Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent that Brian Walsh, a member of my staff, be granted floor privileges during consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. The concept of this amendment is simple--to direct homeland security dollars to the areas where the threat of attack is greatest. It was no accident that when the terrorists attacked our Nation on that September morning they chose to strike at our two most powerful cities, our center for capitalism and commerce, New York, and our center of Government, Washington. Since that fateful day, we have been fortifying our Nation in order to prevent another attack--and so far we have succeeded--but we must remain vigilant. And just last week London was hit by a string of deadly terrorist bombings, another heinous and despicable act performed by outlaws too weak to show their face and too naive to know that this recent attack will only strengthen our resolve to hunt and destroy terrorists and their sympathizers wherever they lie. My heart goes out to our allies and friends in Great Britain and I know all of my colleagues join me in expressing our sympathy and solidarity with the British people. It was no accident that when the terrorists attacked our Nation on September 11, 2001, they picked powerful, high-profile, and heavily trafficked targets. Terrorists target areas where they can inflict the most damage and get the most attention, and for those reasons they focus on urban centers, areas of national importance, areas that are highly populated. But if you include the interests of a region--be they tourist attractions, amusements parks or resorts, at anyone time there can be millions of visitors. For instance, Orange County, FL, is one of the top vacation destinations in the world. In 2003 the region played host to over 45 million visitors. On March 18, 2003, the Federal Aviation Administration imposed a no- fly zone over the Walt Disney World Resort area--because, according to an FAA spokesperson: ``The Disney parks are a potential target of symbolic value . . .'' Florida is also home to 14 deepwater ports, many of which are nationally significant and critically important parts of our country's shipping infrastructure. For example, at the Port of Miami nearly 4 million cruise passengers passed through the Port and over 9 million tons of cargo transited through the seaport. This combination of cruise and cargo activities supported approximately 98,000 jobs, and has an economic impact in Miami-Dade County of over $12 billion. The Port of Tampa had over 800,000 cruise passengers and handles nearly 50 million tons per year, or half of the State's total seaborne cargo tonnage. The Port of Tampa is also the largest economic engine in west central Florida. Again, these examples highlight the issues associated with regional influx. The whole State of Florida, in fact, now plays host to 77 million tourists a year. That is on top of our 17 million person population. We cannot overstate the importance of regional concepts and that models created by this amendment will encourage funding to be spent not only on our major cities, but also on those regional centers that require certain protections. One more point. In a letter. In a letter dated today from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, he writes: Funding our first responders based on risk and need gives us the flexibility to ensure our finite resources are allocated in a prioritized and objective manner. Secretary Chertoff adds: The Department of Homeland Security strongly supports authorization language that would distribute Federal homeland security grant funds based on risk and need, rather than on static and arbitrary minimums. This amendment, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, meets Secretary Chertoff's desire, and that is to require the Department of Homeland Security to allocate grants to States based primarily on threat assessment and vulnerability. I believe that kind of discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security will only enhance his ability to keep our country safe and to respond to the areas of most critical and immediate need and concern. As a Congress, we must be prudent in appropriating funds to meet our essential capabilities. The ability to meet the risk to our Nation by reducing our vulnerability to attack is essential to our success in defending America in this war on terror. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment. It is currently a time in which we have been reminded by the events of last week of the importance that we must place on our homeland security, on the security of our Nation in order that we might be able to forestall any future terrorist designs upon our Nation. I believe the people of Florida will be best served by an approach that bases the decision on the Department of Homeland Security of where the grants may go on the risk and the perceived assessment of that risk and not on some static formula. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time back to the Senator from California.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I call attention to and condemn the current tragic actions by the government of Zimbabwe. At present, more than 200,000 people have been made homeless as a result of ``Operation Restore Order''--a 5-week-old government campaign to destroy informal dwellings and businesses in Zimbabwe's cities. Alternatively, the operation is also being called Operation Murambatsvina--meaning operation ``Drive Out Rubbish.'' Whatever the name, this operation is horrific. It is appalling. And it must end. As a State Department spoke sman affirmed last week--``it's uncondonable, inexcusable, and we will continue to speak out and act diplomatically to achieve justice for those who have been so senselessly disadvantaged.'' That is why I speak today. The targets of this ongoing campaign are Zimbabwe's very poorest citizens--individuals who are already suffering from 80 percent unemployment, 600-percent inflation and widespread food shortages. An the true reasons for this campaign have not been made fully clear. Zimbabwe's President, Robert Mugabe, says the crackdown is designed to ``restore sanity'' in urban areas--areas which he says have become overrun with criminals. But Zimbabwe's cities are also the centers of opposition political activity. Due to the worsening situation in the urban areas, including a lack of fuel and a diminishing food supply, the government may be moving poor people out of the cities in an effort to increase control over the population. Unfortunately, because of Mugabe's government controls, there has been a severe lack of verifiable information coming out of Zimbabwe. But daily dispatches are telling us of people