Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, a significant hubbub has occurred as a result of stories that have appeared in this morning's Washington Post that directly affect the defense posture of this country. It is stated in the Washington Post that the Prime Minister of Iraq is expected to release within days a ``plan [that] is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops'' in Iraq. That is according to a top adviser. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister of Iraq is quoted as saying-- and I will get to the quote--reconciliation could include an amnesty for those ``who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood.'' Ergo, there would be amnesty for those who would have been involved in the shedding of American blood. Now, it is possible--and this Senator hopes that something was lost in the translation because I cannot imagine the Prime Minister of Iraq turning on his heel away from American troops and suddenly--as he is trying to bring about reconciliation in his country--trying to then say as part of that reconciliation we are going to give amnesty for anybody who killed American men and women. Well, naturally the Government of the United States should not stand for this. That is why Senator Menendez and I are offering this amendment to the Defense authorization bill, so that we can clearly set forth the policy--in this case, the sense of the Senate--that we will not stand for this. By the adoption of this sense of the Senate amendment, clearly our President should speak to the Iraqi Prime Minister, who he just spoke with a couple of days ago, and he should speak with him immediately to get him to retract this statement. There should be no amnesty for those who murder American troops. American troops continue to serve bravely, and they are fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis. So it brings us to a point that is pretty clear. The Senate should go on record as having said that we repudiate that statement. I will very clearly state what the Senate sense of the Congress is, that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States and that the President should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States. It is fairly straightforward. I could go on and on with comments. I am awaiting the arrival of Senator Menendez because I want him to make some comments as well. If you do what a number of us in this body have done in visiting either with the families of those who have borne the brunt of the fighting and have given the ultimate sacrifice or if you have visited with those who return wounded and maimed, then there is no question there should be no obfuscation as to the policy of granting amnesty to those who have killed Americans. I remember going back to the time that I served as a captain in the Army, which was years and years ago. One of the most dread duties I had was to be the officer who was given the task of notifying the loved ones in the family of a service person who was killed. That, of course, is an exceptionally emotional event. And although it was decades ago, those experiences are seared in my memory because of the trauma and the emotion when you meet with the grieving family of a loved one. By the same token, there are over 18,000 of our service people who have been wounded. And many of them, because the body armor is working and saving the vital organs, their lives are being saved, but they have been maimed. The extremities are often the part of the body that is the casualty since the body armor is saving the vital organs. As a result, what we see is a lot of soldiers and sailors and Marines who come back, and they are just as optimistic as they can be in their outlook and yet think of the life that they will live with the maiming that has occurred. Their life was spared, but their life is going to be clearly different for the future. Anyone who would dare suggest that in the formulation of a new government of Iraq, which we, the United States Government, clearly support, anyone who would even contemplate that that government have a policy that, as they try to build reconciliation, they are going to grant amnesty to those who have killed Americans, as we say in the South, they have to have another thing coming, because we are not going to tolerate it. I offer a simple resolution on behalf of the Senate. I hope it is not going to be controversial. I hope it will be accepted. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. This Senator hopes, too, as I said at the outset of this Senator's remarks, that there is something lost in the translation, a mistake. But if there is, it is time for Prime Minister Maliki to step forward and clarify it. He can easily clarify it. But that does not diminish the need for the sense of Congress that says that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield? Mr. REID addressed the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, since this Senator from Florida is the author of the amendment, I would recall, for the consideration of the distinguished Senator from Texas, that there is nothing in this resolution that says anything about condemnation of the Iraqi Government. It says: It is the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States. I would further call to the attention of the distinguished Senator that the yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment, and as soon as the leadership is ready to dispose of the amendment, we can vote.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Does the Senator from Florida have the floor or----

