Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 164, submitted earlier today.

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, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 163, submitted earlier today.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m., Monday, April 23; that on Monday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 2:45 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the second half controlled by the Republicans; that at 2:45 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of S. 761, the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill designating the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and the 126 surrounding acres in Jupiter, Florida, as an ``Outstanding Natural Area.'' The Jupiter Lighthouse is a local and regional icon, full of rich history and home to many endangered plant and animal species. Designating the lighthouse as an ``Outstanding Natural Area'' will preserve the rich cultural heritage and important ecological value of the site. This designation would give the Jupiter Inlet the distinction of being the sole East Coast representative of the National Landscape Conservation System--the eastern counterpart to the Yaquina Head Lighthouse in Oregon. This bill is the product of the hard work and cooperation of many people in Florida, including the Town of Jupiter Island, the Town of Jupiter, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, the Loxahatchee River Historical Society, and numerous others. I am also pleased that Representative Tim Mahoney is introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives. 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, today I am introducing a bill designating the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and the 126 surrounding acres in Jupiter, Florida, as an ``Outstanding Natural Area.'' The Jupiter Lighthouse is a local and regional icon, full of rich history and home to many endangered plant and animal species. Designating the lighthouse as an ``Outstanding Natural Area'' will preserve the rich cultural heritage and important ecological value of the site. This designation would give the Jupiter Inlet the distinction of being the sole East Coast representative of the National Landscape Conservation System--the eastern counterpart to the Yaquina Head Lighthouse in Oregon. This bill is the product of the hard work and cooperation of many people in Florida, including the Town of Jupiter Island, the Town of Jupiter, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, the Loxahatchee River Historical Society, and numerous others. I am also pleased that Representative Tim Mahoney is introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives. 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, our hearts go out to the citizens of Virginia, to the university community, and to the families and the loved ones of those in this tragedy. It goes without saying that we will get to the bottom of this and then find out what is going wrong in this country that our sense of morality has gone askew so that a senseless set of murders such as this would occur. I am here to speak on behalf of this intelligence legislation on which we are about to have a vote, cutting off debate so we can proceed to finalize the bill. It is necessary that we do that. I had the privilege of serving on the Intelligence Committee along with my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, on his committee, the Armed Services Committee, as well as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There is so much going on that is at stake for this country that we cannot in any way delay this Intelligence bill; it needs to be considered; it needs to be amended, if that is the will of this body; it needs to be passed, and we need to then get reconciled with the House and get it to the President for his signature. There are too many things that are super important to this country for us to do anything other than protect the interests of this country through our intelligence activities. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the Senate my absence during today's vote to invoke cloture on S. 372, the Intelligence Authorization Act. I am in Florida, and my flight was due to arrive in Washington this afternoon. However, because of the inclement weather, my flight was delayed and I am still in Tallahassee. I am a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and I have already voted in favor of this measure. As such, had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on the resolution.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this, to me, is an issue where we ought to be using some common sense. We have all of these enormously plaguing diseases that are upon us, and we have the first rays of hope we can cure these diseases. Who among Americans has not been touched by diseases such as ALS and Parkinson's and spinal cord injury and diabetes and Alzheimer's and cardiovascular disease and cancer? Who among us, one way or another, has not been touched by it? Now we have this ray of hope that the scientists tell us, by growing these stem cells, we have this opportunity for enormous medical breakthroughs. At the National Prayer Breakfast this year, the speaker was Dr. Francis Collins. He is the fellow who headed the project of mapping the entire human genome. I have heard Dr. Collins speak on other occasions in which he has talked about the promise of all of the stem cell research. Dr. Collins--and I say this for a specific reason--was the speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast because he is this eminent scientist who successfully mapped the human genome, but he is also a man of a deep and abiding faith who happens to support not only the stem cell research that we address here today--which is in this bill to open the coffers of the Federal Government so we can finance beyond the limited number of lines in embryonic stem cell research--but Dr. Collins would make the case for going beyond in something known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is taking an egg, scooping out the nucleus, taking a donor's skin cell, taking the nucleus from that, and implanting it in the egg, stimulating the process to grow, and growing a specific line of stem cells that are exactly tailored to the donor's cells, and growing whatever the stem cells are. But that is another advance. That is not even what we are addressing today. We are addressing Federal funding for the first kind of growing stem cells. Why we would not use the resources of the Federal Government to attack these diseases that the scientists and the medical profession feel have enormous progress, why we would not do that is beyond me. With regard to the second kind--somatic cell nuclear transfer--you are not even dealing with a fertilized egg, so you do not have that question. The question there is, are you going to where you do cloning? Well, we have the capability of passing the laws that say cloning for a human, where it would be implanted into the womb--we can say that is not only unlawful, that is criminal. That does not mean we do not proceed with the research and the development on stem cell research--in that case, somatic cell nuclear transfer. So this is a matter that can bring hope to millions. As I said, there is simply not an American who has not been touched one way or another through friends or family by this list of horrible diseases. If that gives us promise, that is enough for this Senator, and I hope it is enough for a two-thirds majority of this Senate so when the President vetoes it, we can override it. This is a bipartisan bill that is going to expand the number of stem cell lines that would be eligible for federally funded dollars for research. It clearly would accelerate the progress toward the cures and treatments for these dread diseases. Every other Senator and I have heard from thousands of people back in our States who suffer--suffer daily--from these dread diseases. With this ray of hope--like a sunburst coming through the clouds--we cannot turn our face from it. We have to face it. We have to give hope to these people who are suffering. That is the task before this Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the underlying bill, supplemental appropriations, is a must-pass piece of legislation. Attached to it is the language that has caused some controversy because it is an attempt at defining what the policy of the U.S. Government is with regard to the beginning of a redeployment from Iraq. This Senator from Florida will vote for the funding bill with this legislation attached because America needs a new direction in Iraq. For 4 years, what we have been doing has not been working. It has not been working because--and I am not talking about all the mistakes of why we went into Iraq under misinformation and lack of intelligence and, in some cases, I think massaged intelligence. I am not talking about that. I am talking about that we did not have a sufficient understanding of the history of Islam and the history of that part of the world to understand how much enmity there is between the different sects of Islam and how, ever since 680 A.D.