Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, earlier today, the Congress met in a joint session, as it does every 4 years in early January, to conduct the official count of the electoral ballots from the States. Most Americans pay no attention to this ritual, believing that presidential elections in this country get decided on Election Day. But it is the votes of the Electoral College, presented by each State to the Congress, that determine who our next President and Vice President are going to be. We are the beacon of democracy in the world, and yet, voters in this country do not have the opportunity to elect their leaders directly. Today, I am introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College to allow direct election of the President by popular vote. If the principle of one person, one vote is to mean anything, it is that the candidate who wins a majority of the votes wins the Presidency, and votes for every candidate from every State should count. On only a few occasions in our history, the candidate who lost the popular vote won the Electoral College and became president. In 2000, George W. Bush actually lost the nationwide popular election to Al Gore by nearly 544,000 votes, yet won the presidency in a Supreme Court showdown over Florida's Electoral College votes that hinged on far fewer disputed State ballots. That dispute undermined Americans' confidence in our democracy and should not be allowed to happen again. In addition, the Electoral College skews the way candidates for president campaign, causing them to focus only on contested ``battleground States''. As the Miami Herald recognized in an editorial published the day after the 2008 election, the Electoral College is a ``horse-and-buggy-era political contraption,'' which effectively shuts out the majority of Americans--those who don't live in one of the key battleground States--from any meaningful participation in the selection of our President. A recently released study by FairVote, the Center for Voting and Democracy, documents just how lopsided the Electoral College has made presidential elections: more than 98 percent of all campaign events and more than 98 percent of all campaign spending occurred in 15 large and small battleground States representing 36.6 percent of the Nation's eligible voter population. Of the 300 campaign events by the major presidential candidates held between September 5 and November 4, 2008, fully 57 percent of these events took place in four States--Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia--representing just 17 percent of the Nation's eligible voters. Voter turnout was 67 percent in the 15 battleground States and only 61 percent in the remaining 35 States. The simple and straightforward constitutional amendment simply provides for the direct election of the President and Vice President, based on the national popular vote from the 50 States, the U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. The proposed amendment also confirms--consistent with the vision of the Framers--that it is within Congress's power to set the time, place and manner--as well as other key criteria--for holding Federal elections. Unlike some proposed constitutional amendments that have been introduced in the past, my proposal does not delve into additional detail by specifying the qualifications for voters or by imposing a majority requirement for an election, leaving those issues for the Congress to address through the legislative process. Rather, the amendment keeps the focus where it belongs--on enshrining in our Constitution the principle of one person, one vote, in the election of our President. I first introduced this constitutional amendment during the previous Congress, as part of a broader package of reforms that also included measures to make it easier to vote, for example, by encouraging early voting or no-fault absentee voting; to ensure that there is a verifiable paper ballot so that every vote cast gets counted; and to allow voters, not party bosses, to select presidential candidates. I plan to file these other election reforms early in this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, earlier today, the Congress met in a joint session, as it does every 4 years in early January, to conduct the official count of the electoral ballots from the States. Most Americans pay no attention to this ritual, believing that presidential elections in this country get decided on Election Day. But it is the votes of the Electoral College, presented by each State to the Congress, that determine who our next President and Vice President are going to be. We are the beacon of democracy in the world, and yet, voters in this country do not have the opportunity to elect their leaders directly. Today, I am introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College to allow direct election of the President by popular vote. If the principle of one person, one vote is to mean anything, it is that the candidate who wins a majority of the votes wins the Presidency, and votes for every candidate from every State should count. On only a few occasions in our history, the candidate who lost the popular vote won the Electoral College and became president. In 2000, George W. Bush actually lost the nationwide popular election to Al Gore by nearly 544,000 votes, yet won the presidency in a Supreme Court showdown over Florida's Electoral College votes that hinged on far fewer disputed State ballots. That dispute undermined Americans' confidence in our democracy and should not be allowed to happen again. In addition, the Electoral College skews the way candidates for president campaign, causing them to focus only on contested ``battleground States''. As the Miami Herald recognized in an editorial published the day after the 2008 election, the Electoral College is a ``horse-and-buggy-era political contraption,'' which