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator from Florida has been seeking recognition for the past hour and has not been able to speak. Will the Senator from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of our Armed Services Committee, agree to a unanimous consent request that the Senator from Florida would be allowed to speak on this issue immediately after the comments of the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what I understand of the parliamentary procedure is that the majority will offer an additional amendment that will be a side-by-side and be voted upon, and the Senate can make its choice. In the case of the amendment that is being proffered by the majority--indeed, in the copy that has been represented to me as being the accurate one--it will recite the comments of the gentleman to whom in Iraq the chairman has just referred.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator would like, we could have a quorum call and discuss exactly that matter.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. This Senator is referring to the rhubarb that has occurred for the last 2 hours on the floor, where statements were made about my amendment that mischaracterized the amendment and that further, then, allowed a totally different issue, an issue on which this Senator agrees with the chairman of the committee, not withdrawing all of the troops by the end of the year. The Senator can characterize it as he would like. This Senator will characterize it as he would like.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. And that side-by-side amendment will state that the national security adviser of Iraq, on today, had ``thanked `the American wives and American women and American mothers for the treasure and the blood they have invested in the country . . . of liberating 30 million people in this country . . . And we are ever so grateful.' '' And that affirms their position that they will never give amnesty to those who would kill American soldiers or those who have killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians. I think that is all well and good. This Senator would certainly intend to vote yes on that side-by-side amendment. The reason the Senator from Florida has been seeking recognition for the last hour is this Senator's amendment has been characterized in ways that defy what the amendment says. The amendment clearly said that it is the sense of Congress that ``the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States; and the President should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States.'' That is what the amendment says. What this has been causing is a brouhaha because of something being read in to a simple little amendment that came as a result of a front- page story today in the Washington Post in which a top adviser to the Prime Minister, Mr. Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi, who happens to be the former chief of staff to the previous Prime Minister, a high-ranking official in the Dawa Party, he is the one who is quoted in the article as going on to say, when asked about clemency for those who attacked U.S. troops: That's an area where we can see a green line. There's some sort of preliminary understanding between us and the MNF-1 that there is a patriotic feeling among Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe. Now, it is very enlightening that the national security adviser has tried to clarify Prime Minister Maliki's comments. The Prime Minister can certainly clarify his own comments. But here we have a high-ranking Iraqi official who is quoted on the front page of the paper today as saying amnesty for those who would have killed American men and women. This Senator's name has been invoked by several speakers, including the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who I have the greatest and utmost respect for, in talking about the reconciliation process as if this were contrary to the reconciliation process. The Senator from Alaska was even quoting the reconciliation that took place after the Civil War, on which we all agree. The Senator from Alaska was talking about the reconciliation that has taken place in South Africa, of which we all agree, even talk of the reconciliation that took place with regard to Germany and Japan. But that didn't stop those who were responsible for war crimes and the killings of Americans to be brought to justice; in other words, not to have amnesty granted for them. That was not the case in South Africa where they had a process that those who did those criminal acts were brought to justice. That was certainly not the case in Germany after World War II where those who had committed those atrocities were brought to justice. It just simply, in the opinion of this Senator, ought to be that a policy of the very government that we have helped and have liberated a people should not be amnesty for those who have killed Americans. How much more simple could it be? Yet I suspect, as others have implied politics, I suspect politics has a way of taking over and starting to make something seem like it isn't. It certainly wasn't the intention of this Senator. As I understand, my wonderful chairman of the committee is going to offer a second-degree or will offer another amendment that will be a side by side amendment to that which I have offered, and we can vote for both. It would be the intention of this Senator to vote for both. I said at the outset of my remarks, the first thing out of my mouth when I offered the amendment was, I hope there was something lost in the translation of what was reported in this morning's Post. I don't understand--or maybe I do--all the brouhaha that has occurred over the course of the last 2 hours on such a simple amendment as saying that it is the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. This Senator clearly doesn't support pulling the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. This Senator offered an amendment which is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States based on this morning's story in this newspaper that indicates comments that were made by the Prime Minister. Is the Senator suggesting that he does not agree with the sense-of- the-Senate resolution being expressed in this amendment as laid down by this Senator from Florida?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to address a topic that is appropriate, since tropical storm Alberto is on the coast of Florida--in the Big Bend area of Florida--right now. Fortunately, Alberto stayed a tropical storm, although there was a moment last night when the National Hurricane Center thought it was going to become a hurricane, which is 74-plus miles an hour. Isn't it interesting that here we are in early June--normally, hurricanes don't really start brewing up until July, and the severe ones don't start brewing up until August and September. But we see the confluence of two things. We see not only the active hurricane cycles the meteorologists will tell you about, that these are 10- and 15-year cycles and hurricanes will become much more active and much more frequent. When you add that meteorological phenomenon to the fact of global warming where, as the Earth's temperatures rise because of the trapping of the greenhouse gases, the rising of the temperature of the water, the rising of the temperature of the atmosphere--the effect of that is