being forced into labor on state-run farms, and young people being sent to youth militia camps. Most disturbing are the tragic reports that children are being crushed and killed in these raids. Last Friday, these events led 10 United Nations special rapporteurs on human rights to issue a strong statement of concern about the ``recent mass forced evictions in Zimbabwe and related human rights violations.'' I briefly read a portion of this statement, which was issued through the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights: Since 18 May 2005 Zimbabwean authorities are reported to have forcibly evicted an estimated 200,000 people from Harare and 29 other locations across Zimbabwe, with some reports stating that up to a million people may face eviction if the operation continues. . . . These evictions have targeted . . . informal traders and families living in informal settlements, including women with HIV/AIDS, widows, children with disabilities. Many evictees, including women, are reported to have been beaten up by police. The evictees have been given no prior notice, no opportunity to appeal and no opportunity to retrieve property and goods from homes and shops before destruction . . . With the exception of a few inadequate transit camps, there is no evidence that the Government has explored any alternatives to the evictions or offered adequate alternative housing and many evictees have been left completely homeless. I find this situation to be alarming at the very least. These demolitions sound a lot like political retribution and forced human displacement. And the deliberate destruction of the homes is a clear violation of fundamental human rights. In light of this alleged, sustained and deliberate destruction, I commend Kofi Annan's recent decision to send Ms. Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka as his Special Envoy to Zimbabwe to further investigate and respond to this tragedy. Anna currently serves as the Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of U.N. HABITAT, and is a good friend. This past Sunday, Anna arrived in Harare as the head of a seven- member delegation to investigate the true impact of Mugabe's so-called ``cleaning'' operation. Sending Anna and the delegation is a very positive step, and I am encouraged by the visit. And I urge President Mugabe to continue to allow Anna and her team full access to impacted areas. I look forward to hearing about and reading the delegation's findings. At the same time, I want to commend international leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as well as over 200 international human rights and civics groups for publicly condemning these continued atrocities and human rights abuses. As an international community, we share a collective responsibility to assist the people of Zimbabwe and bring about a meaningful end to this man-made tragedy. But I also echo international calls for Zimbabwe's neighbors to step forward and put pressure on the Mugabe government. I urge Zimbabwe's African neighbors to take effective action and intervene. In particular, I urge the African Union to take meaningful action. The fact is, the latest demolitions are part of a larger, sustained pattern of human rights violations being carried out by President Mugabe and his government. As the 2004 State Department Human Rights Report relates, and I will read a brief paragraph directly: President Mugabe and his party used intimidation and violence to maintain political power. A systematic, government sanctioned campaign of violence targeting supporters and perceived supporters of the opposition continued during the year. Security forces committed at least one extrajudicial killing. Ruling party supporters, with material support from the Government, continued their occupation of commercial farms, and in some cases killed, abducted, tortured, intimidated, raped, or threatened farm occupants. Security forces, government-sanctioned youth militias, and ruling party supporters tortured, raped, and otherwise abused persons perceived to be associated with the opposition; some persons died from their injuries. I remind my colleagues that this very same government is also a current member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights--which is yet another travesty. But the immediate issue facing us today is the current government campaign to demolish Zimbabwe's urban areas. We cannot ignore this continued destruction and abuse. We simply cannot look the other way. As Secretary Rice outlined in her confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year, Zimbabwe remains one of the outposts of tyranny. And as Secretary Rice rightly remarked, ``America stands with oppressed people on every continent.'' At the time, she referenced Natan Sharansky and what he calls the ``Town Square Test,'' saying that the world should apply that test. To quote the Secretary directly, ``if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a ``fear society'' is living in a ``free society.'' These remarks are even more relevant in light of current events. The people living in Zimbabwe's cities are clearly living in a society of fear. Their town squares are literally being torn down--the rubble crushing the people of that country. I look forward to working with the Administration, and supporting international efforts to provide meaningful assistance to the people of Zimbabwe.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, CERP provides that the Modified Waters Delivery Project must be completed before several CERP projects involving waters flows on the east side of the Everglades National Park can receive appropriations. For that reason, it is imperative that we continue to receive funding for the Modified Waters Delivery Project and that the project be completed as soon as possible.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I too commend Senator Reid for his efforts and look forward to working with him and Chairman Domenici to continue to make progress on restoring America's Everglades. Independent Oil Producers

