Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the reason I asked to speak as in morning business is because I wish to talk on another subject that is not the subject of the Mortgage Foreclosure Protection Act but is the continuing saga we have about seating the Democratic delegates to the national convention from the States of Florida and Michigan. Over the weekend, in the State of Florida, the State party met. Having already elected the delegates under their rules from the various congressional districts, the only thing to complete the election of the Florida delegation was the remaining delegates who are selected at large of the whole State, proportionate to the amount of votes both Senators Obama and Clinton got in the January 29 primary--a primary, by the way, that had a record turnout of 1.75 million, almost 2 million Florida Democrats who turned out and voted. As a result of that, in that proportion to which Senator Clinton got 50 percent of the vote and Senator Obama got 33 percent of the vote, the rest of the delegation of the total of 211 delegates were selected. So Florida's delegate selection process has gone through under the normal procedures set out by the rules and bylaws of the Florida Democratic Party. So the question now is, now that we have our delegates duly elected, are they going to be seated? Well, of course, you know the position of this Senator from Florida, who has been trying for 9 months now to work a compromise by which we can get the delegates seated. But the Democratic National Committee has completely rejected all the attempts. Just think, if we had done this last August and September, when we were trying this and had this issue behind us in Florida, how much easier it would be going forward not to face the nail-biting scenario and drama we see playing out in front of our eyes, since both the candidates, Barack and Hillary, are so close, not only in delegates but in national vote and so forth. At the end of the day, I believe, as the Good Book says, come and let us reason together, that will prevail and the delegation from my State of Florida, as well as Michigan, will be seated. Because at some point, the party chieftains are going to understand that if you want to win the election in November, you can't ``dis'' the delegations from Florida and Michigan. Why? Conventional wisdom says that there are four big States. In order for a Democratic nominee to win, they must get three of those four. What are they? They are Michigan, Ohio to the east, and further to the east, Pennsylvania. What is the fourth? Florida. Well, lo and behold, of those critical States in winning a Presidential election in the electoral college, as a result of the November election, lo and behold, two of the four are Florida and Michigan. So the party chieftains need to start focusing on November and the treatment of Florida and Michigan. Now, I can only speak for Florida--and I know Senators Levin and Stabenow can certainly speak for their State, and they have been trying as well--but it is time to get a formula by which we can seat the delegations. We have tried everything since the Democratic National Committee last September said: No, the rules say we can take away half your delegates. But, no, we are going to take the full pound of flesh, and we are going to take away all your delegates, Florida. Then they left me no choice but I had to sue the chairman; my party, the Democratic National Committee, I had to sue them in Federal court. The Federal district judge in Florida did not agree with my constitutional arguments and dismissed the lawsuit. I disagreed with his reasoning because I think the constitutional protections of due process and equal protection of the laws do apply, but nevertheless I didn't have time to file an appeal because January 29 was fast upon us, so it is what it is. Since then, I have been trying several different things, along with members of the Democratic congressional delegation of Florida. This is one of the most recent I have suggested, and other members of the delegation have as well. Since the Democratic National Committee's rules say that if a State moves earlier than February 5, that the DNC will take away half of that State's delegates to the national convention, let's try that as a means, in the spirit of compromise, of getting the Florida delegation seated. Of course, since all 211 are now elected, duly, in the processes of Florida, you can seat the whole delegation if such a compromise were struck by giving each of them half a vote. In the spirit of compromise, let's get that done. Four weeks ago, on this floor, when we had that all-night session, the Presidential candidates were all here. Of course I took the opportunity to speak to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton about such a compromise. In terms of raw politics, if the whole delegation were seated, Senator Clinton would have an advantage of 38 votes, but if you seat the delegation with half of its vote, in the spirit of compromise, you cut that in half, and her advantage from Florida would be only 19 delegate votes. I make my appeal again to the DNC. Nobody is happy with where we are. Every time anybody gets on the news programs talking about the Presidential contest, which is vigorous and close, everybody asks the question about what to do about Michigan and Florida. Everybody is starting to understand that it is time to get this decision done, a compromise to get the delegation seated, and to move on. The problem is, when you come to these kinds of decisions, one candidate sees that it advantages them and the other candidate sees that it disadvantages them, and it is very difficult to get an agreement. However, the question has to be injected: At the end of the day, what is most important? I submit that at the end of the day, it is clearly in the interests of the Democratic nominee to be able to win the votes, on November 4, from the State of Florida and from the State of Michigan. You say: Does that mean those States wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee? I can only tell you what the data say. The data--surveys in Florida--say 22 percent of independents in Florida would be less likely to vote for the Democratic nominee because of all this fracas. In truth, once we get a nominee, the electorate is going to be focused on the November election and choosing the leader