more frequent and more ferocious storms. Whether that global warming is affecting this particular cycle, I know not. But I know that the phenomenon of global warming added to--if we are in a 10- or 15- year meteorological phenomena of hurricane cycles, that can add all the more to the distress, dismay, and tragedy that the Atlantic and the gulf coast of the United States will suffer over the coming number of years. That brings me to the subject matter: the cost of insurance, particularly homeowners insurance, which is going to--if it hasn't already--become prohibitive for coastal dwellers. It is not just coastal dwellers because the insurance rates are spread in a particular way where the property owner will share in the burden of the cost of insurance no matter whether the homeowner lives on the coast or lives inland. This is exactly what has happened to the gulf coast as a result of Katrina. It is what happened in Florida for the active hurricane year of 2004, in which four hurricanes hit Florida within a 6-week period. As a result, you see insurance rates that are absolutely escalating, with the phenomenon that is now occurring in Florida and Gulf States, including Alabama; Mississippi, the home of the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, who is on the floor at the moment; Louisiana; and eventually it will happen to Texas when they get pounded a couple of times--that is, the phenomenon that homeowner insurance rates are going through the roof. In addition to that, insurance companies--if they have not gone broke--are bailing out; they are canceling policies right and left. Those which are staying are canceling policies, and other insurance companies are canceling all of their homeowners coverage. The bottom line is that this is a tough time for homeowners just to be able to afford financially the cost of what is known as windstorm insurance. Now, I rise to tell the Senate about a package of bills that has been filed but one in particular that I suggest to the Senate is a way of addressing not only the pleas of our constituents back home, the pleas of insurance companies, the pleas of reinsurance companies, the pleas of insurance regulators, the insurance commissioners of the 50 States, but the pleas particularly of our constituents who are paying the tab. This is the question: Can any one insurance company or any one State withstand the financial losses we anticipate from the megahurricanes of the future? The answer to that is no. That is why they are now turning to the Federal level of government. May I say that 11 years ago, I was confronted with one of the toughest jobs I have ever had in a lifetime of public service when I was elected the Florida State treasurer, which is also the position of the elected insurance commissioner of Florida. I inherited the chaos in the aftermath of the monster hurricane, Hurricane Andrew, in the early 1990s. It had paralyzed the insurance marketplace of Florida, not only in south Florida where the hurricane hit but the entire State of Florida, because what is happening today happened in the mid-1990s-- companies had gone broke, they were fleeing the State of Florida, and those which were staying were canceling policies right and left. Companies were asking the insurance commissioner for rate increases that were being hiked to the Moon. It is the same phenomenon we have today. I can tell you that we had to make up the solution as we went because that kind of financial impact to the insurance industry and to the people served by that industry had never happened. Andrew was a $16 billion insurance loss storm. That, in today's dollars, is about a $23 billion insurance loss storm. But what really scared the ``bejeebers'' out of the insurance marketplace was the realization that if the hurricane had turned 1 degree to the north and drawn a bead on the Dade County-Broward County line instead of south Dade in Homestead, a relatively unpopulated part of Dade County, if it turned that 1 degree to the north and hit that more populated area, it would have been a $50 billion loss storm, and that would have taken down every insurance company that was doing business in the path of the storm--taken them down financially. It would have drained all of their reserves. That is the circumstance we have facing the States of the gulf coast as well as the Atlantic coast today because you put a category 4--by the way, remember, by the time Katrina hit Louisiana, it was only a category 3. Look at what it did to the Mississippi coast. If you put a category 4, which is winds up to 145 miles per hour, or a category 5, which is in excess of that, into a concentrated area of high urban density and you have major loss, you will have insurance companies going down the tubes financially. So what are they doing? They are coming to us. Well, the problem is that the Federal level of government has never dealt with insurance. It was back in the 1930s that the McCarran-Ferguson Act was enacted, which said the regulation of insurance is going to be done by the 50 States. And they are coming to us because of the financial enormity of loss not only to insurance companies but to our respective States as well. And, therefore, what do we do? It is hard to get consensus here because we don't deal in insurance matters, and it is hard to get consensus because the insurance industry is not unified on what to do. Certainly, the reinsurance industry has a different perspective than the insurance industry. The insurance regulators have another perspective. So, after consulting with my dear friend and senior colleague from Mississippi and with the senior Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, we have filed a bill modeled after what the State of Florida had to do after the monster mega-hurricane in the nineties, and that was build consensus by forming a prestigious commission representative across the board of all the peoples and organizations that are affected by this enormous question and ask that commission, that emergency national commission--which is exactly what we did in Florida in 1995. We formed what we called then the academic task force headed by presidents of the universities of Florida. They reported back within 3 months. We took that package to the State legislature. We got the legislature to pass it into law. The law enabled the insurance commissioner then to help the insurance companies restore the marketplace at affordable prices so the people would have available affordable insurance. So