Mel Martinez

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon first of all for the purpose of agreeing with my colleague from South Carolina and previously my colleague from Texas, both distinguish Senators who spoke in favor of the nomination of Dr. Gates to be our next Secretary of Defense. I intend to support his nomination. I believe he has served our country well in the past, and we are fortunate that he is willing to step into a difficult position at a very difficult time in our history. I intend to support him. I commend the Armed Services Committee for their show of unity and bipartisanship in unanimously supporting his nomination. I hope there will be a strong vote in support of Dr. Gates as he heads into this very difficult assignment. I think it is important we note today two other things--one, the need for us to look at this problem in Iraq with a sense of bipartisanship, with a sense of unity as Americans, putting aside the stripes we usually wear as Democrats and Republicans and looking at this problem as Americans concerned about a difficult problem, one that has taxed us but one in which we must succeed. Today the President received the report of the Iraq study commission, a group of distinguished Americans who came together to give us recommendations. I commend the President for not only accepting their report but also highlighting how clear he was and the seriousness that will be given to the recommendations it makes. Lastly, I wish to also take a moment to commend and thank Secretary Rumsfeld for his service to our Nation. I had the pleasure of meeting Secretary Rumsfeld when I was very inexperienced in the ways of Washington, a person from Florida, and I came here to serve in the President's Cabinet. During the time of the transition into this administration, I met Secretary Rumsfeld as we jointly prepared for our confirmation hearings before the Senate and proceeded to our jobs in the Cabinet. I came to know and appreciate this great American patriot, a man of incredible intellect and talent but also incredibly dedicated to our Nation. I came to truly appreciate his leadership and his skill as he led the Department of Defense initially through the treacherous attacks of September 11 where he, with his bare hands, was helping to dig the injured from the rubble of the Pentagon as that building was attacked on that unforgettable morning of September 11, 2001. I saw him next in our immediately following Cabinet meeting when the President asked all of us to try to pull ourselves together to help lead our Nation at this very difficult moment. He, in a certain and clear way, showed us a way forward and how our military would respond to the threats to our Nation--first of all, to secure the Capitol and New York City but then in a very clear and direct way on how to respond to those who had plotted these attacks in Afghanistan. He led our country into a very successful and very clear and decisive victory in Afghanistan and then prepared our country and led us into the war in Iraq with a very difficult and still uncertain outcome. In all of the debate and discussions that have ensued over the last several months about this difficult struggle in which we find ourselves today, I think too often we have been guided by the usual bickering and partisan politics, but not often enough do we stop to recognize a dedicated American who has served our Nation well. I am proud to call Secretary Rumsfeld my friend. But I am equally proud to say today that he has served our Nation with great distinction, that our Nation owes him a great debt of thanks and to his family as well, to his wife Joyce and to his children for the sacrifice that all of them have made so Secretary Rumsfeld could serve our Nation once again. At a certain age when many of us might be looking forward to retirement, he came to Washington once again to serve in a very difficult job and has done it with great distinction. I thank Secretary Rumsfeld on behalf of Floridians, and I think a grateful nation as well, and the men and women in uniform he has led who I know thought so much of his leadership. I know he has given so much of himself to the transformation of our military to prepare us for the future. I, for one, rise today with a voice of thanks to a great American for his service. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I congratulate Ms. Conchy Bretos of Miami, FL, recipient of the 2006 Purpose Prize. This new national award was initiated this year by Civic Ventures, a nonprofit organization dedicated to generating ideas and programs to help society achieve the greatest return on the experience of older Americans. After a varied career in housing, marketing, health, women's issues and government, Conchy Bretos became committed to doing something about the thousands of low-income elders and disabled adults who were not getting the service they needed to stay in their homes. She became the driving force behind the Helen Sawyer building in Miami, the Nation's first public housing project to offer assisted- living service. Her efforts have resulted in the creation of similar services in 40 public housing projects in a dozen States, allowing many older adults to maintain their independence while they receive the medical care they need. I want to recognize the role of the Purpose Prize itself in changing our society's view of aging. America's growing older population is one of our greatest untapped resources, and we need to do everything possible as a society to recognize the great contributions they can make.