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, Senator Nelson and I stand united to continue the bipartisan tradition of support for this project. I, too, commend the chairman and ranking member for their support of Everglades restoration.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of this CAFTA Free Trade Agreement. Like the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, I care greatly about this part of the world. This is a part of the world I know well, having been born in the Caribbean myself. I do believe it is an important moment, and it is an important agreement from a geopolitical sense for the United States and for Central America. I believe this is a good-faith effort on our part to further strengthen the struggling democracies and economies of our neighbors in Central America against the forces opposed to democracy and economic freedom and opportunity. I believe this also opens an important neighboring market of 40 million people and levels the playing field for American businesses as we seek to export our goods into this region. Although I do think it is important to recognize this agreement will not come close to solving all of the problems in Central America, it should be a building block in addressing the great needs of this important part of our hemisphere. I believe DR-CAFTA is an important moment. I believe its adoption does not fix all that needs to be done. I think its rejection would be a tremendously bad signal to this region. It would be a tremendous blow to our furtherance of democracy and stability and economic prosperity for Central America. It is a very important step in improving labor conditions, boosting economic growth throughout the Central American region. CAFTA is a critically important trade agreement for the State of Florida. We are the gateway to Latin America, to Central America particularly. Countries in Central America and the Dominican Republic form the largest foreign market for Florida exports. In 2004, Florida exported $3.2 billion of merchandise to the region, far surpassing that of the other 49 States. CAFTA is Florida's largest export market for paper, electronic equipment, and fabric. The CAFTA region is Florida's second largest export market for computers and computer equipment, machinery, and processed foods. Most of DR-CAFTA agricultural goods already enter the United States duty free. This will now even the playing field for our exports into the region. The CAFTA treaty is supported by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, the Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, Governor Jeb Bush, Florida Citrus Mutual, Seaboard Marine, Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida Ports Council, the Florida Poultry Federation, the World Trade Center of Florida, Florida East Coast Industries, and many others. No other State stands to benefit more economically from CAFTA than Florida. Mr. President, I have been undecided in my position on CAFTA, as much as I support free trade and understand the power of leveling trade barriers, an important sector of Florida's agricultural industry was left unprotected by the original CAFTA agreement. The sugar industry in Florida is an incredibly important part of our State. It provides over 23,000 jobs, mostly in rural Florida. Over $2 billion in economic activity is generated in Florida from the production of corn and sugar sweetener products. And because of this critically important economic engine for our State, I have resisted supporting CAFTA because of the potential impact on Florida's sugar producers. So I and other colleagues began working to see what type of compromise might be reached for Florida's sugar producers so that they would be treated fairly in the event of a CAFTA agreement. After many meetings, phone calls, conference calls, and hard work by Secretary of Agriculture Johanns, Ambassador Portman, my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Chambliss, along with a group of colleagues that Senator Chambliss pulled together, an agreement has been offered that I believe extends and offers an opportunity to deal with the sugar problem. I thank our Trade Representative, Rob Portman, for his hard work in trying to address the concerns of this important part of our agricultural industry. I am also very thankful for the leadership of my colleague, Senator Chambliss, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Secretary Johanns, from the Department of Agriculture, was also instrumental in ensuring that we could come to a proposal on how we could best ensure that our domestic sugar producers were treated fairly after a CAFTA agreement. I thank them all for their work on this important issue to our State. My goal was to ensure that the Florida sugar industry was treated fairly, be given a viable role in the future, and that they did not become the one industry in Florida, the one segment of our agricultural industry that would be harmed by a CAFTA agreement. But I do believe that this proposal offered by Secretary Johanns and the administration is the best case scenario for Florida's sugar producers. The Secretary's offer is multifaceted. One, foreign sugar from all foreign countries cannot exceed the farm bill's 1.532-million-ton limit, regardless if it came from CAFTA countries, Mexico--which is under NAFTA and not subject to the farm bill--and other future trade agreements. This agreement will last until the current farm bill expires. Two, USDA will conduct a feasibility study on the potential development of using sugar to produce ethanol on a wide scale in the United States. Thirdly, if the domestic market reaches the sugar trigger from foreign sugar, USDA will purchase the excess amount of CAFTA sugar that is imported to the United States and then use it to produce ethanol. This pilot program will last until the farm bill expires. It essentially guarantees that if CAFTA sugar is proven to depress the marketplace, the U.S. Government will purchase this sugar from Florida farmers and others to produce ethanol. This is a very substantial offer. It is an agreement that I think represents the sugar industry's best chance to plan for a future. It holds the industry harmless from CAFTA and, more than that, from NAFTA. The future of the domestic sugar industry lies in new technology and ethanol production, and this treaty allows them to begin that very important process. Mr. President, this is an important moment for us and Central America and the Dominican Republic. It represents a future partnership in trade and economic development, a better future, a better life, and will hopefully help improve economic conditions and provide political stability. We have a chance to help our Nation's manufacturers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers knock down trade barriers and help our country remain competitive in a global marketplace. In summary, I have said consistently that before I voted for CAFTA, I wanted to ensure that all of Florida's agricultural sectors were treated fairly under this agreement, including the sugar producers. I have worked hard to find a compromise that would offer protections to Florida's sugar producers from the threat of a flooded domestic sugar market. I believe the proposals put forth by Secretary Johanns and the administration to hold imports of sugar to levels included in the 2002 farm bill is the best case scenario for Florida's sugar producers and ensures that they are treated fairly not only under CAFTA but NAFTA as well. The sugar industry is incredibly important to our State, to our economy, and a vital part of our agricultural sector. The industry provides, as I said, over 23,000 jobs. Therefore, this is an industry that we want to make sure was not overlooked as we went about seeking this agreement. Having obtained what I thought was a fair and reasonable offer, I believe now I can wholeheartedly support the CAFTA agreement. I believe it will be good not only for the United States and the State of Florida, but also for our neighbors in Central America and the Dominican Republic. I think it will provide a new opportunity and beginning and a new hope for this region to begin on a much stronger road to economic development, to economic self-sufficiency, and, hopefully, tied into that is political stability, democracy, the rule of law, and the free market system. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak against amendment No. 1059 which would attempt to change foreign policy toward Cuba in an appropriations bill, which I think procedurally, as well as substantively, is the wrong thing to do. I urge my fellow Senators to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The amendment would seek to unconditionally grant a concession to the repressive Castro regime. This is a government and a country that currently suppresses the human rights of its people. It has been on the list of states that assist terrorism, consistently right there with North Korea and other countries that are not particularly helpful to our global war on terror. Aside from that, this policy of travel consists as one leg or one part of a more comprehensive travel policy toward Cuba that the United States put in place under the leadership of our President about a year and a half ago. It created some restrictions on travel. It limited travel even among Cuban families. I know this community well. I know it is a policy that is largely supported by that community. I also would tell you that there is, in my own life, the knowledge that the denial of family reunification is something that for over 40 years the Cuban system has utilized as part of their endeavor in order to control people. I had lived in this country for 4 years, and during those 4 years of separation from my mother and father--between the ages of 15 and 19--my family was not able to travel here to visit me. They were not allowed by the Cuban Government to at any point leave Cuba to visit. The case of this brave soldier, whom I greatly respect and honor, Mr. Lazo, who has served his country bravely in Iraq, has been brought up. Let me say, specifically, on that case, this young man, who has sons in Cuba, wishes to go to Cuba to visit his sons. It is understandable. He has been there in the past 3 years. He wants to go again. His sons are 16 and 19. We have asked Mr. Lazo if he would allow us to bring his children here so they could visit here. One of them has had some illness. Currently, he is not under medical care, but he has been recently. He could certainly seek medical care here when he came, under his father's auspices. In addition to that, I believe it would be a nice thing for these children to have an opportunity to visit in a free society and a free country. That request, that offer, has been refused. For family reasons or other reasons, he doesn't care to pursue that. He wants to go there. I understand that. But I don't believe we can change the foreign policy of the United States to suit one individual situation. I am sympathetic to family travel. I am sympathetic to humanitarian problems that may arise from time to time in people's families. I have lived those in my own family and my own life. However, I believe the policy of the United States, the law of the United States, ought to be followed and that it would be wrong for us in this instance at this time to change what is established foreign policy of our country, established in terms of our relationship with Cuba, simply to take care of this individual situation. I would like to think of how we might work on a humanitarian travel policy that might even include Cuba making concessions but that it would not be a unilateral concession to this tyrannical government.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition as well. I again join with my colleague from Florida. I wish to speak again to a position that seems to continue to come up in this bill. Let me say, first, that I do respect the wishes of the Senator from Virginia about what they might do in the State of Virginia. I wish there were a simple way that we could simply say: Fine, drill in Virginia if you will, but do not do so in Florida. There just has not been a mechanism that has been devised, as my senior colleague, the Senator from Florida, has just pointed out, that would allow us to draw these seaward boundary lines in a way that would also protect the State of Florida. Particularly, I am talking about the area in the northwest part of our State around the area of Pensacola. There is no question that the drilling that we discussed as such a benign event in fact is not because in this particular bill, part of the effort is going to be to allow the State of Louisiana and other coastal States, about five of them that are currently drilling, to benefit more fully in the royalties from the product that is being drawn from their coast. The fact is that they need that money to correct the environmental damage to their coastline. That is the slippery slope down which we in Florida do not want to go. If this were totally benign, the people of Louisiana would not today be clamoring for assistance to rebuild their coast from all the damage and the trafficking and all of the things that go on with coastal offshore production. In addition to that, I know the Senator from Tennessee speaks passionately about this issue, and I also give great deference to his judgment as someone who has served in many distinguished roles, particularly as Governor of his own State, and I understand that he did a terrific thing, which is bring in industry to that State that today may be threatened by the high price of natural gas. But let me also say that we know Florida. The senior Senator from Florida and I know Florida just as well as the Senator from Tennessee knows Tennessee. I do not think there will be a time when the State of Florida is going to be willing to accept an income tax or the State of Florida is going to be in the need of drilling off its coast in order to supplement the income of our universities. Always there is more money available. There are more ways to spend it. The fact is, this is not an economic calculus that the State of Florida can make because we are too dependent on tourism. We