the three of us--Senator Cochran, Senator Landrieu, this Senator-- have filed this bill setting up a national commission under law appointing specific designees that are a broad representation of the industry, of the problem, to come back to the Congress and to the executive branch within 90 days with their recommendation that then we can deliberate the work product thereof to see if we can have some solution as to these dire economic conditions that our people, that our States, and, in fact, private industry are facing as we now face another active hurricane season. I conclude by saying that we are very happy that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, that organization that represents all 50 insurance commissioners of our States, plus the District of Columbia, plus the Virgin Islands, plus Puerto Rico, have all come together and unanimously endorsed this concept. We cannot get consensus here because everybody has a different idea, including the industry, but we can take what happened successfully in Florida and use that model to build consensus so that we will know what to do and then can pass appropriate legislation. Mr. President, I wanted to share this right as the winds are hitting the State of Florida from the first named storm of this hurricane season, the storm named Alberto. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I join our colleagues in the accolades and commendation for our colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia. I believe there is no other Senator who commands the respect and the admiration and the love of fellow Senators as does Senator Byrd. My first encounter with Senator Byrd, I will never forget. Right over there at that desk, 5\1/2\ years ago, I rose to make my maiden speech in the Senate. In the course of that speech to a fairly empty Chamber of the Senate, I happened to mention that it was my maiden speech. In a few moments, suddenly the doors of the Senate flung open and in strode Senator Byrd. He sat down at his desk and listened very politely and patiently as I continued my first oration in this tremendous, most deliberative body. As I finished, Senator Byrd stood and said, ``Would the Senator from Florida yield?'' I said, of course, ``I yield to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.'' He proceeded to give a history of the Senate about maiden speeches. He told how, in the old days, when word would get out that a new Senator was going to give his first speech, all of the other Senators would gather around because they wanted to hear what the new Senator was saying. Of course, you can imagine what an impression this made on this new Senator 5\1/2\ years ago by not only the conscience of the Senate but the historian of the Senate, the keeper of the rules of the Senate, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. And, of course, he passed a milestone yesterday. All of us are proud for him, and we are exceptionally proud for this institution, that it would have a Senator such as the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I want the Senate to know that this Senator is very privileged that he has had the opportunity not only to call him a friend and colleague but that this Senator has had the opportunity to sit at his knee and try to soak up the wisdom of the years, the exceptional historical knowledge of this institution and the extraordinary knowledge of history of planet Earth that the Senator brings to this Chamber.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr President, I rise to call on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reconsider its recent decision to ban Florida's citrus industry from shipping fruit to other citrus-producing States, as this decision could adversely affect a major segment of my State's economy. Specifically, the Government ban lacks adequate scientific backing and could even harm Florida's ability to trade with other citrus- producing countries. This industry has long played an important role in my State's economy, and the Government has often been supportive and helpful, including after the past two hurricane seasons that were devastating to the industry and spread canker extensively, making eradication no longer possible. While the Department of Agriculture has helped the industry recover from the storms and with combating canker in the past, I am hopeful it will do so again in a way that does not cause more harm than good.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced four bills, 3114, 3115, 3116, and 3117 that are 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 harder to find, preventing some consumers from insuring their homes and businesses. As we know 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. Recently in my own home State of Florida, eight catastrophic storms in 15 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 completely broken, it is 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 our 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 St. 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 again, nothing much has gotten accomplished. The most notable step Congress did take was to create the National Flood Insurance Program. But Congress needs to do much more. It is 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 undersate 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. Therefore, the inability of the private sector insurance and reinsurance markets to maintain sufficient capacity to enable Americans to obtain property insurance coverage in the private sector endangers the national economy and our public health, safety, and welfare. In order to help protect consumers and small businesses, today I am introducing four bills as part of a comprehensive approach to fixing our troubled insurance system. Let me summarize each of the four bills and tell you how this integrated approach makes good policy sense. The first piece of legislation I am introducing today is the Homeowners Protection Act of 2006, S3117. This bill is a companion bill to a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced by Florida Representatives Brown-Waite, Hastings, 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 backup 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 Insurance Protection Act of 2006 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 recent hurricanes. I note that this bill covers not just hurricanes, but catastrophes such as earthquakes, cyclones, tornados, 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 