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today is a day of remembrance, a day of remembrance here in America and around the globe. Five years ago today, on a clear September morning, serenity was broken by death and destruction. What happened in New York, in Washington, and in Pennsylvania that day we will never forget. We will never forget the nearly 3,000 people whose lives were lost on that day; we will never forget their families; and we will continue to honor their lives by defending our freedom and fighting against all those who wish our Nation harm. Much has happened in the last 5 years since September 11, 2001. Our Government has responded in a variety of ways. So that we could better ``connect the dots'' in the future, the Department of Homeland Security was established, and later, a Director of National Intelligence was put into place so that our intelligence community could work together more seamlessly. Numerous security upgrades have been put into place across our country, new technologies have been developed and implemented to curb the advances of terrorists, and we are safer now than we were then. Over the last 5 years, we have waged an unprecedented and global campaign against terrorism. America is safer because we have had the PATRIOT Act. Our families are safer because we have had the surveillance necessary to make sure that those who are speaking on telephones with al-Qaida operatives overseas are being monitored. Our Nation is safer because we have pursued, captured, and interrogated terrorists and used that information to capture other, high-ranking al-Qaida leaders. We are safer because we have had the leadership, tenacity, and the opportunity to pursue terrorists wherever they may go. Our campaign against terrorism has been done in a comprehensive way with cooperation from other countries and it has been done utilizing all the power that the State has, not only militarily but through the surveillance of terrorist training camps, a strong diplomatic front working with our allies, and through financial means watching and seizing the bank accounts from where terrorists draw their resources. Our comprehensive efforts are about keeping America safe. As we remember those who died on 9/11, we also must remember that we are not safe yet. We are safer. We have been kept safe, but we must continue the vigilance, we must continue the determined campaign against terrorists and the states that sponsor terrorism. Thanks to the faithful leadership and resolve of all those that serve to protect us, especially our Armed Forces who give so much, no other attacks have occurred on American soil to date. We must continue to defend freedom here at home and abroad. As a Member of the Senate, I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress to make sure that we continue to devote the necessary resources to this continuing mission. As our President said on that mournful day 5 years ago, ``A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.'' Our Nation will never forget those lost on September 11, 2001, and we can demonstrate our continued commitment to their lives and memories through our unending defense of Democracy and our blessed and beloved United States of America.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss a topic that will always have incredible meaning to American families: educating our children. We all want what is best for our children, and we all want to make sure that we provide them with the tools that they need to succeed in tomorrow's workforce. While there are many different components to our education system here in America, today I want to concentrate on a particular point of concern, an area where, with some improvement, can be a key tool ensuring that our children are meeting their educational goals. Today, along with Senator John Cornyn of Texas, I rise to introduce the Raising Achievement through Improving Supplemental Education Act of 2006--or the RAISE Act for short. The RAISE Act seeks to improve the Supplemental Educational Services, SES, program and clears the way for this program to become well-known, widely available, and easily accessible to eligible students. It seeks to broaden eligibility requirements and prioritization of the program, and to target all low-performing students regardless of income status. Let me take a step back and talk about the Supplemental Education Service program, or SES program, for those who might not be familiar with it. SES was implemented as part of No Child Left Behind and designed to be an innovative tool to help meet the academic needs of low-income students attending continuously failing schools. The No Child Left Behind Act requires school districts to utilize 20 percent of their Federal funds for after-school tutoring programs at consistently failing schools. Under this program, low-income parents can choose free private tutoring from the provider of their choice. School districts then use their 20 percent allocation to pay the providers for their tutoring services. Any part of these funds that are not used for tutoring can be transferred into other district programs. By providing direct tutoring after school, the SES program can help students who are behind catch up with their peers. This in turn also improves the overall school performance. While the intent of the SES program has been pure, there have been numerous shortfalls nationwide--these shortfalls have much to do with a lack of implementation which the RAISE Act would seek to correct. For example, in the 2003-2004 school year, only 17 percent of the eligible 1.4 million students participated in SES programs. That means that hundreds of thousands of children are not being provided with tutoring help where funding has already been set aside for that purpose. Some parents reported that they did not sign up because they lacked the transportation to get their students to the providers, the providers were not tutoring on-site at the schools. Also, there were some conflicts with other, better established after-school programs. States have reported that many school districts with low turnout have failed to communicate