--the Battle of Karbala right in what is, today, Iraq--the Sunnis and the Shiites have been at each other's throats, and we are seeing that played out in gruesome detail right now. Our men and women in uniform and not in uniform--because we have a lot of people over there defending the interests of the United States who are not in uniform: CIA, DEA, FBI, the State Department; you can go on and on--our men and women are right in the middle of that crossfire, particularly in Baghdad. Now, when you talk about Iraq, you are talking about multiple differences in the country. The northern part of the country is predominantly Kurd. They, for all intents and purposes, have an autonomous government. They even had that while Saddam Hussein was in power because the northern part of Iraq was protected by American air cover. They can basically provide for their own protection and their own governance. The central part of Iraq is predominantly Sunni. It was from the Sunnis that the Baathist Party, the party of Saddam Hussein, dominated the rest of the country. The south of Iraq is predominately Shiite. This is a Shiite kindredship which we now find--with the disintegration of Iraq--the kinship, the commonality of interests between the Shiites in Iraq and the Shiites in Iran. The big difference between the two is in Iran, they are Persians; in Iraq, they are Arabs. Now, it took, for years, the hand of a brutal dictator who was gruesome beyond any measure to keep all those factions together because he was so brutal in his tactics. We are certainly glad Saddam Hussein is gone. Nobody like that who would just murder people at will deserves to be in power. You can understand it was a dictator who kept that power and kept that country, with all of its centrifugal forces, together. We as occupiers, as an occupying military force, thought we could keep it together, but we didn't understand the centrifugal forces of Iraq. Instead of being hailed as liberators, as there definitely was a lot of personal thanks toward the generosity of America for deposing the hated dictator, yet you see what started to kick in was the natural centrifugal forces. Will a democracy work in a country such as that? It would be nice if it would, but I think now, after 4 years, we are seeing it is going to be very difficult. That is why in a political settlement, at the end of the day there is probably going to be some separation of those sects with autonomy and, hopefully, with a national government that can provide for the common defense and the distribution of the oil revenues according to population. But how do you get there? We thought as an occupying force we could keep the country under control until those seeds of a representative government could start to sprout. But that was one of the mistakes the United States made, because the Secretary of Defense would not listen to the top general, General Shinseki, when he answered the question in our Senate Armed Services Committee: How many and for how long are the American forces in occupation? He said: Several hundred thousand for several years. So with too little forces, you see the results. The question is: What do we do now? That brings us to the present moment. People criticize what we are doing here and say: You don't have a plan. We most certainly do have a plan. The plan was laid out in a bipartisan commission, unanimously; five very prominent, erudite Republicans and the same, five Democrats, led by the former Secretary of State and the former chairman of the House International Relations Committee, unanimously, and they laid out a plan. They said to start a redeployment, and in the process of that redeployment, still have the American Army present so you are protecting the forces, those who are there, protecting the infrastructure. I would interpret that also to mean helping to control the borders of Iraq. Then they said, No. 2, train and equip the Iraqi Army. The Iraq Study Group even gave specifics of how you could embed advisers and then have a method for protecting the advisers embedded in the Iraqi forces. They said also to continue to go after al-Qaida. It is al-Qaida we are seeing, particularly in the western part of Iraq, that is getting insurrection among the predominant ethnic group there, the Sunnis, and they are causing mayhem all over. That is a mission we should continue. It also said: Go aggressively after an international and diplomatic initiative, bringing all the countries in the region that would then enforce a political settlement that could be brought about. This is, in essence, what is a part of this bill. I suspect we are going to be able to pass the bill because the funding for the military is absolutely necessary, so it is going to be hard for people to vote ``no'' on this. We already had the real test vote that was a two-vote margin yesterday that kept basically the language in the bill I have just outlined. So I think we are going down the right road. This isn't a mandate. This sets as a goal over a year from now a redeployment of those troops with those three main statements of purpose to continue, and it says we ought to have a comprehensive strategy, a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community. That is exactly what the Iraq Study Group brought to us unanimously. This Senator from Florida wanted to state very clearly that is why I think the Senate ought to support this funding bill, not only for the purposes of the funding, but also for the statement of what should be the policy of the United States Government with regard to Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 483

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mel Martinez as we introduce a package of bills aimed at providing a comprehensive solution to strengthen our Nation's property and casualty insurance market. Without serious reform, the Federal Government will be forced to continue to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to cover the costs of natural disasters in the United States. Worse, without Federal action, property insurance soon will become more expensive and hard to find, preventing some consumers from insuring their homes and businesses. As we know all too well, the last few years have brought a devastating cycle of natural catastrophes in the United States. In 2004 and 2005, we witnessed a series of powerful hurricanes that caused unthinkable human tragedy and property loss. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone caused over $200 billion in total economic losses, including insured and uninsured losses. In my own home State of Florida, eight catastrophic storms in fifteen months caused more than $31 billion in insured damages. Now Florida is witnessing skyrocketing insurance rates, insurance companies are canceling hundreds of thousands of policies, and Florida's State catastrophe fund is depleted. In short, the inability of our private markets to fully handle the fallout from natural disasters has made our Nation's property and casualty insurance marketplace unstable. This market instability repeatedly has forced the Federal Government to absorb billions of dollars in uninsured losses. This is a waste of taxpayer money, especially when we know there are ways to design the system to anticipate and plan for the financial impacts of catastrophes. As insurance companies struggle to maintain their businesses, costs are passed on to homeowners and small businesses in Florida and in other States. In essence, the people who can least afford it are being forced to bear the disproportionate share of the billions of dollars of losses caused by natural catastrophes. Many Floridians have seen their insurance bills double in the last few years. As I travel around Florida, I hear repeatedly from my constituents that they may soon be unable to afford property and casualty insurance. That is a frightening proposition for people living in a State where increasingly vicious hurricane seasons are predicted. I am sure we all agree--consumers never should be put in the untenable position of having to choose between purchasing insurance and purchasing other necessities. While our Nation's property and casualty insurance system is not yet broken, it's clear that Congress needs to act now to shore up the system. Private sector insurance is currently available to spread some catastrophe-related losses throughout the Nation and internationally, but most experts believe that there will be significant insurance and reinsurance shortages. These shortages could result in future dramatic rate increases for consumers and businesses and the unavailability of catastrophe insurance. Let me be clear: these issues will not just affect Florida or the coastal States. Natural catastrophes can strike anywhere in the country. For example, a major earthquake fault line runs through several of our Midwestern States. We also saw firsthand the devastating effects of a volcano eruption at Mount Saint Helens in Washington State. In the past few decades, major disasters have been declared in almost every State. As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Government has provided and will continue to provide billions of dollars and resources to pay for these catastrophic losses, at huge costs to all American taxpayers. Congress has struggled with these issues for decades. Although we have talked about these issues time and time again, nothing much has gotten accomplished. The most notable step Congress did take was to create a National Flood Insurance Program. But Congress needs to do much more. It's time for a comprehensive approach to solving our Nation's property and casualty insurance issues. These matters are usually within the purview of the States, and I cannot understate the importance of State-based solutions to these insurance issues. Nonetheless, the Federal Government also has a critical interest in ensuring appropriate and fiscally responsible risk management of catastrophes. For example, mortgages require reliable property insurance, and the unavailability of reliable