of the free world and a leader who can straighten out the mess we find ourselves in and the huge challenges facing this country. Let me give an example. I was stunned over the weekend to find this result to this question in a major national survey: Is this country going in the right direction or is it going in the wrong direction? I was stunned to see the results, that 81 percent of the American people were saying the country was going in the wrong direction. That is a phenomenal response that begs for leadership in whom we select as the next President of the United States. I do believe we will see down the road, once we have our nominee, that people get focused on that instead of the fracas we now have enveloping Florida and Michigan. My final comment, since we have been joined by the esteemed senior Senator from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee: If ever there is an opportunity for reform, it is now. If ever there is a reminder to us that this chaos begs for order to emerge out of the chaos, if ever there is an example of Americans being dissatisfied with a nominating process, it is now. If you leave it alone and let it take its natural course, what is going to happen is States, in the next election, 4 years down the road, are going to be jumping each other. Suddenly, your first caucus or primary is going to be on Halloween, and as a result you will have an even more chaotic situation. So this begs for a rational plan. Senator Levin and I have offered such a rational plan. It is one idea. There are many. Ours would have six primaries, interregional. They would start in March and go through June, and the order of the States collected together interregionally around the country, big States and small States together, would be done by lot, by drawing a number out of a hat, 1 to 6, whether they go first in March or are last, No. 6, in June. Then 4 years later they would rotate, and the 2's would go to 1's and the 1's would go to the end for the June primary. That bill has been referred to the Rules Committee. It is an idea. Obviously, in the tumult and the hurly-burly of a Presidential campaign, we are not going to move on legislation such as this. But down the road, in the next Congress, after this election, the chaos begs for order, a rational plan of selecting our Presidential nominees. I have offered a number of other suggestions as well. Make elections easier. Why do we have to vote just on 1 day--a Tuesday--when people often find it very difficult to get off of work or to go to work late or to get home early in order to vote? Why don't we make elections easier for people? Why don't we give them a 2-week period prior to the election that they could go to designated places in their county to vote early? Why don't we make it a lot easier for people to vote, if they want to vote by mail, which is--we traditionally call it an absentee ballot. Let's enable them to call up the supervisor of the elections office and get an absentee ballot without them having to swear they are not going to be in their community on the day of the election or without them having to swear they are sick and cannot get to the poll. Why don't we make it easy? Why don't we give grants for people back in their communities and counties and States to do pilot projects, to study whether we could, in fact, do what Oregon does, which is to vote by mail, where they get 90 percent participation? Why don't we give grants to do a pilot study as to whether the integrity of the voting process could be retained by voting by the Internet in certain circumstances, such as military overseas ballots? Why don't we do all of this in election reform? Indeed, this Senator would propose the ultimate reach: Why don't we amend the U.S. Constitution and abolish the Electoral College where, in fact, the popular vote for President will determine who is going to be President instead of this arcane, archaic institution called the Electoral College which has caused, several times in our history, a Presidential candidate to get the most votes but the other candidate is the one who wins because of the Electoral College votes? What I am saying is we ought to put all these ideas on the table. We ought to make voting easier. We certainly ought to reform the Presidential nominating process. And we ought to consider letting the majority rule in this country. We have had a reminder in the chaos of this year. Americans are dissatisfied with this process. We need to make it better. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, under current law, you can invade your retirement fund, your 401(k) fund, in order to purchase a home without paying the 10-percent penalty. What this amendment says is, if home ownership and keeping people in their homes is an important value in America, and they are about to have their home taken away because of this foreclosure crisis, then it seems to me we would want to amend the law to allow them to take money out of their retirement fund in order to forestall the foreclosure and stay in their homes. That is what this amendment does. It allows someone to withdraw up to $25,000 from their retirement fund without paying the 10-percent penalty. That has to be used for the purpose of foreclosure prevention purposes; that is like paying on the principal or interest payments; that is like a refinancing or a mortgage modification. To make sure people do not abuse this, we are limiting it to a 2-year period and we are additionally going to say, the money you bring out to help you so you do not go into foreclosure, if you put that money back into your retirement fund within 3 years, you are not going to have to pay the income tax on it. So it is a direct, tailored amendment to try to help people accomplish what the underlying goal is, which is to prevent foreclosures. I am joined by my colleague from Minnesota, who wants to speak on this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, because this is the Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Act, just what the chairman of the Banking Committee has brought up, let's remind ourselves what is the underlying bill. The State of this Senator has the second highest number of foreclosures in the country. That is why I ask consent we set aside the pending amendment. I call up amendment No. 4423.