effectively shuts out the majority of Americans--those who don't live in one of the key battleground States--from any meaningful participation in the selection of our President. A recently released study by FairVote, the Center for Voting and Democracy, documents just how lopsided the Electoral College has made presidential elections: more than 98 percent of all campaign events and more than 98 percent of all campaign spending occurred in 15 large and small battleground States representing 36.6 percent of the Nation's eligible voter population. Of the 300 campaign events by the major presidential candidates held between September 5 and November 4, 2008, fully 57 percent of these events took place in four States--Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia--representing just 17 percent of the Nation's eligible voters. Voter turnout was 67 percent in the 15 battleground States and only 61 percent in the remaining 35 States. The simple and straightforward constitutional amendment simply provides for the direct election of the President and Vice President, based on the national popular vote from the 50 States, the U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. The proposed amendment also confirms--consistent with the vision of the Framers--that it is within Congress's power to set the time, place and manner--as well as other key criteria--for holding Federal elections. Unlike some proposed constitutional amendments that have been introduced in the past, my proposal does not delve into additional detail by specifying the qualifications for voters or by imposing a majority requirement for an election, leaving those issues for the Congress to address through the legislative process. Rather, the amendment keeps the focus where it belongs--on enshrining in our Constitution the principle of one person, one vote, in the election of our President. I first introduced this constitutional amendment during the previous Congress, as part of a broader package of reforms that also included measures to make it easier to vote, for example, by encouraging early voting or no-fault absentee voting; to ensure that there is a verifiable paper ballot so that every vote cast gets counted; and to allow voters, not party bosses, to select presidential candidates. I plan to file these other election reforms early in this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, American consumers and public safety officials increasingly find themselves confronted by scams in the digital age. One of the most recent scams is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today, I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senators Snowe, McCaskill and Klobuchar--The Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009-- to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing. What is caller I.D. spoofing? It's a technique that allows a telephone caller to alter the phone number that appears on the recipient's caller I.D. system. In other words, spoofing allows someone to hide behind a misleading telephone number to try to scam consumers or trick law enforcement officers. Let me give you a few shocking examples of how caller I.D. spoofing has been exploited during the past 4 years: In one very dangerous hoax, a sharp-shooting SWAT team was forced to shut down a neighborhood in New Brunswick, NJ, after receiving what they believed was a legitimate distress call. But what really happened was a caller used spoofing to trick law enforcement into thinking that the emergency call was coming from a certain apartment in that neighborhood. It was all a cruel trick perpetrated with a deceptive telephone number. In another example, identity thieves bought a number of stolen credit card numbers. They then called Western Union, set up caller I.D. information to make it look like the call originated from the credit card holder's phone line, and used the credit card numbers to order cash transfers, which the thieves then picked up. In other instances, callers have used spoofing to pose as Government officials. In the past year, there have been several instances of fraudsters using caller I.D. fraud to pose as court officers calling to say that a person has missed jury duty. The caller then says that a warrant will be issued for their arrest, unless a fine is paid during the call. The victim is then induced to provide credit card or bank information over the phone to pay the ``fine.'' Furthermore, while these examples are serious enough, think about what would happen if a stalker used caller I.D. spoofing to trick his victim into answering the telephone, giving out personal information, or telling the person on the other end of the line about their current whereabouts. The results could be tragic. There are a number of Internet Web sites--with names like Tricktel.com and Spooftel.com--that sell their services to criminals and identity thieves. Any person can go to one of these Web sites, pay money to order a spoofed telephone number, tell the Web site which phone number to reach, and then place the call through a toll-free line. The recipient is then tricked when he or she sees the misleading phone number on his or her caller I.D. screen. A new Web site--Dramatel.com--even offers a prepaid calling card platform that combines a caller I.D. spoofing service with other features that allow a fraudster to disguise their voice and record the entire call. It's hard to imagine what legitimate purpose this service could possibly offer--other than providing a tailor-made mechanism for criminals to prey on innocent victims. In essence, these Web sites provide the high-tech tools that criminals need to do their dirty work. Armed with a misleading phone number, an identity thief can call a consumer pretending to be a representative of the consumer's credit card company or bank. The thief can then ask the consumer to authenticate a request for personal account information. Once a thief gets hold of this sensitive personal information, he can access a consumer's bank account, credit card account, health information, and who knows what else. Furthermore, even if a consumer does not become a victim of stalking or identity theft, there is a simple concept at work here. Consumers pay money for their caller I.D. service. Consumers expect caller I.D. to be accurate because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone call and trust the person on the other end of the line. In June 2007, I chaired a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on caller I.D. spoofing. At that hearing, there was broad consensus that caller I.D. spoofing was quickly developing into a major area of consumer abuse and criminal fraud. Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have been slow to act on this latest scam. In the meantime, many spoofing companies and the fraudsters that use them believe their activities are, in fact, legal. Well, it's time to make it crystal clear that spoofing is a scam and is not legal. How does the bipartisan Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009 address the problem of caller I.D. spoofing? Quite simply, this bill plugs the hole in the current law and prohibits fraudsters from using caller identification services to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller I.D. information with the intend to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. This prohibition covers both traditional telephone calls and calls made using Voice-Over-Internet, VoIP, service. Anyone who violates this anti-spoofing law would be subject to a penalty of $10,000 per violation or up to one year in jail, as set out in the Communications Act. Additionally, this bill empowers States to help the Federal Government track down and punish these fraudsters. I invite my colleagues to join Senators Snowe, McCaskill, Klobuchar and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009. We should not waste any more time in protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing. 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, American consumers and public safety officials increasingly find themselves confronted by scams in the digital age. One of the most recent scams is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today, I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senators Snowe, McCaskill and Klobuchar--The Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009-- to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing. What is caller I.D. spoofing? It's a technique that allows a telephone caller to alter the phone number that appears on the recipient's caller I.D. system. In other words, spoofing allows someone to hide behind a misleading telephone number to try to scam consumers or trick law enforcement officers. Let me give you a few shocking examples of how caller I.D. spoofing has been exploited during the past 4 years: In one very dangerous hoax, a sharp-shooting SWAT team was forced to shut down a neighborhood in New Brunswick, NJ, after receiving what they believed was a legitimate distress call. But what really happened was a caller used spoofing to trick law enforcement into thinking that the emergency call was coming from a certain apartment in that neighborhood. It was all a cruel trick perpetrated with a deceptive telephone number. In another example, identity thieves bought a number of stolen credit card numbers. They then called Western Union, set up caller I.D. information to make it look like the call originated from the credit card holder's phone line, and used the credit card numbers to order cash transfers, which the thieves then picked up. In other instances, callers have used spoofing to pose as Government officials. In the past year, there have been several instances of fraudsters using caller I.D. fraud to pose as court officers calling to say that a person has missed jury duty. The caller then says that a warrant will be issued for their arrest, unless a fine is paid during the call. The victim is then induced to provide credit card or bank information over the phone to pay the ``fine.'' Furthermore, while these examples are serious enough, think about what would happen if a stalker used caller I.D. spoofing to trick his victim into answering the telephone, giving out personal information, or telling the person on the other end of the line about their current whereabouts. The results could be tragic. There are a number of Internet Web sites--with names like Tricktel.com and Spooftel.com--that sell their services to criminals and identity thieves. Any person can go to one of these Web sites, pay money to order a spoofed telephone number, tell the Web site which phone number to reach, and then place the call through a toll-free line. The recipient is then tricked when he or she sees the misleading phone number on his or her caller I.D. screen. A new Web site--Dramatel.com--even offers a prepaid calling card platform that combines a caller I.D. spoofing service with other features that allow a fraudster to disguise their voice and record the entire call. It's hard to imagine what legitimate purpose this service could possibly offer--other than providing a tailor-made mechanism for criminals to prey on innocent victims. In essence, these Web sites provide the high-tech tools that criminals need to do their dirty work. Armed with a misleading phone number, an identity thief can call a consumer pretending to be a representative of the consumer's credit card company or bank. The thief can then ask the consumer to authenticate a request for personal account information. Once a thief gets hold of this sensitive personal information, he can access a consumer's bank account, credit card account, health information, and who knows what else. Furthermore, even if a consumer does not become a victim of stalking or identity theft, there is a simple concept at work here. Consumers pay money for their caller I.D. service. Consumers expect caller I.D. to be accurate because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone call and trust the person on the other end of the line. In June 2007, I chaired a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on caller I.D. spoofing. At that hearing, there was broad consensus that caller I.D. spoofing was quickly developing into a major area of consumer abuse and criminal fraud. Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have been slow to act on this latest scam. In the meantime, many spoofing companies and the fraudsters that use them believe their activities are, in fact, legal. Well, it's time to make it crystal clear that spoofing is a scam and is not legal. How does the bipartisan Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009 address the problem of caller I.D. spoofing? Quite simply, this bill plugs the hole in the current law and prohibits fraudsters from using caller identification services to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller I.D. information with the intend to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. This prohibition covers both traditional telephone calls and calls made using Voice-Over-Internet, VoIP, service. Anyone who violates this anti-spoofing law would be subject to a penalty of $10,000 per violation or up to one year in jail, as set out in the Communications Act. Additionally, this bill empowers States to help the Federal Government track down and punish these fraudsters. I invite my colleagues to join Senators Snowe, McCaskill, Klobuchar and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2009. We should not waste any more time in protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing. 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 take this opportunity to pay tribute to a true patriot and a dear friend, Senator John Warner of Virginia. It has been an extraordinary experience for me to serve with Senator Warner on the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. In the capacity of his service on the Armed Services Committee, which has been upwards of three decades, serving as its chairman, the insight and guidance he has provided has been invaluable. Over and over, you will hear the members of that committee speak as I, as if with one voice, how we appreciate his public service. He has great knowledge. He has great wisdom. It is tempered with a wonderful personality that is most studious and deliberative. Few have done as much to champion the cause of our men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States as John Warner. This Senator admires him for his sense of fairness, for his mutual respect of all the Members of the Senate. We know there has to be civility in the Senate for it to function. There has to be mutual respect. There has to be respect for the truth. There has to be respect for the dignity of individuals and those Senators' families. All of that is certainly apropos of the senior Senator from Virginia. Over and over, I have been in situations with him that could have been adversarial. Yet his calm judgment and reason have brought people together. Of course, that is the admonition of the Good Book: ``Come let us reason together.'' Over and over, as I have sought his counsel on matters of some of the Nation's highest secrets, John Warner has provided the leadership and the clarity, as we have made those decisions, sometimes making those decisions together. So it is with a great reluctance on my part that I see our colleague, Senator Warner, retire after a very distinguished and long career. It has been a privilege to serve with John. I will miss him as a colleague. I will miss his leadership, his fairness, and his great capacity as a gentleman of the Senate. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida pertaining to the introduction of S. Con. Res. 106 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am introducing a resolution in the Senate that touches on one of the tragic cases of a Floridian, Bob Levinson, who has been missing in Iran since he visited Kish Island off the coast of Iran in the Persian Gulf in early 2007. I have spoken on this issue ad infinitum before to call the attention of the Congress to the plight of Mr. Levinson as well as to the difficulties that are faced by his wife Christine and their seven children. Bob Levinson, a businessman and a former FBI agent, vanished after checking out of his hotel on the resort island of Kish on March 9, 2007. It is no doubt the wish of everyone who knows this man that Bob Levinson be reunited with his loved ones. It has been very difficult to get information out of the Government of Iran. The State Department has delivered a number of requests for information and cooperation to the Iranian Government through our diplomatic intermediary, which is the Government of Switzerland. Unfortunately, Iran continues to claim it has no information on the fate of Bob Levinson. Mrs. Levinson and her eldest son, Daniel, and her sister, Ms. Halpin, traveled to Tehran and Kish Island in December of last year in the hopes of finding information about Bob Levinson's disappearance. The Iranian authorities, to their credit, extended courtesies to her and they promised her at the time they would help in the case, but those promises have not been fulfilled. This resolution I am introducing urges Iranian officials to fulfill their promises of assistance to the Levinsons. It calls for Iranian investigators to meet with the FBI to discuss the Levinson case. It calls for the U.S. Government and our allies to press Iran on this case at every opportunity and at every level-- something I think the U.S. Government is beginning to do. Also, this resolution thanks