property insurance would make most real estate transactions impossible. Moreover, the public health, safety, and welfare demand that structures damaged or destroyed in catastrophes be reconstructed as soon as possible. In order to help protect consumers and small businesses, today I join Senator Martinez to introduce this package of bills as part of a comprehensive approach to fixing our troubled insurance system. Let me summarize each of the bills and tell you how this integrated approach makes good policy sense. The first piece of legislation Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007. This bill is a companion bill to legislation introduced by Florida Representatives Brown-Waite, Buchanan, and others. This bill would establish a Fund within the U.S. Department of Treasury, which would sell Federal catastrophe insurance to State catastrophe funds; like the fund I helped to set up in Florida. State catastrophe funds essentially act as reinsurance mechanisms for insurance companies who lack resources to compensate homeowners for their losses. Under this bill, State catastrophe funds would be eligible to purchase reinsurance from the Federal fund at sound rates. However, a State catastrophe fund would be prohibited from gaining access to the Federal fund until private insurance companies and the State catastrophe fund met their financial obligations. Why is this good for homeowners? Because this back-up mechanism will improve the solvency and capacity of homeowners' insurance markets, which will reduce the chance that consumers will lose their insurance coverage or be hit by huge premium increases. Importantly, the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007 also recognizes that part of the problem with our broken property and casualty insurance system lies with outdated building codes and mitigation techniques. Noted insurance experts and consumer groups have been pointing out this problem for many years. So, under the bill, the Secretary of the Treasury would establish an expert commission to assist States in developing mitigation, prevention, recovery, and rebuilding programs that would reduce the types of enormous damage we have seen caused by past hurricanes. I note that this bill covers not just hurricanes, but catastrophes such as tornados, earthquakes, cyclones, catastrophic winter storms, and volcanic eruptions. These are disasters that can--and do--occur in many different States. Again, every State and every taxpayer is affected by this problem, not just Florida. This bill has widespread support from a broad range of stakeholders, including ProtectingAmerica.org, a national coalition of first responders, businesses, and emergency managers. This organization is co-chaired by former FEMA director James Lee Witt, one of the most respected names in disaster prevention and preparedness. The second bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Catastrophic Savings Accounts Act of 2007. This bill proposes changing the Federal tax code to allow homeowners to put money aside-- on a tax-free basis--to grow over time. If and when a catastrophe hits, a homeowner could take the accumulated savings out of the account to cover uninsured losses, deductible expenses, and building upgrades to mitigate damage that could be caused in future disasters. Homeowners could even reduce their insurance premiums because their tax-free savings would allow them to choose higher deductibles. The benefits of this approach are pretty straightforward and very consumer friendly. Homeowners would be encouraged to plan in advance for future disasters, and they wouldn't be taxed to do it. Moreover, homeowners wouldn't be as dependent on insurance companies to help them out immediately after a disaster. As one expert has noted, why should a consumer continue to give insurance companies thousands of dollars each year when the consumer could deposit the same amount of money annually in a tax-free, interest-bearing savings account controlled by the consumer? The third bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007. Under this bill, insurance companies would be permitted to accumulate tax-deferred catastrophic reserves, much like the way that homeowners would be permitted under the bill I just discussed. Depending on their size, insurance companies could save up to a certain capped amount, which would grow over time. Our current Federal tax code actually provides a disincentive for insurance companies to accumulate reserve funds for catastrophes. Under the current system, insurance companies can only reserve against losses that have already occurred, instead of future losses. The United States is the only industrialized nation that actually taxes reserves in this way. It's time for reform, so that consumers are better protected. Make no mistake, though--this bill is not a give-away to the insurance companies. Instead, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007 would strictly regulate when and how insurance companies could access their reserves, to make sure the money is used only for its intended purposes. If implemented correctly, this bill could result in approximately $15 billion worth of reserves being saved up by insurance companies, which later could be spent to pay for policyholder claims and to keep insurance policies available and affordable. Consumers could feel more protected knowing that their insurance company would have the money saved to help them out after a major disaster. Moreover, this approach should help make the insurance market more stable and less prone to insurers going bankrupt. The fourth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the Hurricane and Tornado Mitigation Investment Act of 2007. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Gus Bilirakis and has eight cosponsors. We have learned through experience that steps taken to fortify and strengthen homes and businesses can prevent damage in the event of a catastrophe. This bill would allow a tax credit of 25 percent not to exceed $5,000 for the costs of building upgrades to mitigate damage caused by hurricanes or tornados. Updates and improvements to roofs, exterior doors and garages would be covered under this bill. To ensure that these measures are adequately constructed, a state-certified inspector must examine the home or business. The benefits of this approach are straightforward-- home and business owners would be encouraged to plan in advance for future disasters and take steps to mitigate damage caused by catastrophic events. The fifth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2007. Last year, a similar bill, introduced by Ginny Brown-Waite passed unanimously in the House of Representatives. Currently, a small percentage of consumers may be unable to find insurance from a licensed insurer, and may be able to purchase insurance from non-licensed insurers, called nonadmitted or surplus lines insurers. These surplus lines insurers often function as a ``safety valve'' for the insurance market. Florida has more individuals in the surplus lines market than any other State. Virtually every sector--insurers, producers, consumers--has voiced concern with the inefficient patchwork of different laws and regulations that characterize the surplus lines regulatory system. This bill aims to streamline regulations in the surplus lines marketplace through a mix of national standards with State enforcement and uniformity achieved through both incentives and preemption of certain State laws. This bill would create a more efficient and streamlined regulatory system and promote competition in the nonadmitted marketplace. The sixth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007. From the storms of 2004 and 2005 we learned the importance of accurate hurricane tracking and prediction. Accurate prediction provides residents of coastal communities more time to find safe and sound shelter. The objective of this bill is to enhance and improve knowledge of hurricanes by harnessing the expertise of the Federal Government's science professionals to better understand hurricane prediction, intensity, and mitigation on coastal populations and infrastructure. Let me emphasize again what we need to accomplish to reform our current insurance system and to effectively plan for catastrophic losses. We need a comprehensive approach that will make sure the United States is truly prepared for the financial fallout from natural disasters. We need a property and casualty insurance system that is not forced to spread valuable taxpayer dollars after a catastrophe strikes. We need a system that protects consumers and small businesses from losing their insurance policies or being forced to pay exorbitant insurance rates. We need ways to encourage responsible construction and mitigation techniques. And we need a system that helps insurance companies use their resources in cost- effective ways so that they will not go insolvent after major disasters. Our American economy depends on a health property and casualty insurance system. By enacting meaningful reforms, we can ensure that our economy remains protected and remains the most resilient economy in the world. I know this complicated process won't be easy for us--but let's roll up our shirtsleeves and get it done. I request that the text of the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act and the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Hagel, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, Lincoln, Biden, Vitter, Domenici, Martinez, Salazar, Snowe, Brown, Feinstein, Murray, and Clinton, I am honored to introduce legislation today that we are