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Can we then create some ideas between our respective staffs--yours, Finance; the Banking Committee; ours individually--and see if we can come up with something to address the issue?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to close with a couple of sentences. As the chairman of the Banking Committee can so well instruct us, for most Americans, their home is their most valuable asset. We ought to be adopting policy, through enacting law, that allows them to be able to stay in their own home and to use every tool available to stay in that home. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to first extend my appreciation to the Senator in the chair for the courtesy he extended to me earlier with regard to the duties of the Presiding Officer. The Senator from Vermont is very kind. Later on, I will be offering an amendment with Senator Coleman, and we think this is an amendment that will possibly be accepted. So I am going to wait and not offer the amendment until Senator Coleman is able to be here. But I wish to go on and set the record of what this amendment would be. Under current law, if a person has a 401(k) retirement plan and they want to buy a house and it is to be their principal residence, they can take up to $10,000 out of their retirement plan for the purchase of that house and not pay the penalty under law for taking assets out of their retirement plan. Now, since that is available to us under current law, would it not make sense for a person, if they are about to lose their home, their principal residence, to be able to take money out of their retirement plan in order to save their home from foreclosure, if it were done in a limited period of time, if it were the principal residence for them, not to have to pay that 10-percent penalty? So that is the essence of the amendment. It would allow a person, under these circumstances, and this would only be available for 2 years, given the fact that now is the time of the foreclosure crisis, that the homeowner, on their principal residence, could then take $25,000 out of their retirement plan without having to pay that penalty. Now, of course, if they keep it out, they are then going to have to pay income tax on that, which has up to that point been nontaxable because it has been in the retirement plan. But if they put it back in within a 3-year period, they would avoid the income tax. So we are trying to make it available under the theory that if it is going to purchase a home and to give someone a break by going into their retirement savings, then it ought to be good public policy to help them save their home from foreclosure by going into their retirement savings in order to save their home. That is why we think, at least from the early signals from the staff on both sides of the aisle, this would be a salutary amendment that may get some serious consideration to accept. This benefit is limited to 2 years, so it is not going to be permanent. So it will address the situation here. Why? Because in most instances, for Americans, their home is the single source of wealth for those Americans. So it makes sense, it makes common sense, to allow homeowners to use every tool available to stay in their own home and avoid foreclosure and save their greatest investment. So I am certainly encouraging my colleagues to support this amendment, and at the appropriate time, with the approval of the chairman of the committee, we will actually offer the amendment. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to aid an industry that is vital to the State of Florida and that, like many others in this Nation, is suffering during the current economic downturn: the charter and recreational fishing industry. I am introducing the Charter and Recreational Fishing Collective Marketing Act of 2008. This bill would allow charter boat and other recreational fishermen to act together in associations for the purposes of catching, producing, and marketing aquatic products. By gaining strength in numbers through such associations, charter and recreational fishermen could negotiate lower prices when purchasing services and products, such as insurance, fuel, ice, and other supplies. If they choose to do so, this bill would also allow these associations to implement vessel capacity reduction programs--in other words, to buy-out those members who already wish to leave the industry voluntarily but lack the financial wherewithal to do so. These associations could also undertake research, such as scientific monitoring of their fisheries, and in the process help improve conservation and management of fishery resources. Mr. President, this legislation does nothing more than provide charter and recreational fishermen the same rights and abilities to work collectively that commercial fishermen have enjoyed since 1934. This legislation has no hearing on fishing allocations or related regulations. In light of the great economic challenges that our country is facing, we have an obligation to ensure the viability of industries that support our coastal communities. The Charter and Recreational Fishing Collective Marketing Act of 2008 would help us meet that obligation. 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 legislation to aid an industry that is vital to the State of Florida and that, like many others in this Nation, is suffering during the current economic downturn: the charter and recreational fishing industry. I am introducing the Charter and Recreational Fishing Collective Marketing Act of 2008. This bill would allow charter boat and other recreational fishermen to act together in associations for the purposes of catching, producing, and marketing aquatic products. By gaining strength in numbers through such associations, charter and recreational fishermen could negotiate lower prices when purchasing services and products, such as insurance, fuel, ice, and other supplies. If they choose to do so, this bill would also allow these associations to implement vessel capacity reduction programs--in other words, to buy-out those members who already wish to leave the industry voluntarily but lack the financial wherewithal to do so. These associations could also undertake research, such as scientific monitoring of their fisheries, and in the process help improve conservation and management of fishery resources. Mr. President, this legislation does nothing more than provide charter and recreational fishermen the same rights and abilities to work collectively that commercial fishermen have enjoyed since 1934. This legislation has no hearing on fishing allocations or related regulations. In light of the great economic challenges that our country is facing, we have an obligation to ensure the viability of industries that support our coastal communities. The Charter and Recreational Fishing Collective Marketing Act of 2008 would help us meet that obligation. 