of stimulus they wanted. I can tell you I heard from the educators--the school board members, the superintendents of education in each of the 67 counties, and the teachers who came after their school boards--because Florida has been cutting its support for education, and the teachers would come and they would point out that the school board had announced it was going to lay off teachers because Florida has been cutting its support for education. In one county, Marion County in the town of Ocala, they announced they are laying off 522 teachers come July. In another county, Polk County, the county seat of Bartow, the superintendent, who came to the meeting, said they are going to have to lay off 1,200 teachers come summer. In Florida's portion of this fiscal stimulus bill, the fiscal stimulation fund is going to school boards, not the State department of education so it can siphon it off, but to the school boards--Florida's share is $2.2 billion. If those school systems want to preserve those teachers' jobs with this money, they can do that. They have to be careful. This is not recurring money, so they have to plan for how they are going to keep those teachers after this 2 years of stimulus money. But that gives them the chance to do that. Hopefully, the whole idea is we are going to jump-start the economy back to life. In doing so, with more dollars out there, jobs will be created, the economy will start to recover, homes will not be vacated and foreclosed on and property values will rise, and then the ad valorem tax, which is the basic tax which supports education in Florida, will continue to rise as well to support those teachers who otherwise, 3 and 4 years from now, might be laid off. What I brought to them was welcome news. I am surprised, I must say, in over some 15 townhall meetings, that I did not have a lot of negative catcalls that we have been hearing emanating out of Washington and out of the talking heads on the television. As a matter of fact, it is almost like two different worlds. You turn on the TV, turn on any of the cable shows, and you have these talking heads--sometimes talking over each other, which makes it very annoying, and it is as if this is the worst thing you have ever heard of, this stimulus bill. Of the votes up here, here we only got three Republican Senators, the two Senators from Maine--Senators Snowe and Collins--and Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. They are the only three. Down at the other end of the hall in the House of Representatives, they didn't get any Republican Members of Congress to vote for this. You hear this chatter going on, and it is like it is so partisan and it is so awful. That is not what I heard out there. What I heard back home this past week is: Our people are hurting. They are losing their jobs. They are losing their homes. Unfortunately, it has hit my State of Florida big time. Our unemployment rate is now at 8.1 percent. The national average is 7.6. There are some news articles that are speculating that in Florida it is going to 10 percent unemployment. Our foreclosure rate on homes is next to California. We are No. 2. And California is 2\1/2\ times as large as Florida. As a matter of fact, there are parts of Florida where the foreclosure rate is the highest in the Nation. An example is Fort Myers, Lee County, on the southwest coast of Florida. Our people are hurting, and they are scared. Naturally, when the Government tries to do something, however imperfect it is, they are appreciative that something is trying to be done. Is this the answer? Is the program the Secretary of Treasury announced the answer? We do not know. But the alternative, when the clerk called that roll Friday a week ago, was a vote that said yea or nay. It seems to me it was worth the risk to say yea in order to give our new President a chance of him trying to turn this economy around with our help. Now, I could go through the rest of the specifics that are going in. There is money for title I over and above the normal title I which is for disadvantaged children, which has made a huge difference in our school systems over the years. There is new money here for IDEA, which is for children with disabilities. In the old days, a half a century ago, we did not load all these problems on the school districts. But now the schools take care of a lot of these problems. Children with disabilities have to have special instruction and special ed. It is very expensive. So, indeed, in this stimulus bill, the Federal Government has given additional money to the local school districts in order to try to help them. Yes, there is money for roads and bridges. If this Senator had had his druthers, there would have been more money because infrastructure, this Senator feels, is a place to turn over dollars and create jobs. In Florida, we think that from this stimulus bill, which is a combination of about two-thirds of spending and one-third of tax cuts, all to stimulate the economy, over 200,000 jobs will be created in the next year and a half. Well, since the recession started, we have lost more than that. In Florida, we have lost 255,000 jobs. Let's hope and pray it works. If we have to tinker with it, so be it. Ultimately, we need to get it right. I think we have taken the first right step. I think the new President is trying hard. This Senator is going to try to help him. The American people expect no less. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds. I will complete my thought.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is good to see you in the chair. You are a great addition to the Senate, being a distinguished new Senator from Delaware. What a pleasure. Although we are in an emergency condition, I almost wish this vote this afternoon were taking place a week from now, after the Presidents Day recess, so Senators who have voiced opposition--and I take them at their word and I certainly respect their right to disagree, and I respect them. Almost all the Senators in this Chamber know how much this Senator enjoys them personally. But I almost wish this vote were being taken a week and a half from now, after the recess, after Senators have gone home to their States and looked into the eyes of their people and understood the pain and the anguish that is going on across America and how much people are depending on us, the Government, to stop the downward spiral of our economy; and to try to get it righted and going back up the other way. In the meantime, as that attempt is being made--and it is going to take some time. We hear every economist in the world say it is going to be at least a year, if not 2 or 3 years. In the meantime, our people are hurting. We hear, every day, these stories. This Senator is going to scores of townhall meetings all across Florida next week. I know what I am going to hear. It is what I have been hearing every weekend when I go home. It is these horror stories, these impossible economic stories of people who have worked hard and played by the rules and done everything right and they lose their job, they lose their home, they get upside-down in an economic condition and they do not have any hope. It is almost as if I wish this final passage vote were not coming so Senators who have expressed an opinion about voting against this legislation could listen to them. Fortunately, there will be a vast majority of at least 60 in this Chamber, with not all the Senators present today because I don't think the health of Senator Kennedy is going to allow him to return to the Chamber--so at least 60 of the Senators are going to be voting for it. But there will be a substantial number, at least 37 in this Senate, who will vote against it. If they could hear the stories, they would understand why there is $120 billion in this bill in investments in infrastructure and science; and $14 billion for health and $106 billion for education and training and energy--$30 billion in energy infrastructure; and helping with direct economic help to those hit hardest by the economy, of $24 billion; and helping law enforcement, $7.8 billion. My State is one of the States that has been the hardest hit. We are second only to California in the total number of foreclosures of homes. You wonder, why did the President go to Fort Myers earlier in the week? The Fort Myers area is the highest foreclosure rate area in the entire country, and for people who are getting laid off there, there is no economic opportunity for them to find another job. Out of this stimulus bill, just this bill, with the spending and the tax cuts, some $10 billion is going to go to my State. It is going to be for roadbuilding, it is going to be for health care, it is going to be for classrooms and teachers, it is going to be for food stamps, it is going to be for unemployment compensation, it is going to be for Medicaid. Look at the human face. Our people are hurting and they need help. Of that amount that is going to Florida, $4.3 billion is going to help people who have lost their jobs to keep their health insurance. Can you imagine the trauma of a breadwinner who loses the job--and that is traumatic enough--not to be able to afford health insurance for his family, especially if there is a traumatic injury in that family? That amount of $4.3 billion going to Florida is going to provide health care for the poor. This is what I am talking about. This is compassionate assistance in an economic downward spiral that only the Government can provide. Specifically, in Florida, this bill is going to create or save 206,000 jobs. Nationwide it is going to be somewhere between 3 million and 4 million jobs it is going to create or save. Over 1 million jobs have already been lost since the first of last year. But there are several million more that are going to be lost in this country if we do not do anything. So this stimulus bill is designed to create 3 million to 4 million jobs that will, in fact, take up that slack of what otherwise would have been lost and has been lost. This bill is going to provide $800 for a family. That is going to provide almost 7 million workers and their families, just in the State of Florida--7 million are going to be eligible for the making work pay tax cut of up to $800. Just in Florida, this bill is going to make 195,000 families eligible for a new tax credit to make college affordable. That is almost 200,000 in Florida alone able to have the tax credit for college. For those out of work who are getting unemployment insurance benefits, there is going to be an additional $100 in my State, to 761,000 people--761,000 workers in Florida who have lost their jobs in this recession are going to get a little bit more help in unemployment compensation. In addition, what this bill is going to do for my State of Florida is, it is going to give funding sufficient to modernize 485 schools so our children are going to have labs and classrooms and libraries that they need to get ready to compete globally in the 21st century. Then, in addition, this legislation is going to help transform our economy in our State, in Florida alone, by doubling the renewable energy generating capacity over the next 3 years. It is going to create enough renewable energy in Florida to power 6 million homes. We are going to be able to computerize every American's health record in 5 years, and look what that is going to save Floridians. We are going to be able to enact significant----