convinced is necessary to fix a long-standing problem in our military survivors benefits system. President Lincoln's words are as relevant and moving today as they were during the Civil War: ``as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' Our Nation continues to be engaged in a violent struggle against brutal and vicious enemies around the world. Sadly, Americans are lost every day. We must never forget that the families left behind by our courageous men and women in uniform bear the greatest pain. Their survivors face a life forever altered, and a future left unclear. They suffer the greatest cost of the ultimate sacrifice, and the nation that asked for that sacrifice must honor it. Back in 1972, Congress established the military survivors' benefits plan-- or SBP--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect their income. This benefit plan is a voluntary program purchased by the retiree or issued automatically in the case of servicemembers who die while on active duty. Retired servicemembers pay for this benefit from their retired pay. Upon their death, their spouse or dependent children can receive up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an annuity. For over five years, I've been talking about the unfair and painful offset between SBP and the Department of Veterans Affairs' Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC, which is received by the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause. Under current law, even if the surviving spouse of such a servicemember is eligible for SBP, that purchased annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC received. Another inequity in the current system is the delayed effective date for ``paid-up status'' under SBP. We should act to correct these injustices this year. We have made progress, but even with the important changes made over the last few years, the offset still fails to take care of our military widows and surviving children the way it should. We have considered and adopted increased death gratuity benefits for the survivors of our troops lost in this war, and we have changed the law to enable these survivors to automatically enroll in SBP. However, now we see the pain caused when at the same moment a widow is enrolled in SBP she is hit with the DIC offset. The SBP offset is no less painful for the survivors of our 100 percent disabled military retirees. SBP is a purchased annuity plan. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, I served as Insurance Commissioner for the State of Florida, and I know of no other purchased annuity program that can then turn around and refuse to pay you the benefits you purchased on the grounds that you are getting a different benefit from somewhere else. Our Federal civil servants receive both their purchased survivor income protection annuity and any disability compensation for which they may be entitled--without offset. Why on earth would we treat our 100 percent disabled military retirees any differently, especially after they have given the best years of their lives and their health in service to the Nation? Let me be clear about this: survivors of servicemembers are entitled in law to automatic enrollment in SBP; 100 percent disabled military retirees purchase SBP. Survivors stand to lose most or even all of the benefits under SBP only because they are also entitled to DIC. This legislation also accelerates an improvement we made earlier to the SBP program. We have already agreed that military retirees who have reached the age of 70 and paid their SBP premiums for thirty years should stop paying a premium, but we delayed the effective date for this relief until 2008. We should not delay their relief any further. The United States owes its very existence to generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have sacrificed throughout our history to keep us free. The sacrifices of today are no less important to American liberty or tragic when a life is lost in the defense of liberty everywhere. We owe them and their surviving family members a great debt. Unfortunately, it is too often that we fall short on this care. We must meet this obligation with the same sense of honor as was the service they and their families have rendered. We will continue to work to do right by those who have given this Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to our care. I appreciate the co-sponsorship of my colleagues--Senators Hagel, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, Lincoln, Biden, Vitter, Domenici, Martinez, Salazar, Snowe, Brown, Feinstein, Murray, and Clinton--and look forward to working with my colleagues in the days ahead. 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 that helps the U.S. Forest Service to protect sensitive and precious forest by selling developed land in Leon County, FL, in order to purchase at-risk land in the heart of our national forests. Specifically, this bill allows for the sale of tract W-1979, which is 114 acres in Tallahassee, the proceeds of which are specifically designated to purchase private inholdings in the Apalachicola National Forest. The Forest Service believes that W-1979 has lost its national forest character and is unmanageable; the land will be sold to Leon County, where it will help the continued advancement of Blueprint 2000, a series of community initiatives to improve Tallahassee and Leon County. By selling this land on the outskirt of the Apalachicola National Forest, the Forest Service can acquire precious land in the heart of the forest that could be lost to development. This legislation also gives the U.S. Forest Service in Florida the same flexibility to manage lands and capital that many other states have. Previously, whenever National Forest land was sold, the funds could only be used to purchase more land, while many important infrastructure projects went undone. With passage of this bill, proceeds only from the sale of ``non-green'' lands can go towards capitol improvements, such as administrative facilities that help the Forest Service manage the Ocala, Apalachicola, and Osceola National Forests. These non-green lands have already been developed with urban improvements, and no longer align with the goals of the U.S. Forest Service. Congressman Crenshaw and Boyd have introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. I hope that we can quickly pass these bills and help Leon County and the Forest Service. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mel Martinez as we introduce a package of bills aimed at providing a comprehensive solution to strengthen our Nation's property and casualty insurance market. Without serious reform, the Federal Government will be forced to continue to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to cover the costs of natural disasters in the United States. Worse, without Federal action, property insurance soon will become more expensive and hard to find, preventing some consumers from insuring their homes and businesses. As we know all too well, the last few years have brought a devastating cycle of natural catastrophes in the United States. In 2004 and 2005, we witnessed a series of powerful hurricanes that caused unthinkable human tragedy and property loss. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone caused over $200 billion in total economic losses, including insured and uninsured losses. In my own home State of Florida, eight catastrophic storms in fifteen months caused more than $31 billion in insured damages. Now Florida is witnessing skyrocketing insurance rates, insurance companies are canceling hundreds of thousands of policies, and Florida's State catastrophe fund is depleted. In short, the inability of our private markets to fully handle the fallout from natural disasters has made our Nation's property and casualty insurance marketplace unstable. This market instability repeatedly has forced the Federal Government to absorb billions of dollars in uninsured losses. This is a waste of taxpayer money, especially when we know there are ways to design the system to anticipate and plan for the financial impacts of catastrophes. As insurance companies struggle to maintain their businesses, costs are passed on to homeowners and small businesses in Florida and in other States. In essence, the people who can least afford it are being forced to bear the disproportionate share of the billions of dollars of losses caused by natural catastrophes. Many Floridians have seen their insurance bills double in the last few years. As I travel around Florida, I hear repeatedly from my constituents that they may soon be unable to afford property and casualty insurance. That is a frightening proposition for people living in a State where increasingly vicious hurricane seasons are predicted. I am sure we all agree--consumers never should be put in the untenable position of having to choose between purchasing insurance and purchasing other necessities. While our Nation's property and casualty insurance system is not yet broken, it's clear that Congress needs to act now to shore up the system. Private sector insurance is currently available to spread some catastrophe-related losses throughout the Nation and internationally, but most experts believe that there will be significant insurance and reinsurance shortages. These shortages could result in future dramatic rate increases for consumers and businesses and the unavailability of catastrophe insurance. Let me be clear: these issues will not just affect Florida or the coastal States. Natural catastrophes can strike anywhere in the country. For example, a major earthquake fault