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, we are on the mortgage foreclosure bill, S. 2636. It is my hope, my understanding that the two sides are now negotiating as to whether they can come out with a bipartisan package. I rise to speak to the bill before us that has come out of committee. I support it. I am a cosponsor. It is self-evident why I support the bill, because our people are hurting. There is no doubt that the housing market in Florida is in shambles. Florida home sales last month were down 28 percent compared to this time last year. The median home price in Florida was down 14 percent. At the same time, foreclosures are skyrocketing. January's foreclosure rate ranked Florida third highest in the country. We had the second highest rate of total foreclosures nationwide, a 158-percent increase from last year. One area of Florida, Lee County, which includes Fort Myers, Cape Coral, an area that has been booming with growth, has the highest foreclosure rate in the Nation, sadly, with 1 of every 86 homes entering foreclosure. In one estimate, nearly 200,000 homes in Florida will be lost in this year and next year due to foreclosure. We have seen these horror stories on TV where the sheriff is knocking on the door and forces the family, with the children, out. If they are not home, he has to go in and take all of the furniture out of the home and put it on the front lawn. This crisis is not limited to subprime mortgages or risky borrowers. It is destroying entire communities. The ripple effect translates into big losses for each State's economy--in Florida's case, a $36 billion decrease in home value and tax base. The bill before us provides some commonsense relief. It is designed to help struggling families keep their homes and help communities that have been harmed by foreclosures. It is going to help people keep their homes by letting them refinance out of the subprime loans. It is going to fund housing counselors to help those at risk of foreclosure. A lot of people who face the risk of losing their home are overwhelmed because they don't know what to do. By providing some housing counselors to help them work their way out of this foreclosure problem, and, to a certain degree, prime homeowners, homeowners where the residence is their prime residence, it is going to be able to help them modify their mortgages in bankruptcy court. It is going to give a new power to the bankruptcy judge to modify that mortgage so the person doesn't lose the home from underneath them. This bill is going to take our community development block grant funds to help a community provide for the neediest, and through the CDBG funds, it will help a city or a county to purchase foreclosed properties and then turn around and rent them or resell them so we can get them back on the market as fast as possible. Additionally, it is going to increase funds for foreclosure prevention counseling. That is not the counselor I spoke of a while ago, after and in the midst of the foreclosure crisis. This is to help somebody work out of the problem before it ever occurs. It also makes more clear disclosures on mortgage documents when the homeowner is signing a mortgage in the first place, in order that they know what is coming, know what their obligations are under the mortgage. I am sure most of the Senators here are going to support this legislation. It is a question of being able to see if we can get some agreement. The majority leader is working hard to do that. It is time we extended this relief to homeowners, not just those on Wall Street; in other words, those on Main Street as well. That is what this bill does. I yield the floor.

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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 471 and 473; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a Feinstein substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the committee substitute amendment as amended be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to speak to an issue that is all too familiar to my State of Florida but has now taken on such importance that it is a subject that is all too familiar to the entire country, joined by our sister State, Michigan; it is an issue that is sacred to our democracy. It is the issue of the right to vote and to have that vote counted as it was intended. A year ago, the Florida legislature passed a bill to move Florida's Presidential primary to an early date on the national election calendar. Their thinking was to give our large and diverse State, which is a microcosm of the entire country, more of a say in the selection of Presidential nominees. This violated the two national parties' rules, and the threat was made that if Florida moved ahead, both the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee would take away half of Florida's delegates. The Florida legislature, despite that, changed the date of Florida's election by law, moving it 1 week earlier than the imposed deadline by the two national parties. The Florida legislature is controlled by the Republican Party, and the Democrats in the legislature, through their Democratic leader in the Florida House as well as the Florida Senate, offered an amendment to put the date of the Florida primary back to February 5 so it did not violate the two national party rules. That amendment was defeated. The bill went on to final passage. In addition to the January 29 date for the Presidential primary, it was primarily a bill about election machines and accountability. So on final passage it was clearly going to be a near unanimous vote. Therefore, the Florida legislature passed and the Republican Governor signed into law the new election date. I repeat that story because people who want to penalize Florida often miss the fact that it was not Florida Democrats who changed the date. Well, we all know what happened after that. Both national parties decided to punish