Mr. NELSON of Florida. We are going to provide the most significant expansion in tax cuts for low- and moderate-income households ever. That is going to occur right in the State of Florida. We are going to increase the investment in roads and bridges and mass transit. We need all of this in Florida. This is stimulus. This is providing jobs. This is helping people in need. This is the right thing to do for Florida. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, most of the Senators know how much I love the Senate and how I love individual Senators who are quite extraordinary individuals. It is because of that love that I have concern we continue to see excessive partisanship in the Senate, what is described as the most deliberative body in the world. This is not to say that because we are the most deliberative body, we should not have our political fights and sharply disagree. But when crisis faces the Nation, it seems to this Senator there ought to be a focus on finding common ground instead of that which separates us. I want to give two examples of where I thought it was a very fine hour that the Nation found common ground in a bipartisan way. The first was when I had the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives in 1983. Social Security was facing a financial default within a 6- month period. Two old Irishmen, who would fight every day but at the end of the day could walk through the door as personal friends and had a personal relationship so that they could get things done, those two old Irishmen--one being the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, and the other one being the Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill--realized that if we were going to solve the potential default of the Social Security system, we had to come together in a bipartisan way. Indeed, they said: We are going to take this third rail of American politics off the table at the next election. It will not be an election issue. We are going to solve it. We are going to use the mechanism of a bipartisan commission to come and bring a solution. That is exactly what happened. The solution was brought by the commission. The Congress passed it overwhelmingly. There had to be give and take and shared pain by all different sectors. It was not used as a political weapon in the next election. Social Security was made actuarially sound for the next 75 years. That is one example. Another example of unity in a bipartisan way was in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Of course, I will never forget in that day that we had dispersed to all parts of Washington, because we had to flee the Capitol when we thought the fourth airplane was in-bound to destroy this magnificent symbol of America, later that day, into the evening, Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, spontaneously gathered on the center steps of the east side of the Capitol and broke out spontaneously singing ``God Bless America'' in a show of unity. I will never forget the weekly caucuses that we separate here, where the Democrats meet in one place and the Republicans meet in another place, there was a joint caucus bringing about unity in the aftermath of crisis. It occasions this Senator to wonder, where is that unity in this crisis? Do we not think this crisis is of sufficient magnitude that we ought to be coming together? We say we have a bipartisan solution, but it takes all 58 Democratic Senators, plus three Republican Senators to get over the 60-vote threshold mark in order to pass this legislation on next Monday and Tuesday. That is technically bipartisan, but it is not really. Is this crisis not of sufficient magnitude? Look back last fall. After the defaults of a number of major financial institutions and suddenly Lehman having a financial hole so big that regulators decided they had to let it go, the confidence went completely out of the system. In a rushed manner, we passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program, with the acronym TARP. It injected capital in the system. None of us is happy as to how we have seen the first segment of $350 billion spent. But at least it put funds in to inject some confidence that the Federal Government was going to stand behind the banking system and not let it go down the tubes. So we started working our way through that. Look at it from the standpoint of bankers. They need capital. They need investment. We are seeing that the Secretary of the Treasury is going to come out next Monday with a proposal that is going to inject new capital by, this time, instead guaranteeing those troubled assets, the Federal Government. This is a role for government, in that the Federal Government, in addition, is going to put money so that loans can be made for students, for small business, to pay off credit card debt, and to go out and buy automobiles. That is necessary. Banks need to make