with parents or implement the program in a way that ensures its success. The reports further indicate that some of the districts have openly undermined the program in letters to parents. In my own State of Florida for instance, one county sent a letter home to parents this past April about the SES services that would be provided for the current school year that sent quite a mixed signal. The letter stated that although parents might be able to secure SES program assistance for their children, the district believed that the funds could be better spent elsewhere and went as far to, quote unquote, ``strongly urge parents'' not to utilize their SES and school choice options under No Child Left Behind. So, what we are seeing is that with all the good intentions behind the SES program, we are having some problems with implementation. In Florida, we have already implemented SES improvements. As a result, Florida will see a higher SES program success rate, stronger guidelines, and better State oversight. Many of the provisions of the RAISE Act are modeled after the successes already occurring in my home State. In our school districts where SES programs are thriving, good communication with both parents and providers has been emphasized, as well as access to on-site tutoring at school facilities. One prominent Florida-based example is the SES program in Marion County, located in central Florida. Schools there have utilized all their funds to maximize student enrollment, which also increases the program's chances of greater overall success. Other good examples of SES program progress include Escambia County, Florida, where the city of Pensacola is located--to best utilize their SES dollars, they hosted a successful summer tutoring program. School Districts in the Palm Beach and Miami-Dade areas have SES programs that bode well on a national level for the strong parental outreach efforts they have instituted, which enable all eligible students the ability to enroll in SES. In Hillsborough County, FL--where Tampa is located--their success with SES enrollment brought the U.S. Department of Education to grant the district a special provision, whereby they can provide SES tutoring in addition to the private providers that most of the money is allocated for. This will allow Hillsborough County to make SES available to more students, and I look forward to seeing what their efforts bring. The RAISE Act will help make possible nationwide the kind of SES program success we have experienced in Florida. This success will come about because of stricter implementation standards and program overview. Another important component of the RAISE Act is eligibility for SES. Currently, SES targets low-income, low-performing students. I think we should be targeting all low-performing students, regardless of income status. By overlooking many middle-class families who do not have the money to put their children into private tutoring or after-school programs, many of those children are falling through the cracks. This bill is meant to ensure that all of our low-performing students have an opportunity to succeed academically. We are going to help out those in need such as Ms. Carla Garcia of Gibsonton, FL--a part of Hillsborough County. She is a single mother struggling to provide her family with the basics. She does not qualify for the low-income programs at her school, so her son is not currently eligible for SES services even though he is falling behind academically. Ms. Garcia strongly believes that if her son was able to receive tutoring under SES, he would be better able to excel and perform at grade level. Under the RAISE Act, Ms. Garcia would be able to receive SES services for her son--as would many other parents for their children--because my bill would make SES tutoring available to all students who are struggling to meet grade level proficiency. The RAISE Act aims to make sure that every child in the school yard has an equal opportunity at scholastic growth and advancement. So, to summarize: The RAISE Act will require better parental notification of eligibility and program availability; we streamline the application and registration process; and we level the playing field-- making school facilities as available for tutoring as they are for other after-school activities. The RAISE Act will broaden eligibility requirements and prioritization. Right now SES targets low-income, low-performing students; I think we ought to target all low-performing students, regardless of income status. In Florida, we have already implemented SES improvements. As a result, Florida's SES program has stronger guidelines and better State oversight. Many of the provisions of the RAISE Act are modeled after the successes already occurring in the state of Florida. The RAISE Act will provide the guidance and tools states and school districts need to increase participation and produce results. Stronger coordination, communication, and guidance will make SES programs more effective. The RAISE Act will help raise the success of all students, in turn raising the academic achievement of our schools. The Act was developed in consultation with school administrators, state education officials, and non-profit and research groups. This is a nationwide imperative and I urge my colleagues to support this innovative set of reforms. Let us continue to make improvements to the success that is No Child Left Behind, by providing the necessary funding, regulation, and implementation of Supplemental Educational Services across this great land. Together, we can make the RAISE Act a reality and improve the academic lives of countless American schoolchildren. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss a topic that will always have incredible meaning to American families: educating our children. We all want what is best for our children, and we all want to make sure that we provide them with the tools that they need to succeed in tomorrow's workforce. While there are many different components to our education system here in America, today I want to concentrate on a particular point of concern, an area where, with some improvement, can be a key tool ensuring that our children are meeting their educational goals. Today, along with Senator John Cornyn of Texas, I rise to introduce the Raising Achievement through Improving Supplemental Education Act of 2006--or the RAISE Act for short. The RAISE Act seeks to improve the Supplemental Educational Services, SES, program and clears the way for this program to become well-known, widely available, and easily accessible to eligible students. It seeks to broaden eligibility requirements and prioritization of the program, and to target all low-performing students regardless of income status. Let me take a step back and talk about the Supplemental Education Service program, or SES program, for those who might not be familiar with it. SES was implemented as part of No Child Left Behind and designed to be an innovative tool to help meet the academic needs of low-income students attending continuously failing schools. The No Child Left Behind Act requires school districts to utilize 20 percent of their Federal funds for after-school tutoring programs at consistently failing schools. Under this program, low-income parents can choose free private tutoring from the provider of their choice. School districts then use their 20 percent allocation to pay the providers for their tutoring services. Any part of these funds that are not used for tutoring can be transferred into other district programs. By providing direct tutoring after school, the SES program can help students who are behind catch up with their peers. This in turn also improves the overall school performance. While the intent of the SES program has been pure, there have been numerous shortfalls nationwide--these shortfalls have much to do with a lack of implementation which the RAISE Act would seek to correct. For example, in the 2003-2004 school year, only 17 percent of the eligible 1.4 million students participated in SES programs. That means that hundreds of thousands of children are not being provided with tutoring help where funding has already been set aside for that purpose. Some parents reported that they did not sign up because they lacked the transportation to get their students to the providers, the providers were not tutoring on-site at the schools. Also, there were some conflicts with other, better established after-school programs. States have reported that many school districts with low turnout have failed to communicate with parents or implement the program in a way that ensures its success. The reports further indicate that some of the districts have openly undermined the program in letters to parents. In my own State of Florida for instance, one county sent a letter home to parents this past April about the SES services that would be provided for the current school year that sent quite a mixed signal. The letter stated that although parents might be able to secure SES program assistance for their children, the district believed that the funds could be better spent elsewhere and went as far to, quote unquote, ``strongly urge parents'' not to utilize their SES and school choice options under No Child Left Behind. So, what we are seeing is that with all the good intentions behind the SES program, we are having some problems with implementation. In Florida, we have already implemented SES improvements. As a result, Florida will see a higher SES program success rate, stronger guidelines, and better State oversight. Many of the provisions of the RAISE Act are modeled after the successes already occurring in my home State. In our school districts where SES programs are thriving, good communication with both parents and providers has been emphasized, as well as access to on-site tutoring at school facilities. One prominent Florida-based example is the SES program in Marion County, located in central Florida. Schools there have utilized all their funds to maximize student enrollment, which also increases the program's chances of greater overall success. Other good examples of SES program progress include Escambia County, Florida, where the city of Pensacola is located--to best utilize their SES dollars, they hosted a successful summer tutoring program. School Districts in the Palm Beach and Miami-Dade areas have SES programs that bode well on a national level for the strong parental outreach efforts they have instituted, which enable all eligible students the ability to enroll in SES. In Hillsborough County, FL--where Tampa is located--their success with SES enrollment brought the U.S. Department of Education to grant the district a special provision, whereby they can provide SES tutoring in addition to the private providers that most of the money is allocated for. This will allow Hillsborough County to make SES available to more students, and I look forward to seeing what their efforts bring. The RAISE Act will help make possible nationwide the kind of SES program success we have experienced in Florida. This success will come about because of stricter implementation standards and program overview. Another important component of the RAISE Act is eligibility for SES. Currently, SES targets low-income, low-performing students. I think we should be targeting all low-performing students, regardless of income status. By overlooking many middle-class families who do not have the money to put their children into private tutoring or after-school programs, many of those children are falling through the cracks. This bill is meant to ensure that all of our low-performing students have an opportunity to succeed academically. We