the Swiss for their continued assistance in the case. It furthermore expresses appreciation for the efforts of Iranian officials who have ensured the safety of the family during their visit of December of last year. This resolution also expresses sympathy to the Levinson family during this trying period. This is a wife and seven children of a missing former FBI agent in the country of Iran, missing now since the early part of 2007. In this year, on July 28, the President of Iran stated during an interview with NBC that Iranian officials were willing to cooperate with the FBI on this case. Why is the FBI involved? The FBI is involved because he is a former FBI agent. This resolution calls upon the Tehran government to make this meeting happen as soon as possible to discuss the evidence the Iranians have uncovered about Mr. Levinson's disappearance. Now, I wish to underscore that because on July 28 of this year the President of Iran stated in an NBC interview that Iranian officials were willing to cooperate with the FBI on this case. They have not. I wish to be blunt. We obviously have serious disagreements with Iran on its nuclear program and a whole range of other issues. I haven't hesitated over the years, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to express my opposition to a number of Tehran's policies--and I will continue to press for change in Iran's positions and activities--but I am calling on the Government of Iran out of human compassion and humanitarian assistance to a family of a wife and seven children to come forth and cooperate in trying to find and get evidence of the whereabouts of Bob Levinson. We want to see an Iran where individuals are respected, not locked up in Evin Prison--we want to see an Iran that is respected--for signing a petition calling for women's rights. We want to see an Iran that champions the Middle East peace process rather than supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. We want to see an Iran whose leaders do not make despicable threats to ``wipe Israel off the map.'' We clearly have our differences with Iran, and those differences, especially under a new administration, can start to be bridged with Iran stepping forth with discussions regarding the safe return of an American citizen whose family desperately wishes to be reunited with him, that American citizen being former FBI agent Bob Levinson. So this resolution calls upon the U.S. Government and our friends and allies to engage with Iranian officials to raise Mr. Levinson's case at every opportunity and at every level. I understand many of our allies already have raised Mr. Levinson's case on our behalf, and I wish to encourage them to continue to do so. This Senator has done it as well, both publicly and privately, and I will continue to do so. The resolution I have filed additionally commends the Swiss for their ongoing assistance to the U.S. Government and to the family of the Levinsons. The assistance of the Swiss Ambassador and his staff at the American Interests Section in Tehran was essential during Mrs. Levinson's visits in the past, and will be, I think, to her visits in the future. I wish to express--the word ``sympathy'' does not conjure up what I am trying to express to Christine Levinson and to her family. No one should have to experience what they have been through. I have met with her on a number of occasions. She is a loving mother. She is clearly an eloquent advocate. She is a tough fighter on behalf of her husband. She is relentless. She is not going to give up, nor should she. I deem it a great privilege that I may in some little way try to assist her and her family. I want to bring more of our colleagues into this issue of trying to find Bob Levinson in Iran and get the world's attention focused on this missing American. I am going to ask Mrs. Levinson to come back in January when we reconvene, and I want some of our colleagues to meet her. Remember, Senators, that as representatives of the American people, that means we have to help individual American citizens in distress. This is clearly a family who is in distress. We cannot--and I believe I can speak for the Senate--we are not going to forget Bob Levinson and his family.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are in morning business?

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, later this week the Senate is going to consider this question that befalls our American automobile industry and the question of whether to extend assistance to the American automobile industry and its workforce. What we are going to do--either this week or whether it is postponed into January--is going to determine the future of a key manufacturing sector and millions of American jobs. Some of our colleagues have said we should not interfere with the free market, that we should allow businesses that have acted irresponsibly to fail and to be replaced by more efficient competitors. I must say I have some sympathy for that view. For too long, our U.S. domestic automakers have sailed against the winds of change and have failed to produce vehicles for the 21st century--for that matter, for the last half of the 20th century. This is not the first time this Senator from Florida has faced this issue, for, as a young Congressman years ago, we had a similar issue facing us with the bailout of the Chrysler Corporation. I voted for that bailout, which included some $4 billion. In retrospect, that was the right decision because Chrysler did reinvent itself. But the circumstances were different because Chrysler had at its helm a man who we believed would go in and reform Chrysler, and that was Lee Iacocca. As I look across the landscape of the American automobile industry, I am wondering, where are the Lee Iacoccas? We do not see them. It is this Senator's judgment that there should be no bailout of the American automobile industry. There