are so dependent on our visitors. We are so dependent and so proud of the military presence on our coastline that desperately needs this area to conduct their training missions. This is one of the few areas in the world where the U.S. Armed Forces can train in joint operations on sea, land, and air all at the same time. That is because of the great expanse they have, this reserved airspace and the land adjacent to it. So if there were an easy way that we could accommodate and allow for coastal drilling in the State of Virginia while at the same time in no way tampering with Florida, that would be just fine. The language in this bill simply does not do that. What it does is open a door for the northwest coast of Florida to be threatened with coastal drilling. I see the Senator from New Jersey is about to speak. I thank him for his participation with us in our endeavors to keep our coastlines clear of drilling. I know the Senator shares many of the same sentiments where so many of the people of his State are committed to keeping those coastlines free of drilling so that tourists can continue to come and enjoy the beaches of New Jersey as they do the beaches of Florida. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARTINEZ. If I may be recognized, I would like to speak for 5 minutes in opposition.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I simply echo Senator Nelson's comments. It is terribly important, and I think the Senator from Virginia makes a good point. We should work at this. I am happy to sit down and start to work at it. The Senator from Louisiana and I and the committee sat down with the chairman under his guidance and attempted to draw lines. We made a lot of progress. We could not come up with a formula that seemed to work, but one has got to work. Even if it is a combination of continuing moratoria as well as boundary lines that are drawn, we should be able to do that to accommodate all that is sought to be done here. Also, the point needs to be made that, as dire as the circumstances of energy are, and I recognize China and India are tremendous consumers of energy that will surpass our own demands for energy in the years to come, it is incumbent upon us to put the great genius of America at work so we can develop alternative sources of fuel, that our dependence on fossil fuels has to be changed. I commend the chairman for moving in that direction in this bill, which is why I am so excited about this Energy bill. In addition to conservation measures, it also moves us into alternative fuels. It does a great deal to encourage the production and purchase of hybrid vehicles, and in combination with tax incentives that will come from the Finance Committee it makes a very strong energy policy for our Nation. While not perfect, it is a great step in the right direction. I appreciate all of the courtesies and the fact that we will not be voting on this tonight since we have not worked out those boundary lines in a way that affects the people of Florida. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his courtesy and invite the opportunity to work with the Senator to see if it is feasible to see if we can draw the lines to satisfy the needs of Virginia and Florida. Amendment No. 972

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 2 minutes of the allotted time.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Carolina 4 minutes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I simply want to note that I am very appreciative of the chairman and ranking member of the committee where I have had the pleasure of working. I believe this is a great and good bill. I want to take this one little provision out that would do so much harm to the people of Florida and would be potentially invasive to our future. I want to remove it so that we can continue forward with this good bill. I believe, without question, the issue here is not just about these inventories but about future drilling. We cannot drill ourselves to energy sufficiency by what we might find in the Gulf of Mexico. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so we can take out this one piece of the bill, and the bill can be a successful bill. Then we can go into conference and provide an energy future for our country that is desperately needed. There are many things I want to vote for in the bill. I continue to be greatly concerned about not just an inventory but about where that path would lead. This is not only for the people of Florida but many other coastal Senators have expressed themselves as this being in the best interests of many of our States. I yield back my time. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to close on the amendment.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, my understanding is that I have one minute to close.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, an issue not discussed so far in this debate is the fact that we tried mightily to find a reasonable compromise that would allow for there to be exploratory inventorying of those areas which wanted it, while allowing States like Florida to opt out of such an inventory. As we entered into those negotiations, it was unfortunate we were not able to seek common ground or find a way in which we could resolve it. The unfortunate issue arises that it is difficult to draw these State boundaries in a way that allows Florida to protect not only its coast but those that are adjacent to neighboring States. So as we went through this exercise, it was unfortunate we could not find that reasonable common ground that would have allowed us to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, now Florida is in the peculiar position, as is North Carolina, that we have no option but to object to the entirety of this provision in the bill in order to protect Florida from the exploration or the inventorying. There is no question that inventorying is a precursor to drilling, to exploration. In Florida, we have had for many years a moratorium on drilling. This moratorium will extend until the year 2012. It is a moratorium that has been not only observed but it has been implemented by President Bush, President Clinton, as well as by our current President. So there has been a compact, an understanding, a reasoned understanding that Floridians do not want this taking place off their shores--just as North Carolinians do not want it. We should have the opportunity not to interfere in our own States' coastline if we do not wish to have it. Right now, we would have no such option. There would be no opportunity to opt out, and we would have only to acquiesce to inventorying off the shores of Florida which, frankly, cannot be drilled upon because of the current and pending moratorium. How much time remains?