line runs through several of our Midwestern States. We also saw firsthand the devastating effects of a volcano eruption at Mount Saint Helens in Washington State. In the past few decades, major disasters have been declared in almost every State. As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Government has provided and will continue to provide billions of dollars and resources to pay for these catastrophic losses, at huge costs to all American taxpayers. Congress has struggled with these issues for decades. Although we have talked about these issues time and time again, nothing much has gotten accomplished. The most notable step Congress did take was to create a National Flood Insurance Program. But Congress needs to do much more. It's time for a comprehensive approach to solving our Nation's property and casualty insurance issues. These matters are usually within the purview of the States, and I cannot understate the importance of State-based solutions to these insurance issues. Nonetheless, the Federal Government also has a critical interest in ensuring appropriate and fiscally responsible risk management of catastrophes. For example, mortgages require reliable property insurance, and the unavailability of reliable property insurance would make most real estate transactions impossible. Moreover, the public health, safety, and welfare demand that structures damaged or destroyed in catastrophes be reconstructed as soon as possible. In order to help protect consumers and small businesses, today I join Senator Martinez to introduce this package of bills as part of a comprehensive approach to fixing our troubled insurance system. Let me summarize each of the bills and tell you how this integrated approach makes good policy sense. The first piece of legislation Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007. This bill is a companion bill to legislation introduced by Florida Representatives Brown-Waite, Buchanan, and others. This bill would establish a Fund within the U.S. Department of Treasury, which would sell Federal catastrophe insurance to State catastrophe funds; like the fund I helped to set up in Florida. State catastrophe funds essentially act as reinsurance mechanisms for insurance companies who lack resources to compensate homeowners for their losses. Under this bill, State catastrophe funds would be eligible to purchase reinsurance from the Federal fund at sound rates. However, a State catastrophe fund would be prohibited from gaining access to the Federal fund until private insurance companies and the State catastrophe fund met their financial obligations. Why is this good for homeowners? Because this back-up mechanism will improve the solvency and capacity of homeowners' insurance markets, which will reduce the chance that consumers will lose their insurance coverage or be hit by huge premium increases. Importantly, the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007 also recognizes that part of the problem with our broken property and casualty insurance system lies with outdated building codes and mitigation techniques. Noted insurance experts and consumer groups have been pointing out this problem for many years. So, under the bill, the Secretary of the Treasury would establish an expert commission to assist States in developing mitigation, prevention, recovery, and rebuilding programs that would reduce the types of enormous damage we have seen caused by past hurricanes. I note that this bill covers not just hurricanes, but catastrophes such as tornados, earthquakes, cyclones, catastrophic winter storms, and volcanic eruptions. These are disasters that can--and do--occur in many different States. Again, every State and every taxpayer is affected by this problem, not just Florida. This bill has widespread support from a broad range of stakeholders, including ProtectingAmerica.org, a national coalition of first responders, businesses, and emergency managers. This organization is co-chaired by former FEMA director James Lee Witt, one of the most respected names in disaster prevention and preparedness. The second bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Catastrophic Savings Accounts Act of 2007. This bill proposes changing the Federal tax code to allow homeowners to put money aside-- on a tax-free basis--to grow over time. If and when a catastrophe hits, a homeowner could take the accumulated savings out of the account to cover uninsured losses, deductible expenses, and building upgrades to mitigate damage that could be caused in future disasters. Homeowners could even reduce their insurance premiums because their tax-free savings would allow them to choose higher deductibles. The benefits of this approach are pretty straightforward and very consumer friendly. Homeowners would be encouraged to plan in advance for future disasters, and they wouldn't be taxed to do it. Moreover, homeowners wouldn't be as dependent on insurance companies to help them out immediately after a disaster. As one expert has noted, why should a consumer continue to give insurance companies thousands of dollars each year when the consumer could deposit the same amount of money annually in a tax-free, interest-bearing savings account controlled by the consumer? The third bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007. Under this bill, insurance companies would be permitted to accumulate tax-deferred catastrophic reserves, much like the way that homeowners would be permitted under the bill I just discussed. Depending on their size, insurance companies could save up to a certain capped amount, which would grow over time. Our current Federal tax code actually provides a disincentive for insurance companies to accumulate reserve funds for catastrophes. Under the current system, insurance companies can only reserve against losses that have already occurred, instead of future losses. The United States is the only industrialized nation that actually taxes reserves in this way. It's time for reform, so that consumers are better protected. Make no mistake, though--this bill is not a give-away to the insurance companies. Instead, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007 would strictly regulate when and how insurance companies could access their reserves, to make sure the money is used only for its intended purposes. If implemented correctly, this bill could result in approximately $15 billion worth of reserves being saved up by insurance companies, which later could be spent to pay for policyholder claims and to keep insurance policies available and affordable. Consumers could feel more protected knowing that their insurance company would have the money saved to help them out after a major disaster. Moreover, this approach should help make the insurance market more stable and less prone to insurers going bankrupt. The fourth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the Hurricane and Tornado Mitigation Investment Act of 2007. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Gus Bilirakis and has eight cosponsors. We have learned through experience that steps taken to fortify and strengthen homes and businesses can prevent damage in the event of a catastrophe. This bill would allow a tax credit of 25 percent not to exceed $5,000 for the costs of building upgrades to mitigate damage caused by hurricanes or tornados. Updates and improvements to roofs, exterior doors and garages would be covered under this bill. To ensure that these measures are adequately constructed, a state-certified inspector must examine the home or business. The benefits of this approach are straightforward-- home and business owners would be encouraged to plan in advance for future disasters and take steps to mitigate damage caused by catastrophic events. The fifth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2007. Last year, a similar bill, introduced by Ginny Brown-Waite passed unanimously in the House of Representatives. Currently, a small percentage of consumers may be unable to find insurance from a licensed insurer, and may be able to purchase insurance from non-licensed insurers, called nonadmitted or surplus lines insurers. These surplus lines insurers often function as a ``safety valve'' for the insurance market. Florida has more individuals in the surplus lines market than any other State. Virtually every sector--insurers, producers, consumers--has voiced concern with the inefficient patchwork of different laws and regulations that characterize the surplus lines regulatory system. This bill aims to streamline regulations in the surplus lines marketplace through a mix of national standards with State enforcement and uniformity achieved through both incentives and preemption of certain State laws. This bill would create a more efficient and streamlined regulatory system and promote competition in the nonadmitted marketplace. The sixth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007. From the storms of 2004 and 2005 we learned the importance of accurate hurricane tracking and prediction. Accurate prediction provides residents of coastal communities more time to find safe and sound shelter. The objective of this bill is to enhance and improve knowledge of hurricanes by harnessing the expertise of the Federal Government's science professionals to better understand hurricane prediction, intensity, and mitigation on coastal populations and infrastructure. Let me emphasize again what we need to accomplish to reform our current insurance system and to effectively plan for catastrophic losses. We need a comprehensive approach that will make sure the United States is truly prepared