should not be a reward for poor management. But because of the American jobs at risk, because of American manufacturing at risk, I support a Federal loan with serious restrictions. I want to discuss some of those restrictions. I come to this position having fought tooth and nail against the automobile companies when they dragged their feet on implementing responsible fuel economy standards. They insisted, sometimes with crocodile tears, they could not meet those miles-per-gallon requirements, and: Oh, by the way, let the consumers decide. Those automobile makers are now coming to us asking for our assistance. But that is not the full picture. As the President-elect has said, a failure of the American auto industry would be disastrous not just for many Americans who work for the industry but for the entire economy because those jobs ripple with the multiplier effect through the economy. So whether you are considering assembly plants or suppliers or dealerships, we would face significant layoffs in all 50 States. It would push us further and further into an economic hole. We simply cannot let that happen, but we cannot allow a bailout. It has to be a Federal loan with a workout, and that is a financial term to restructure how a company can get out of its economic problems. We need to bring all of the stakeholders to the table--management, labor, lenders, suppliers--to figure out how to revitalize the American auto industry to make it competitive in the future while saving those good American jobs. So this Senator's conclusion is that any Federal assistance we provide for the American auto industry is going to have to include these conditions. First, we must insist that the automakers increase average miles per gallon to 40 miles per gallon in 10 years and to 50 miles per gallon by 2020. Why do I say this? There are cars, fleets in Japan, that are already driving at 50 miles per gallon. In Europe, the cars are being driven at 40 miles per gallon. We are talking about 12 years in the future to achieve this. Technically, it can be done if we but have the will. Look, in the 8 years this Senator has been in the Senate, every year we have gotten beaten by the U.S. automakers as we have tried to increase the miles per gallon in the fleet average. They beat us one way or another, and they would always say: Let the consumer decide--all along while the foreign automobile makers were getting prepared to eat their lunch. As their lunch was being eaten, year by year, they continued to still fight us on the miles-per-gallon standards. Finally, we had a little victory, just a year ago, that was conditioned upon giving them--giving them--$25 billion in return for them agreeing they would move to 35 miles per gallon but not until the year 2020. We have to stop this kind of foot-dragging that has gotten them to the place they are now. So for any Federal assistance in the form of a loan we must insist they increase their miles per gallon. Second, the automakers must increase the production of flex-fuel, electric, and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Prices of gasoline at the pump have obviously fallen in recent weeks, but they are not going to stay low forever, and that is another whole subject. As soon as all the speculators start getting back into the oil futures contracts market again--which have been deregulated, so there is no regulation on the speculators--they will run the price right back up. Remember, the price of a barrel of oil is down in the range of $50 or $60 now. It went all the way to $147 a barrel. When the world economy started getting into trouble and they needed cash, they started bailing out of those futures accounts, so that brought the price of a barrel of oil down. While sure as shootin', if we do not impose some regulations on the commodity futures trading market, those speculators are going to take over in the future, the price of oil is going to go back up, and the price at the pump--which I just filled up my car for $2.12 a gallon back in Orlando, FL--is going to go back up. We need to end our dangerous addiction to oil, and we need to find new and renewable sources of energy. American automobile makers ought to be leading the way instead of the opposite of what has happened over the last three decades. Third, we must place limits on executive compensation and eliminate the executives' golden parachutes. Taxpayer money should not be used to reward individual executives until the taxpayers have been repaid. Let me divert from the automobile industry for a minute. There is a similarity about executive compensation and golden parachutes and what we have done with the big economic bailout of Wall Street, which this Senator voted against. Well, lo and behold, over the course of the weekend, I happened to be talking to a major bank CEO. This banker told me his bank is in good shape; he doesn't need any of the bailout money. But because some of his competitors are in bad financial shape and need the money and are taking it from the Secretary of the Treasury, he needs to take it, too, because they would be at a competitive disadvantage against the ones that are hurting that need to take the money. He says: We don't want to take it, but we don't want to be at a competitive disadvantage. Because of that, whenever they do take it-- remember, there are supposed to be some rules in there on executive compensation and golden parachutes. This CEO is retiring before the money comes in, so the bank still pays out the huge compensation. What we are dealing with, with the Wall Street $700 billion bailout, has to apply to automakers as well. We should not reward those executives until the taxpayers have been repaid. Fourth, the automakers should not pay dividends to shareholders until they have returned to financial health. It is a simple, straightforward condition on us giving them taxpayer money in order to get them back to financial health. Fifth, I wish I didn't have to say this, but there are no Lee Iacoccas now. The current senior management should be replaced. We need new leadership. We need fresh thinking. We need new people, new eyes, new ears to steer us out of this mess. We cannot reward those leaders whose poor decisions and poor judgment and sometimes selfishness got us to where we are now. We are going to face difficult choices. There are going to be tough times. Again, to quote a phrase from the President-elect: We need to act with all deliberate haste but with an emphasis on deliberate. We cannot simply provide our automakers with enough cash to continue their current operations for another 3 months or even another 6. We must instead put them on a path that leads to global competitiveness. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have been working with Chairman Baucus and his staff for the past year on an amendment to the section 45 production tax credit. My amendment modifies the definitions of qualified open-loop and closed-loop biomass facilities to clarify that additional power generation units placed in service at existing qualified facilities are eligible for the production tax credit. This clarification was necessary to remove an ambiguity as to whether such additional units of power qualify for credit. This ambiguity was inadvertently created by language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 relating to additional units of power appended to municipal sold waste facilities. As you know, my concern has been that the failure to clarify that additional units of power do qualify for the credit will discourage taxpayers from expanding existing biomass electricity production facilities and, thus, from producing more renewable biomass electricity. However, it appears that the language that was adopted by the Senate on September 23 does not achieve the goal of eliminating this ambiguity in all circumstances. Is that your understanding as well?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the things that have been added to this bill such as the FDIC provisions as well as the energy tax extenders and other tax extenders that I have already voted in favor of, certainly I support them, but the underlying bill rewards the banks and leaves the little person with the short end of the stick, and that is not right. This plan rewards the investment banks that ran us into the ground and it hardly does anything to help the homeowners who are facing foreclosure. If, under this bill, the financial institutions participate in the Treasury's program, they should accept reasonable limits on executive compensation, but under the bill they don't. The limits on executive compensation are left to the Treasury Secretary's discretion. Some CEOs who caused this crisis in the first place will benefit from this bailout and will also walk away with golden parachutes. That is not right. This creates a moral hazard the U.S. Government will undertake. This bill sends a message to Wall Street that if they play fast and loose in the name of short-term profits, the Government will actually make up for their losses. And the bill does very little to help individual homeowners. Until we stabilize the housing market, which is the underlying ability to restructure the economy from this crisis-- until we stabilize the housing market, and until we stem the record number of foreclosures, our market simply is not going to improve. While this bill authorizes the Treasury to develop and carry out a plan, it does not require financial institutions participating in the program to modify or refinance any loan. It only requires the Treasury to encourage loan modifications. Voluntary refinancing efforts will not solve our foreclosure crisis. We should mandate these efforts. We should start by requiring Fannie and Freddie to refinance the mortgages they hold on their books. Furthermore, I think this bill should do more to investigate the business practices of major credit rating agencies. They fostered the enormous growth of the mortgage-backed securities. They gave securities, mainly consisting of subprime mortgages, the gold standard or the triple A rating. That rating gave investors the confidence that they were making safe investments. Without that triple A rating, insurance companies and pension funds and other investors would not have bought those products. So I am calling for an investigation to probe the business practices of those agencies. Investors relied on and trusted those credit ratings, and the public deserves to know how these rating agencies concluded that such risky investments could receive such high credit ratings. I could say a lot about this, but let me just say that the bottom line is, ultimately, this bill forces taxpayers to bail out investment banks that caused the crisis in the first place, and it does nothing to address the real problem, which is home foreclosures and a resuscitation of the housing market. Until we stop the record level of foreclosures, this crisis is going to continue to worsen, whether we pass this bill or not. For these reasons, I oppose this bill. I think Congress can do better, and I think Congress can come up with a better, more targeted solution to this complex crisis. It saddens me that I would oppose so many of my colleagues who have offered very cogent reasons. It is true we have to do something, but this particular legislation is not the right solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we have just passed the NASA reauthorization bill. It is noteworthy that next week, October 1, the 50th anniversary of the start of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and if my colleagues will recall, that was 1958. My colleagues may remember what was happening. The Soviet Union had surprised us by putting into orbit the first satellite, Sputnik