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. If the Senator will yield, I wonder if in any part of this bill the Senator noticed any area that would denote how the $1 billion, the cost of exploration, would be paid for?

Mr. MARTINEZ. A further question: It seems to me, when we have a moratoria, drilling is prohibited right now. To do this inventory in that particular area, it certainly seems to me to be a waste of taxpayer dollars since there is no prospect of drilling with the congressional and Presidential moratoriums in place.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 783.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator from Virginia a question relating to this. I also was troubled by the comments. I was troubled by the fact that there seems to be no proportionality between the abuse of the civilian population in a systematic way versus the detention of combatants in a very different sense, in a different way. I think the proportionality is important to be kept in mind. I had earlier last week made some comments of my concerns about Guantanamo in which I wondered if it was serving our public diplomacy, our long-term interests. However, I do know that the treatment, having been there, is appropriate as to the detainees. I used to be mayor of Orange County, and I know the conditions under which the prisoners in the Orange County jail, which was terribly overcrowded, at times would be sleeping on mattresses on the floor, and situations such as that. Having visited both facilities, the detainees at Guantanamo seem to have a much better day-to-day living situation, and certainly I saw no evidence of any systematic abuse. So while I had raised some questions about the long-term advisability of our public diplomacy interests, I do want to make clear I do not in any way believe there is mistreatment of our detainees, that the detainees must continue to be detained given the threat they present to our U.S. citizens, and I most of all want to make clear that what I saw from our Armed Forces personnel who are looking after these detainees was tremendous dedication and caring. I believe their sacrifice, in a place far away from their homes, dealing on a daily basis with very difficult and unsavory people who are not related to an armed force, people not connected with a military that has been trained or fights under a given flag, and they have been labeled as enemy combatants, is a far different situation than that which can be portrayed by any suggestion of systematic abuse or even the loss of life, as would be associated with Pol Pot.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership and for engaging us in this colloquy. For Floridians, there is simply no margin for error when it comes to offshore oil and gas drilling. Our $50 billion tourism industry is the lifeblood of our economy, and our tourism is based on people coming to enjoy the clean water, sugar-white sands, and excellent fishing that can be found up and down our coasts. The risk of even one offshore drilling accident to this economic engine is simply too great for us to take. I will seek to strike the section that permits an inventory of oil and gas reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf. We are very concerned in Florida that an inventory is simply the first step down a slippery slope toward expanded drilling. But I will also join my colleague in seeking the commitment of the distinguished chairman and ranking member to oppose any amendments that would change the status quo in the Eastern Planning Area.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. I appreciate the opportunity that the chairman, ranking member, and other members have given me to work on this important piece of legislation. As the Senator alluded, I came late to the work of this committee on this bill, having joined the Senate just this year. Much of the work had previously been done. I am grateful for this opportunity and for the deference the chairman has shown and for the opportunity to work on these important issues. I compliment the Senator from Tennessee for his comments. I thank him for doing a thorough review of the entire bill. I appreciate the comprehensive way in which he analyzed it. I have appreciated greatly his passion on certain aspects of this bill and his great understanding of all of the issues that it raises. I appreciate very much his review of the entire bill. Today, as he forecasted, I rise to speak on an issue which is of great concern to the people of Florida. The people of my State are very concerned about development of offshore energy resources in what has been known as the Eastern Planning Zone of the Gulf of Mexico. As my colleagues are aware, in this bill is an inventory amendment that I will work to strike from the bill. There are also efforts to attach additional language to the Energy bill that I believe would be a poison pill and counter to what this bill is all about; namely, this bill is about conservation, new technologies, and jobs. I further thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, and the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, for the fine work they have done in crafting a bipartisan, comprehensive, and significant package that diversifies America's energy supply, increases conservation and production, and employs innovative technologies to meet America's energy needs. I thank the chairman and ranking member for allowing me to be part of this process and this legislation. As the chairman himself has said, this bill will make a real difference in America's energy landscape. I am proud to have voted for this legislation in committee, and I look forward to voting for it on the floor--if we can address some areas that are critical to my State's