for the financial fallout from natural disasters. We need a property and casualty insurance system that is not forced to spread valuable taxpayer dollars after a catastrophe strikes. We need a system that protects consumers and small businesses from losing their insurance policies or being forced to pay exorbitant insurance rates. We need ways to encourage responsible construction and mitigation techniques. And we need a system that helps insurance companies use their resources in cost- effective ways so that they will not go insolvent after major disasters. Our American economy depends on a health property and casualty insurance system. By enacting meaningful reforms, we can ensure that our economy remains protected and remains the most resilient economy in the world. I know this complicated process won't be easy for us--but let's roll up our shirtsleeves and get it done. I request that the text of the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act and the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that helps the U.S. Forest Service to protect sensitive and precious forest by selling developed land in Leon County, FL, in order to purchase at-risk land in the heart of our national forests. Specifically, this bill allows for the sale of tract W-1979, which is 114 acres in Tallahassee, the proceeds of which are specifically designated to purchase private inholdings in the Apalachicola National Forest. The Forest Service believes that W-1979 has lost its national forest character and is unmanageable; the land will be sold to Leon County, where it will help the continued advancement of Blueprint 2000, a series of community initiatives to improve Tallahassee and Leon County. By selling this land on the outskirt of the Apalachicola National Forest, the Forest Service can acquire precious land in the heart of the forest that could be lost to development. This legislation also gives the U.S. Forest Service in Florida the same flexibility to manage lands and capital that many other states have. Previously, whenever National Forest land was sold, the funds could only be used to purchase more land, while many important infrastructure projects went undone. With passage of this bill, proceeds only from the sale of ``non-green'' lands can go towards capitol improvements, such as administrative facilities that help the Forest Service manage the Ocala, Apalachicola, and Osceola National Forests. These non-green lands have already been developed with urban improvements, and no longer align with the goals of the U.S. Forest Service. Congressman Crenshaw and Boyd have introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. I hope that we can quickly pass these bills and help Leon County and the Forest Service. 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, on behalf of myself and Senators Hagel, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, Lincoln, Biden, Vitter, Domenici, Martinez, Salazar, Snowe, Brown, Feinstein, Murray, and Clinton, I am honored to introduce legislation today that we are convinced is necessary to fix a long-standing problem in our military survivors benefits system. President Lincoln's words are as relevant and moving today as they were during the Civil War: ``as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' Our Nation continues to be engaged in a violent struggle against brutal and vicious enemies around the world. Sadly, Americans are lost every day. We must never forget that the families left behind by our courageous men and women in uniform bear the greatest pain. Their survivors face a life forever altered, and a future left unclear. They suffer the greatest cost of the ultimate sacrifice, and the nation that asked for that sacrifice must honor it. Back in 1972, Congress established the military survivors' benefits plan-- or SBP--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect their income. This benefit plan is a voluntary program purchased by the retiree or issued automatically in the case of servicemembers who die while on active duty. Retired servicemembers pay for this benefit from their retired pay. Upon their death, their spouse or dependent children can receive up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an annuity. For over five years, I've been talking about the unfair and painful offset between SBP and the Department of Veterans Affairs' Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC, which is received by the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause. Under current law, even if the surviving spouse of such a servicemember is eligible for SBP, that purchased annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC received. Another inequity in the current system is the delayed effective date for ``paid-up status'' under SBP. We should act to correct these injustices this year. We have made progress, but even with the important changes made over the last few years, the offset still fails to take care of our military widows and surviving children the way it should. We have considered and adopted increased death gratuity benefits for the survivors of our troops lost in this war, and we have changed the law to enable these survivors to automatically enroll in SBP. However, now we see the pain caused when at the same moment a widow is enrolled in SBP she is hit with the DIC offset. The SBP offset is no less painful for the survivors of our 100 percent disabled military retirees. SBP is a purchased annuity plan. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, I served as Insurance Commissioner for the State of Florida, and I know of no other purchased annuity program that can then turn around and refuse to pay you the benefits you purchased on the grounds that you are getting a different benefit from somewhere else. Our Federal civil servants receive both their purchased survivor income protection annuity and any disability compensation for which they may be entitled--without offset. Why on earth would we treat our 100 percent disabled military retirees any differently, especially after they have given the best years of their lives and their health in service to the Nation? Let me be clear about this: survivors of servicemembers are entitled in law to automatic enrollment in SBP; 100 percent disabled military retirees purchase SBP. Survivors stand to lose most or even all of the benefits under SBP only because they are also entitled to DIC. This legislation also accelerates an improvement we made earlier to the SBP program. We have already agreed that military retirees who have reached the age of 70 and paid their SBP premiums for thirty years should stop paying a premium, but we delayed the effective date for this relief until 2008. We should not delay their relief any further. The United States owes its very existence to generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have sacrificed throughout our history to keep us free. The sacrifices of today are no less important to American liberty or tragic when a life is lost in the defense of liberty everywhere. We owe them and their surviving family members a great debt. Unfortunately, it is too often that we fall short on this care. We must meet this obligation with the same sense of honor as was the service they and their families have rendered. We will continue to work to do right by those who have given this Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to our care. I appreciate the co-sponsorship of my colleagues--Senators Hagel, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, Lincoln, Biden, Vitter, Domenici, Martinez, Salazar, Snowe, Brown, Feinstein, Murray, and Clinton--and look forward to working with my colleagues in the days ahead. 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 say to my colleagues in the Senate that I support this motion to proceed and want us to get on to the resolution so we can have a full and thorough debate on this issue of what to do in Iraq. Without a doubt, this issue is the No. 1 issue, foremost in the minds of the American people. My State of Florida, being a microcosm of the entire country, is certainly reflective of that. People are unsettled over the course of the war. They are unsettled over the fact that none of our leadership will indicate we are winning this war and, indeed, at the same time they recognize the stakes are so very high in that part of the world if we are unsuccessful. Therefore, because this issue naturally is at the forefront of Americans' minds now, and what to do about it, we need to get it out here and get it thoroughly discussed and debated. It seems to me one of the fundamental mistakes at first of going into Iraq was not to understand the world of Islam and the schism that has been there for 1,327 years, ever since the battle of Karbala, in 680 A.D., when the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed was killed in the battle. That led to a division of those new worshipers who had followed the Prophet Mohammed into the primary sect, Sunnis, and those who were rebelling, the Shiites. That schism has lasted ever since. We see attempts at bringing those two groups together, but we always see--just in the demonstrations in the religious holidays recently reenacting that battle, establishing the Shiite sect as one that is separated from the Sunnis--they have been at it ever since. So, when you have a country that has those two sects, they have been at each other's throats and you find that order has been maintained, in the case of Iraq, by a brutal dictator who favored one sect over the other. Now that that dictator has been overthrown and is no more, in an attempt