Florida because those parties' rules reserved the early Presidential contest to a handful of other States. The Republican National Committee, pursuant to their rules, took away half of Florida's delegation. The Democratic National Committee decided to extract an extra pound of flesh and took away all of the delegates of Florida's delegation. For 8 months now, I have been immersed in a fight to get the chairman of my party to end the stalemate and to seek Florida's delegates and to honor the January 29 primary vote because on that date we had a historic turnout. Some 3.6 million citizens headed to the polls and cast ballots in Florida's Democratic and Republican Presidential primaries. For me, it is pretty simple. It is a case of fundamental rights versus party rules. So when there could not be a compromise worked out last August, September, and into October, I sued my own party in Federal district court. In December, the Federal judge ruled against my motion, and at that late date it was too late to appeal. I have continued to push for my party to find a way to seat a delegation from Florida, while giving Floridians a meaningful voice in the selection of their party's nominee. This fight has been based on the principle that, in America, every citizen has an equal right to vote, it is based on a premise that Floridians are entitled to have their votes count as intended, and it is based on a belief that we all deserve a say in picking our Presidential nominees. More recently, I, along with others, asked the national Democratic Party to look into paying for a mail-in revote. The party declined. The State party proposed it, few people could agree on the specifics, and certainly the candidates themselves couldn't agree on the specifics. Now we are at a point where reaching a solution is critical. And so when we were last in session, about 2\1/2\ weeks ago, I asked the two Democratic candidates, who happened to be on the floor that day when we had the session that lasted most of the night, to consider a proposal whereby they would go back to the original rules of the Democratic Party and seat the delegation with half its vote but still based on the January 29 results. This is allowed by the Democratic rules, as it was done by the GOP. If nothing else, all this brouhaha we now find ourselves in for this election has certainly provided further evidence our system is broken. Yet as to our right to vote and to have that vote count, there can be no debate. The goal is simple. The principle is very simple: It is one person, one vote. Last fall, I filed legislation in the Senate to require that no vote be cast for Federal office on a touch-screen voting machine starting in the next Presidential election 4 years from now. I also joined the senior Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, to propose a system of six rotating interregional primaries, from March to June, in each Presidential election year. Very soon, I am filing a broader based election reform bill, and this new legislation will abolish the electoral college. It will be a proposed constitutional amendment and will, therefore, give citizens direct election of their President by the popular vote. We have seen in the history of this country a few times when one candidate gets the most votes, but it is the other candidate that wins because of the archaic electoral college process provided in the Constitution. In this new package, it will have the six rotating interregional primaries that will give both large States and small States a fair say in the nomination process. This legislation will establish early voting in each State to make it easier for the voter to vote, instead of going on 1 day. It will eliminate machines that don't produce a voting paper trail, so if you have to recount, you don't have just a piece of software, you have the actual paper trail in order to be able to do the recount in an accurate way. This package will allow every qualified voter in every State to cast an absentee ballot on demand. In some States, you can't cast an absentee ballot unless you fill out some affidavit that says you are not going to be in your city on the day of the election, or that you are sick and you can't get to the election. We ought to make it easy for the voter to vote. The package will also give grants to States that develop mail-in balloting and grants for pilot studies to study secure Internet voting. We have had too many of these questions arise in my State of Florida over the years, and perhaps this is why Floridians are so sensitive about this. So I am reaching out to my colleagues. I respectfully ask each of the Senators to make suggestions to make this a better bill. Let's remember it was more than 230 years ago that our Founding Fathers declared all men are created equal, but the country still had to wait another 87 years before President Lincoln signed a proclamation freeing the slaves. It took another 57 years before women in America were allowed to vote. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony was arrested for voting. After that, she delivered a speech on women's right to vote. ``The ballot,'' she said, ``is the only means of securing the blessings of liberty provided by this government.'' Let me repeat those profound words. ``The ballot,'' Susan B. Anthony said, ``is the only means of securing the blessings of liberty provided by this government.'' Even still, it took another 93 years before our Nation belatedly enacted a law guaranteeing every U.S. citizen an equal right to vote--the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This country cannot afford to wait another 93 years before we fix the flaws we still see in our election system. The blessings of liberty cannot wait. With what we have seen thus far in this election cycle, the time for election reform is now. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 495, submitted earlier today by Senator Akaka.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 2; that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of Proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221, and that all time during any adjournment, recess or period of morning business count postcloture; further, that at 12:30 p.m., the majority leader be recognized.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2756, and the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.