are going to help out those in need such as Ms. Carla Garcia of Gibsonton, FL--a part of Hillsborough County. She is a single mother struggling to provide her family with the basics. She does not qualify for the low-income programs at her school, so her son is not currently eligible for SES services even though he is falling behind academically. Ms. Garcia strongly believes that if her son was able to receive tutoring under SES, he would be better able to excel and perform at grade level. Under the RAISE Act, Ms. Garcia would be able to receive SES services for her son--as would many other parents for their children--because my bill would make SES tutoring available to all students who are struggling to meet grade level proficiency. The RAISE Act aims to make sure that every child in the school yard has an equal opportunity at scholastic growth and advancement. So, to summarize: The RAISE Act will require better parental notification of eligibility and program availability; we streamline the application and registration process; and we level the playing field-- making school facilities as available for tutoring as they are for other after-school activities. The RAISE Act will broaden eligibility requirements and prioritization. Right now SES targets low-income, low-performing students; I think we ought to target all low-performing students, regardless of income status. In Florida, we have already implemented SES improvements. As a result, Florida's SES program has stronger guidelines and better State oversight. Many of the provisions of the RAISE Act are modeled after the successes already occurring in the state of Florida. The RAISE Act will provide the guidance and tools states and school districts need to increase participation and produce results. Stronger coordination, communication, and guidance will make SES programs more effective. The RAISE Act will help raise the success of all students, in turn raising the academic achievement of our schools. The Act was developed in consultation with school administrators, state education officials, and non-profit and research groups. This is a nationwide imperative and I urge my colleagues to support this innovative set of reforms. Let us continue to make improvements to the success that is No Child Left Behind, by providing the necessary funding, regulation, and implementation of Supplemental Educational Services across this great land. Together, we can make the RAISE Act a reality and improve the academic lives of countless American schoolchildren. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a bill that could have a significant impact on the family budgets of millions of American households. H.R. 5252, the Communications Act of 2006, passed by the Senate Commerce Committee in June is that bill. H.R. 5252 is an important piece of proconsumer legislation. It reforms the cable franchising process to permit competition to incumbent cable companies. The result will be competition in the delivery of cable television services to all our constituents. While prices for Internet access and wireless service continue to fall, cable bills continue to climb and climb--in fact, according to the Federal Communications Commission, those bills have shot up more than 86 percent over the past decade. Millions of Americans have no choice when it comes to their video provider. H.R. 5252 will change that by bringing real competition and giving consumers the ability to choose who provides their video programming. This is something consumers want and deserve. Competition brings lower prices and consumers win. Competition brings improved customer service--and consumers win. Competition results in service providers seeking to serve narrower segments of the marketplace--and consumers win. It is not an exaggeration to say that the enactment of this legislation will save consumers billions of dollars a year. In the few markets where video providers have successfully negotiated franchise agreements--for instance, in parts of Florida, Texas and Virginia-- consumers have benefited greatly. According to a recent Bank of America study, in those aforementioned areas, cable bills have fallen by 28 to 42 percent--a savings of as much as $264 per year for cable customers. And a recent Phoenix Center report estimates that each year Congress delays cable franchise reform, it costs American consumers $8.2 billion in unrecoverable losses from increased cable rates. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, according to the same report, this means that Florida consumers are losing $626 million each year. That is a significant amount of money coming out of the pockets of my fellow Floridians. We have the power to change this. Consumers in every State will continue to lose money if we do not act now. This issue is too important for us to ignore. We all know and understand that technology is changing each and every day--and yet our Nation's telecom laws have not been updated in 10 years. The United States is the world leader in creating new and innovative technologies and we are at the forefront of bringing these new technologies to the marketplace. Sadly though, when it comes to broadband deployment, the U.S. currently ranks 16th in the world. We need to act today to update our Nation's telecom laws and bring more choice and competition to the marketplace. Our economy needs it and consumers are demanding it. I know the Senate Calendar is packed with important legislation which we must complete prior to adjourning. But the video choice legislation will affect every single household in America. It will bring competition to the video programming marketplace, and bring the benefits of competition to all of our constituents, whether or not they subscribe to cable. I urge my colleagues to support the efforts of Senator Stevens to bring this legislation before us. As far as this legislation is concerned, time is money. Change is long overdue, and we are eager to help our fellow Americans keep more of their hard earned money. We in this Chamber have a responsibility to get this legislation passed sooner, rather than later, so that our constituents can start saving more today, not tomorrow.