and America, in midst of the cold war among two superpowers, was absolutely shocked that we were behind in our technology; that we could not be premier. Then, lo and behold, 3 years later, they shocked us again by putting the first human in orbit, Yuri Gagarin, for one orbit when, in fact, we only had a rocket, the Redstone, that could get a human into suborbit. Then we put Alan Shepard and subsequently Gus Grissom in suborbit, and then, in the meantime, the Soviet Union put Titov into several orbits. Of course, the eyes of the world then focused in on Cape Canaveral, when a young marine, one of the original seven American astronauts, named John Glenn, climbed into that capsule knowing that the Atlas rocket had a 20-percent chance of failure. He rode it into the heavens for only three orbits. There was an indication on the instrument panel that his heat shield was loose, and as he started the deorbit burn, John Glenn knew that if that was an accurate reading, on reentry into the Earth's fiery atmosphere, heating up in excess of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, he would burn up. It is that memorable time when we heard his last words before he went into the blackout period on radio transmissions: John Glenn humming ``The Battle Hymn of the Republic.'' It is hard to tell that story without getting a lump in my throat. Of course, what then happened, months before we flew John Glenn, we had a young President who said: We are going to the Moon and back within 9 years. This Nation came together. It focused the political will, it provided the resources, and it did what people did not think could be done. A generation of young people so inspired by this Nation's space program started pouring into the universities, into math and science and technology and engineering. That generation that was educated in high technology has been the generation that has led us to be the leader in a global marketplace by producing the technology, the innovations, the intellectual capital that has allowed us to continue to be that leader. So it is with that background that this Senator, who has the privilege of chairing the Space and Science Subcommittee within the Commerce Committee, wants to say: Happy birthday, NASA. We are sending to the House of Representatives tonight this NASA reauthorization bill, which will give the flexibility to the next President, and his designee as the next leader of NASA, the flexibility in a very troubled program that has not had the resources to do all the things that are demanded of it to try to continue to keep America preeminent in space; also to continue to have access to our own International Space Station that we built and paid for; and then to chart out a course for the future exploration of the heavens that will keep us fulfilling our destiny of our character as an American people, which is that by nature we are explorers and adventurers. We never want to give that up. If we ever do, we will be a second- rate nation. But we would not because we have always had a frontier, a new frontier. In the development of this country, it used to be westward. Now it i upward and it is inward and that is the frontier we want to continue to explore. So happy birthday, NASA. It is my hope that we will have the House of Representatives take this up on their suspension calendar tomorrow. I wish to give great credit to the staff who are in the room for the majority and the minority. They all have worked at enormous overload-- Chan Lieu and Jeff Bingham. Jeff, despite the fact of having suffered a heart attack earlier this year, and we didn't even let him out of his recuperative bed but that I was on the phone with him getting him to start corralling all these other Senators and House Members so we could get a consensus, so we could come together in an agreement. The result tonight is the fact that this has been cleared in a 100- Member Senate, when Senators are on edge and they are always looking for something to object to, and there is no objection here, as ruled by the Presiding Officer. My congratulations to all the people, to the staff of the Commerce Committee, and to the staff of the Science and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives, chaired by Congressman Bart Gordon of Tennessee. I am very grateful for everybody coming together and making this happen. I want to say a special thanks to all of the Senate staff who worked so hard on the NASA authorization bill. Not just Chan Lieu and Jeff Bingham, but also Ann Zulkosky and Beth Bacon on the Commerce Committee, as well as Art Maples, my Congressional Fellow. We also had tremendous support from our legislative council, Lloyd Ator and John Baggley. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, with gas prices as high as they are in our country, rail is becoming a more popular mode of transportation. As we find ourselves dealing with more trains on the rails, with crews being asked to work longer hours and make more trips, it is imperative that we ensure these operations are conducted safely. The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act would make sure that rail crews are properly rested and that hazardous materials are properly secured. It also includes critical improvements to our rail infrastructure at bridges and grade crossings. I regret that I could not be here to cast my vote on Monday, but if I were here, I would have voted in favor of cloture. This bill deserves an up-or-down vote because the American people deserve a safe rail transportation system.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 3:15 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 104.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 951, S. 2382.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the Pryor amendment at the desk be agreed to; the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 960, S. 3166.