to bring about democracy, you see the majority in that country of Iraq, the Shiites, suddenly feeling they have control and maybe it is not quite so bad that they let out-- in their mind, they say it is not so bad--to let out their frustrations on the ones who had kept them down for years and years, their rivals, the Sunnis. In the process, you get this sectarian warfare which is, by anybody's definition, very close to civil war. How do we stabilize Iraq? For us just going in and thinking it is going to be a democracy and that the Shiites are going to play the democratic game and the Sunnis are--and not even to speak of the branch of the Sunnis, the Baathists, who had been the ruling party--to think they are all going to play the game of democracy and majority rules, you have seen, now, after going on 4 years, what has happened. So what do we do? We have a suggestion by a unanimous decision by a bipartisan group of extremely well thought of people called the Iraq Study Commission, led by former Secretary of State, former Chief of Staff of the White House, Jim Baker, and led by Congressman Lee Hamilton, former Member of the House, former head of the International Relations Committee in the House of Representatives. Unanimously, 10 people--5 Democrats and 5 Republicans--came up with a plan. How do you stabilize Iraq, given the conditions we find ourselves in there today? They said, clearly, what you have to do is stop having the mentality of an American occupying force. Let the Iraqis start to work it out for themselves. Realize there is probably going to have to be a separation of the sects until they can get them stabilized, and in the meantime do a very aggressive, diplomatic effort throughout the region to get all of the countries in the region to buy into what is ultimately the political solution. This Senator thinks, given all of this chaos and tumult and sectarian warfare, that political solution is going to have to be some kind of division. Clearly Kurds in the north basically have their own autonomous government. Shiites are concentrated in the south. Sunnis are concentrated in the center. They made an important first step recently in the establishment of a new law distributing the oil production--which is not distributed geographically throughout the country but is concentrated in the north and in the south. So if all the elements are there to make this possible for local control, of Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle, Shiites in the south, distributing the oil wealth proportionally according to the population, having a national government for the common defense, let's see if that political situation will work. People say you can't do that because you have all these neighborhoods where Sunnis and Shiites are all living together. But the fact is the separation is already occurring because of the sectarian violence and the killing that is going on. You are seeing that separation. If that is a likely political outcome that has the best chance to stabilize Iraq, then what should be the position of the United States and its forces, and what should be the policy of the United States to bring that about? Go back to the Iraq Study Commission. People say there is not a plan. There is. There is a plan. It is printed. It has about 75 recommendations. What it says is the American force should withdraw from the midst of that sectarian warfare, withdraw more to the perimeter, start lessening the forces and therefore the casualties to our American men and women, and use that force to train the Iraqi Army--to continue to train them--to provide force protection and very likely border control, since the neighbors in the region have not been exactly good on that--that is something we ought to be diplomatically insisting on, with the neighbors in the region--and to continue to prosecute the war against the terrorists by going after the terrorists there, particularly al-Qaida, who are trying to undermine the whole process. What I have outlined, which came from the basics of the Iraq Study Commission Report and Recommendations, is the essence of the Reid resolution that is before the Senate. That is why I think we ought to get it out here, get it debated and, barring some unforeseen turn, it is this Senator's intention that he will support the Reid resolution. This does not say withdraw. It says redeployment. It doesn't say get out of Iraq, it says get out of the cities in the middle of the crossfire of a civil war. It says utilize the American forces for training, going after al-Qaida, and for the purpose of force protection. That makes common sense in the overlay of a very complicated part of the world. As I close, I say that the United States, back in the 1980s, thought by the introduction of troops we could suddenly help bring about peace in another very troubled part of the Middle East, the country of Lebanon. Suddenly, it was as if scales fell from our eyes, that we saw it was an either/or. But it was multiple choice of all the factions that were there, each with a stake in the outcome. It became very difficult, particularly when the Americans became perceived to be supporting one particular part of those factions. Watch out for that happening today in Iraq. Let us understand something from the mistakes that were made in the past in places such as Lebanon as to how you ultimately stabilize an area and what is in the interests of the United States. I think part of that wisdom is what came to bear by those 10 people unanimously agreeing, in the Iraq Study Commission, whose work product boiled down is, in essence, the resolution before us here in the Senate. I thank the Chair for this opportunity to share these thoughts with the Senate.

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. President, we have had hearings this week in several of our committees on the situation at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the great public service that the Washington Post has done in their investigative piece bringing to light the conditions that our soldiers surely should not be in. Naturally, there is no excuse for there to be mold and leaking ceilings and pipes that do not work, and so forth. It seems to foretell a greater problem since the Post brought this to light. More people have asked questions about the delivery of health care to our wounded soldiers, sailors, marines, anyone representing the United States, particularly in service to the country. There are just too many things that keep coming up that the system is not working as it should. A major injury that we are finding coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan is traumatic brain injury, called TBI. If it is not diagnosed and treated early, then many times the effects are irreversible. Why is it that the inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in an IG report last July, July of 2006, points out that in traumatic brain injury, if you are in the military compared to if you have that injury in the private sector, it takes three times as long? These are the very young men and women we are supposed to be protecting and looking out for their health because we are so appreciative of their service to this country. Indeed, that inspector general's report points out that if you are in the private sector and you have a brain injury, you are at least going to get that treatment within 2 weeks. The IG report says that if you are in the military, you are not going to get that treatment on average until 6 weeks later. That is the difference--a lifetime of debilitation by not having the early treatment for that brain injury. So the word is out. I am headed to one of four trauma centers in the country. It happens to be in my State, a veterans hospital that is one of the specialty training centers, specialty centers for brain injuries. It is in the Tampa VA hospital, the Haley Hospital. Of course, now that this has been in the news, I have been getting these questions about: Are they getting the kind of care they should? I hear some people who say yes, I hear others who say it is excellent care, and I hear others who say it is not. Well, we are going to find out. That is the responsibility of this Senator from the State of Florida. That is the responsibility of this Senator, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Let me tell my colleagues what else we are hearing. We are hearing that in this bureaucratic tape, this is what is happening: The soldier comes back from Iraq, is diagnosed with the traumatic brain injury, somebody makes a decision that they ought to go to one of those four VA hospitals that have a specialty for brain injury, but they do not get the paperwork processed to get them out of the military so that they are then eligible for the veterans. Believe it or not, I heard of cases where they send the soldier down there, they get to the veterans hospital for brain treatment, and they say: We cannot treat you; you have not been released from the military. How bad is that bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo? Who is the victim? The very people for whom we have set up a system of military hospitals and veterans hospitals to try to give the best care to. This nonsense has got to stop. It is my hope that as a result of the Post bringing to light deplorable conditions in Building 18 at Walter Reed Army Hospital, it is scratching back the surface to see what is underneath, and whether it be the conditions in a hospital, veterans or military, whether it be bureaucratic handling of that hospital, military or veterans, or whether it is the administrative bureaucratic handling of the patient between the two systems, that we get it straightened out. We owe no less to the people who are sacrificing for this country. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, there was a space station task force safety report released yesterday which points out a number of hazards as we are now in the process of completing the space station. Remember that we have this multibillion-dollar structure about 300 miles above the Earth, with a crew of three, and eventually it will have more of a complement, of five or six, which will have the ongoing, full-time responsibility of scientific experiments. Right now it is about two football fields long. During the completion, which will occur over the next 3 years, it will have all the additional appendages, including the international laboratory we need to conduct all of the experiments that we want. Yet the task force that released its report yesterday says there are certain inherent hazards that we have always known about, such as meteorites striking and/or space debris. The U.S. Air Force catalogs all of the space debris. Therefore, we have the ability, if something really got in the way, to actually maneuver the space station out of the way of that debris--if we know where that debris is. The same is true with weather and reconnaissance satellites. I don't need to say anything about weather satellites here. Everybody knows because it is obvious what technology we have today to see the approaching storms, and if you live on the coast and it is during the summer, it is all the more important, because of an inbound hurricane, that everybody is prepared. Well, what is preparing us? It is not only that airplane that is flying into the hurricane, it is those satellites that are constantly tracking the position of that hurricane. Those are threatened by this space debris, which brings me to share with my colleagues: Isn't it interesting that there has almost been a strange silence throughout the world for the last 6 weeks after the Chinese tested their antisatellite missile, which created a debris field that is 100 times more than any debris that has been created, and because of its altitude, some 500 miles, it is going to be years before all of that debris is pulled back to Earth by the gravitational pull of the Earth? It is that debris field of thousands of particles, as a result of the Chinese rocket destroying a Chinese satellite by hitting it and exploding all of the kinetic energy in parts into the vacuum of space, that now we have a new threat not only to our space station but also to all of our weather satellites and our reconnaissance satellites. So my colleagues can imagine the headache now for the U.S. Air Force of trying to track all of that Chinese debris, much more so I think just from that one explosion, more debris than all the other debris that is up there. It is going to take several years before it ever comes down because of the altitude where the kinetic energy occurred when the vehicle slammed into the target, which was an old Chinese weather satellite. So as we are looking at the future of NASA and the completion of the space station and the saving of the Hubble space telescope, which has opened vast vistas of new knowledge to us about the heavens and about the origin of the universe, thanks to the Chinese, as we do this we now have to worry about something that could be lethal to our astronauts and cosmonauts who are onboard the space station. Some of the things they are talking about in this report released yesterday include some kind of special curtains they put over the windows that would give extra protection to the glass of the space station windows. Others are talking about protective blankets they might put over very sensitive areas of the space station that could be hit by debris. This debris could be coming at a velocity of 10,000 miles per hour because, if it is in a different orbit and suddenly it crosses the orbit of the space station and hits it--remember, going around the Earth in orbital velocity is 17,500 miles an hour. If that debris hits at right angles, you are going to have a velocity of 17,500 miles an hour. With the space station going at a different orbit, you start to see the kind of kinetic energy that could rain from such a collision. So it complicates it, and it complicates it not only for the American space program but for every space program on planet Earth, and that is the problem. That is what the Chinese have done for us. Yet there has been a suspicious silence of anybody speaking out in the world community about what the Chinese have done in space. There was an intellectual discussion about China having shown they have the capability of targeting an antisatellite to hit a satellite, which is a significant feat. But in the process, they ignored the threats now to all of the human and nonmanned assets that are up there, not just for our country but for every country in the world that depends on a satellite or a spacecraft of some kind. That is what we are facing. That is what we have to figure a plan for. I hope the Chinese who have had singular success--and this Senator has invited their Chinese astronaut to come here and visit, and he did. This Senator has congratulated them on their space accomplishments. But this time China has done something in accomplishing something technologically that has endangered the other nations of the world with the manned and the unmanned programs. That is what is facing us. This is only the first the Chinese have heard from this Senator about how they have endangered the interests of planet Earth. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. The latest scam is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today, I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senator Snowe--The Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007--to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing. It seems like every week we hear of new threats to our privacy and new ways to use telecommunications networks to endanger consumers' financial security and physical safety. For several years now, I have been fighting back against these threats, pushing legislation to combat frauds such as identity theft, the unauthorized sale of consumer telephone records and spyware. It's now time to put an end to the practice of 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 two 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 recent months, there have been numerous 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. According to experts, there are a number of Internet websites--with names like Tricktel.com and Spooftel.com--that sell their services to criminal and identity thieves. Any person can go to one of these websites, pay money to order a spoofed telephone number, tell the website 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. In essence, these websites provide the high-tech tools that identity thieves 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. If the caller I.D. says that my wife is calling me, when I pick up the phone I expect my wife to actually be on the other end of the line. Instead, we have fraudsters and others who want to abuse the system and disguise their true identities. That defeats the whole purpose of caller I.D. 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 2007 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. 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 Senator Snowe and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007. We should waste no time in protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007 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. The latest scam is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today, I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senator Snowe--The Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007--to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing. It seems like every week we hear of new threats to our privacy and new ways to use telecommunications networks to endanger consumers' financial security and physical safety. For several years now, I have been fighting back against these threats, pushing legislation to combat frauds such as identity theft, the unauthorized sale of consumer telephone records and spyware. It's now time to put an end to the practice of 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 two 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 recent months, there have been numerous 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. According to experts, there are a number of Internet websites--with names like Tricktel.com and Spooftel.com--that sell their services to criminal and identity thieves. Any person can go to one of these websites, pay money to order a spoofed telephone number, tell the website 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. In essence, these websites provide the high-tech tools that identity thieves 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. If the caller I.D. says that my wife is calling me, when I pick up the phone I expect my wife to actually be on the other end of the line. Instead, we have fraudsters and others who want to abuse the system and disguise their true identities. That defeats the whole purpose of caller I.D. 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 2007 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. 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 Senator Snowe and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007. We should waste no time in protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.