cochaired by former FEMA Director James Lee Witt, one of the most respected names in disaster prevention and preparedness. The second bill I am introducing today is the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2006, S. 3115. The companion bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by a bipartisan group of Members including Tom Feeney and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 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 I am introducing today is the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2006, S. 3116. This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mark Foley and has eight cosponsors. Under this bill, insurance companies would be permitted to accumulate tax-deferred catastrophic reserves, much 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 already have occurred, instead of future losses. The United States is the only industrialized nation that actually taxes reserves in this way. It is time for reform, so that consumers are better protected. Make no mistake though--this bill is not a giveaway to the insurance companies. Instead, the Policy Disaster Protection Act of 2006 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. Finally, the fourth bill, S. 3114, that I am introducing as part of my comprehensive reform package is the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2006. Under this bill, Congress would create a Federal commission--made up of a cross-section of the best experts in the Nation--to quickly recommend to Congress the best approach to addressing catastrophic risk insurance. The experts on the commission would be required to analyze the three bills that I am introducing today, along with other potential approaches to reforming our insurance system. Creating a Federal commission is not always the best answer, especially if it can slow down reform efforts. But in this case, the opposite would occur. I say that with cofidence--because I am following a successful model that I used when I was insurance commissioner for the State of Florida in the 1990s. After Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida in 1992, I created a nonpartisan commission comprised of university presidents. I asked the Florida commission to study the problems with the property and casualty insurance market and recommend what legislative reforms were necessary to restore health to Florida's system. Within months, the commission acted--breaking through the deep political logjam and inertia--to recommend the legislative reforms that ultimately became State law. That model worked then, and I think it can work now on a Federal level. Without the work of an expert, neutral commission to help guide us in these incredibly complex matters, I fear that Congress will never find the consensus necessary to reform the system and bring stability. 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 spend 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 healthy 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 four bills I discussed--S. 3114, S. 3115, S. 3116, and S. 3117--be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today as a voice to counter that of the giant multinational oil corporations. It has been during three decades of my public service that I have held fast to a promise to fight to keep big oil away from Florida's coastlines, to keep that industry from soiling our homes and from ruining our economy. In Florida, a clean, healthy environment is the infrastructure of our tourism-driven economy, and it is the source of sustenance for millions of residents and visitors alike. In America, where we have only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, our addiction to ``black gold'' will not be broken just by more drilling but by mounting an aggressive effort to fully exploit greater efficiencies in alternative fuels. As part of my promise to Florida, I have said that I could not support an Interior Secretary who would advance this administration's willingness to acquiesce to the oil lobby and its ever-increasing desire for greater profits beyond the recent record levels. Mr. President, I know this nominee is a person deserving of our respect. He is a gentleman. In fact, he will receive an overwhelming vote of support from the Senate. But I must stand on my principles to oppose this nomination. I do so for the future of Florida and for the future of our country. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I voted to confirm the nomination of General Michael Hayden to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency replacing my friend and Florida colleague Porter Goss. I voted to confirm General Hayden based on his impressive record as a career intelligence officer in a broad spectrum of strategic intelligence activities and programs. He is widely regarded as one of the most qualified intelligence planners and managers among military or civilian intelligence professionals. Despite my vote in favor of his confirmation I remain deeply concerned that recent revelations regarding domestic intelligence collection by the National Security Agency may have violated our laws. In hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence General Hayden often deferred questions about the program, the President's and Justice Department's statements about the program, and his own involvement in the NSA's activity to closed sessions. My Intelligence Committee colleagues pursued these questions and ultimately recommended approval of the nomination on a bipartisan 12-3 vote. I still have many questions about this program and how it was conceived and operated, and I will continue to seek answers to them. However, General Hayden has sufficiently demonstrated his objectivity, independence and openness that I am comfortable with confirming his nomination. Given the threats our Nation faces today and challenges that our intelligence system has had coping with those threats, General Hayden should bring to this position much needed efficient, effective and, most importantly, independent leadership and management. That should be good for our intelligence agencies and good for the Nation.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these four bills, the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2006, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2006, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2006, and the Homeowners Protection Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.