loans, but they can't if people make a run on their bank and start pulling out their assets. Thus, the need for more confidence injected into the system. That is what we are trying to do with TARP and now this fiscal stimulus plan. This plan: 42 percent of the stimulus is coming from tax cuts; 58 percent is coming from fiscal stimulus by additional spending. In order to get three Republican votes to get us over the 60-vote threshold, $110 billion was cut; $25 billion off of the tax cuts and $85 billion off of the spending, with a $110 billion reduction of the overall stimulus plan. Yet we still do not have unity. I cannot understand why, when the Senator from Georgia, who is my dear friend, and I think one of the most effective Members of the Senate, passes what is a very attractive amendment, upping a $15,000 tax credit for the purchase of a home, the total of which, the pricetag for that tax credit is approximately $35 billion--and I am told the Senator from Georgia, with that provision in the bill, is not going to support it on final passage or on the motion for cloture, which we have to have to cut off debate to get to the bill. Where is the unity and where is the bipartisanship? We masquerade as bipartisans, and yet this lingering insidious attempt to always divide instead of reconcile still hangs over the Capitol of the United States of America. It would be certainly this Senator's hope that as we get on down the line, and it goes into a conference committee to iron out the differences between the House and the Senate, that maybe there will be more Senators who can come together and say at this critical time in our country, when the financial institutions were about to go under, with a complete economic cardiac arrest on the horizon, we could reach out and, as the Good Book says: reason together. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DODD, Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate considered an amendment offered by Senator Coburn that would prohibit stimulus funds from being directed to institutions of cultural merit in communities throughout the country. As well intentioned as Senator Coburn's amendment may be, it is misguided. Among the many institutions that would be prohibited from receiving stimulus funding under the Coburn amendment are museums, theaters, art centers, zoos, aquariums, and community parks. And while the amendment would correctly prohibit funding for casinos and golf courses, I question the judgment of grouping institutions of significant cultural merit, such as museums, with these other superfluous uses. I also question the notion that Washington knows better than the communities and States themselves which projects will stimulate their local economies and preserve jobs and which will not. In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt put millions of people back to work through the Works Progress Administration. Job creation was not limited to only public works and housing, but also included efforts to strengthen art and culture. The Federal Art Project, Writers Project, and Theater Project provided jobs to thousands of the unemployed. President Roosevelt understood the benefit in investing in America's infrastructure and the long-term economic value in fostering the Nation's cultural development. Educational and cultural institutions are the economic anchor in many communities. In Connecticut, cultural institutions contribute approximately $9 billion annually to the State's economy and support roughly 110,000 jobs. These institutes of learning bring educational programming to schools in surrounding communities. These institutions are employers. They stimulate the local economy and bring patrons to small businesses and revenue to our communities and States. Our museums, theaters, art centers, zoos, and aquariums are not outcasts. These institutions are members of our communities that have been hard hit by the economic downturn. While facing understandably reduced attendance during times of economic crisis, they have also suffered from reduced charitable giving and slashed local and State aid. The crisis can be seen throughout Connecticut. In June, the Mark Twain House and Museum, a National Historic Landmark, was almost forced to close its doors. In November, the Maritime Aquarium in Norwalk announced layoffs because of an unsteady economy and declining attendance. In December, Mystic Seaport faced a similar situation and was forced to eliminate 23 full-time positions. And just this week, the Connecticut Opera, which is the sixth-oldest continuously performing opera company in the country, was forced to halt operations. These stories are not unique to my home State--they are being echoed throughout the country. Yesterday's New York Times featured a cover story on the successes and failures of Japan's actions to stimulate the economy in the early 1990s. Dr. Ihori of the University of Tokyo determined, ``decisions on how to spend money were made behind closed doors by bureaucrats, politicians and the construction industry, and often reflected political considerations more than economic.'' Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Coburn is just that-- a decision more reflective of political considerations than economic. The amendment will unfairly tie the hands of our governors and local officials who know best what will stabilize and stimulate their local economies in order to retain badly needed jobs.