future, environmentally, economically, and even militarily. Mr. President, in the Energy bill that we are considering, there is a provision that requires an inventory of oil and natural gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. I opposed this amendment in committee because it contains something we in Florida don't want, it starts something that we in the United States do not need, and it opens the door to a number of problems--environmental problems, economic problems, and unnecessary challenges for our military. Why would we inventory an area where we are never going to drill? The inventory language in the Energy bill is a huge problem for Florida. It tantalizes prodrilling interests. Allowing an inventory is like saying to prodrilling States, ``Come and get it.'' I have received assurances from my friends on the other side of this issue that States such as Florida--States that do not want drilling on their coast--will not have to take it. Fine. That is Florida's position. I can clearly state that we do not want drilling now, and I do not see a scenario anywhere on the horizon where we could change that position. So why, given our objection to drilling, would we spend the resources and damage the environment on the Eastern Planning Zone to do this inventory? An inventory is not a benign thing. It involves detonating explosives, enough to shake the crust of the Earth, listen to what comes back, and, in the meantime, we may also destroy fragile sea life. Just briefly, if you look at the cost of this inventory, people in the Minerals Management Service tell me that to use the most up-to-date technology to perform any inventory of this magnitude, the cost estimate would run between $75 million and $125 million for each frontier planning area. Nowhere in this legislation can I find a section that suggests how we recoup the cost of such an inventory. So I look forward to working with Senator Domenici and my colleagues to find a solution to this question of the inventory--something that would preserve the inventory option for those States that want it and let States such as Florida remain unaffected. But worse than the inventory is what are being called the ``coastal killer'' amendments. We don't know when these amendments will be offered or if they will be offered, but the language first came up in committee, eventually withdrawn, and the nature of these amendments could be so devastating to Florida that I believe they ought to be addressed today. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator from Florida, addressed them today. These amendments should be explained, and I am here to argue that these amendments must be and ought to be rejected. The amendments aim at three things: drawing brandnew, unprecedented boundaries for each State, allowing States to opt out of the moratorium, and creating huge incentives for States to opt out of the Federal moratorium. If these amendments were to become law, that buffer zone shrinks to just 21 miles--well below what it is today. Let me be clear: 21 miles is no buffer zone, and it is of no comfort to Floridians. If we open additional drilling in the Eastern Planning Zone, it will damage the fragile ecosystem, Florida's economy, and it will pull the rug out from under the military that has made the commitment--an increased commitment--and made the investments and moved a majority of their training operations from Vieques and other places to the clear coastal waters of Florida. Mr. President, to say that these coastal killer amendments are giving States the freedom to choose is ignoring the fact that Florida will be losing its choice. We will stay in the moratorium, but if Alabama opts out, you bring drilling to Florida's shores--whether we like it or not. It is this aggressive effort to wade into what has traditionally been Florida's buffer zone that has drawn opposition. The Eastern Planning Zone must not be opened. For those who do not know the location of the Eastern Planning Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, let me show you this chart. The Eastern Planning Zone is in this area, which is clean and clear, as you can see. There are active leases in the gulf. Note that this portion of the gulf is literally tapped out. This is the area where drilling and leases are active at the current time--off Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, where it is literally covered up. When we think about this area, the Eastern Planning Zone, which is right here, we just don't care in Florida to see this kind of encroachment on our pristine coastline, our ecosystems, as it is over here. So for those of us who believe our boundary is here and that east of this we should exercise some control and some mandate, we simply do not care to see any change in the status quo. Oil and gas companies are now looking at this portion of the map-- Florida's coastal area--and thinking, Let's open that area. To my colleagues, I say, as Senator Nelson said before me, the answer to that is simply no. Last year, more than 74 million people visited Florida to enjoy its coastline and wonderful climate. Families return year after year to their favorite vacation spots to relax under our brilliant blue skies, at powdery white beaches, and our crystal-clear emerald waters. The people of Florida share a love and appreciation of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, its coastal habitat and our wetlands, which make a very complex ecosystem, and also a very special place to live. I share these facts for one reason: The people of Florida are concerned their coastal waters are coming under increased pressure to exploit possible oil and gas resources. The people of Florida do not want that to happen. Floridians are adamantly opposed to oil and gas exploration off our coastal waters. We have serious concerns that offshore drilling will increase the threat of potential oil spills, seriously damaging and threatening marine wildlife and their coastal habitat. In addition, Floridians are extremely concerned that drilling operations would produce massive amounts of waste mud and drill cuttings that would be generated and then sent untreated into the surrounding waters. Of the 74 million people who have visited the Sunshine State in 2004 to enjoy its beautiful beaches, exciting amusement parks, and wonderfully abundant wildlife and natural splendor, I daresay not a one of those people came to Florida without spending some of their hard- earned dollars. Here is what tourism means to Florida: 840,000 people directly employed in the industry and an economic impact of $46 billion a year to our State's economy. If the unforeseeable happens, whether it is a hurricane, an industrial accident, an intentional or terrorist act, and our coastlines become soaked with oil, there is no amount of relief aid that can clean up the economic disaster that would be Florida's. Entire communities would be totally devastated. At the end of the day, what I would like to see is for us to codify in law positions that are supported by me, the senior Senator from Florida, Bill Nelson, and Florida's citizens. Our view is that we must prevent any further encroachment into Florida's waters and coastline. This is necessary to protect our tourism industry and the pristine beaches and coastal areas that would be ruined if an unfortunate oil spill or disaster took place. Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments entails what drilling in the area of the Eastern Planning Zone would mean to national security. We cannot ignore the fact that lifting Florida's protections will put our military at a training disadvantage. Let me repeat: Lifting Florida's protections will put our military at a training disadvantage. Let me highlight just some of the military operations that use this platform-free zone for training. We have to allow our military to continue training for battle preparedness. Our young men and women deserve the best training we can afford. Vieques gave them that capability. Now that Vieques in Puerto Rico is closed, Florida's Panhandle plays an increasingly significant role. Oil and gas operations must not be allowed to impede on that training. Keep in mind, drilling in Florida's part of the gulf is not a new argument. This is something that has been attempted for some time. Here is what MG Michael Kostelnik, the base commander of Eglin Air Force Base, said in May of 2000: We continue to place the most severe restrictions in the eastern portion of the proposed sale area where oil and gas operations would be incompatible with military training and testing operations. If we allow drilling there now, the military will be set back in their training, their preparedness, and moved back to square one in trying to find an area suitable for this kind of massive military joint operation. This is a question of national security, and it is why in this area of Florida, where there is great land mass available to the military, as well as this entire gulf area, for training operations, that in this BRAC process Florida did rather well, and in fact we saw increases of training commands coming to this area of Florida for the very reason of what we have to offer, the environment and the pristine and open areas for them to train. I want to take a moment to discuss how we arrived at the position we find ourselves in today. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has stated publicly that she wants to be very respectful of States that do not want drilling off their coast--they do want drilling in Louisiana. I appreciate that sentiment and I feel the same respect for the rights and privileges of the various States. In fact, that is why we are here today. The coastal killer amendments will weaken Florida's protections. Under these amendments, the will of the people of Florida, which is to keep drilling away from our shores, will be thwarted. Senator Landrieu says she also wants to leave an option open for States that might want to drill off their shore. There is much work to do, but we must work to solve our Nation's energy problems without looking to Florida's coasts. They are not open for consideration. As many of my colleagues know, Senator Nelson and I are working together to engage a coalition of Senators to help beat back any efforts to encroach upon our coastal waters. I am proud to say in doing so I follow in the footsteps of our predecessors, former Senators Connie Mack and Bob Graham, and a bipartisan Florida delegation, in our firm opposition to drilling off our coasts. Let me again take a moment to praise Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman for putting together a comprehensive, bipartisan, and significant energy policy that is forward looking, forward thinking, and a road map of where we as a nation need to go in order to address the challenges that confront us today. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the kind comments. I also would like to say that I know Senator Burr is greatly concerned. We sat side by side in the committee, and he shares the concerns for the State of North Carolina and its coastline. What we see is a number of Senators who choose to protect their own interests, their own economies, and I also know the distinguished Senator from Louisiana is looking out for their own economy. So what we have to do is find a way that we can live and let live, not encroach, and allow each of the States to make decisions based on their own perceived self-interests. For a long time, Florida has been keeping our coastline clear.