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss a bill that aims to give America's children access to greater educational opportunities. As history has taught us, advanced societies are always built on a foundation of a few shared values--and education is a chief component of that foundation. For 21st century America to continue to lead the world, the leaders of this great Nation of ours must remain committed to providing every American child the opportunity to succeed in the classroom. A quality education unlocks the doors that lead to bigger life opportunities. As the axiom goes, knowledge is power [attributed to Sir Francis Bacon]. In addition, our educational system should be helping parents to make better choices, not taking choices away from them. That is why I am introducing the Tax and Education Assistance for Children (TEACH) Act of 2006. Representative Vito Fossella of New York has already introduced this bill in the House of Representatives, where it has collected 34 cosponsors. Six of those cosponsors come from my home State of Florida. Those cosponsors are Jeff Miller, Ginny Brown-Waite, Dave Weldon, John Mica, Katherine Harris and Tom Feeney. There is a good reason for this. In Florida and across America today, our public schools are facing new and troubling challenges. Many public schools are suffering from overcrowding, leading to a myriad of problems such as teacher shortages, threats to campus security, a lack of books, desks, and computers, to name a few. In this country, known to the world as a ``land of opportunity,'' American parents deserve better than to have their children suffer through a failing school system. We live in a consumer-driven society where numerous choices abound: car or SUV, caffeinated or decaf, book in print or book on tape. We live in a country where you can make airline reservations from a portable electronic device, where a doctor can remotely assist in a surgery from thousands of miles away, where we can power our homes with Sun, wind, or water, and yet too often parents do not have a basic choice for their children: public school or private school. Many parents would like to send their children to a traditional private, religious, or military school, however, they are often unable to do so because of the high costs of such an endeavor. Many middle-class parents make enough to take care of their families, but not enough for their families to pick up and move to a better school district or for them to send their children to a private school where they are living. As we know, it is the innate desire of parents to want to provide the very best for their children. While public schools are the right choice for tens of millions of American children each and every year, more than 5 million American students currently attend private schools at little or no cost to American taxpayers. We want to help students reach their maximum potential. In this country and around the globe, the best educated people are nearly always the ones leading their respective communities forward. This bill would establish a tax credit of up to $4,500 per family for private elementary or secondary school tuition. Single parents would also be eligible for the credit. And because we always want to be responsible with how taxpayers' money is spent, the tax credit is nonrefundable. To elaborate, this means that if tuition is only three thousand dollars at a school, families will only be able to deduct that amount. This credit would pass along a small portion of taxpayer savings back to the families that help generate it. For all those middle-class and lower income families across America who feel trapped, who feel as if they don't have the power to choose what is best for their children and their educational needs, the TEACH Act of 2006 will make it possible for them to choose the best learning environment for their children. It is also important to note that this bill does not institute a voucher program. Instead, as a Federal income tax credit, it helps families to have choices, while not detracting from the funding sources needed to continue upkeep of and improvements in our public schools. This bill would alleviate the financial burden on our public schools, and thus allow schools to devote greater resources toward improving the educational experience for all students. And the American taxpayer should not worry that this bill will reduce the funding for their child's school or for any other public school--it won't. What it will do is increase the value of every child's educational experience, be it in a public or private school. According to the U.S. Census Bureau statistics from 2004, the cost of educating a student in the public school system is close to $8,000 a year. Multiplied out, this comes to a total savings of over $42 billion a year for our public school systems. If the millions of privately educated students in this country were to be publicly educated, every taxpayer would have to bear that burden. With this legislation, parents win because their children get the best education possible and the American taxpayer wins because they owe nothing more. And where Florida is concerned, according to the aforementioned U.S. Census Bureau statistics, approximately, $6,000 is spent annually per public school student in the Sunshine State. With more than 350,000 students attending private schools in Florida annually, our State's taxpayers save $2.2 billion--and that savings can benefit public schools. The TEACH Act of 2006 would help to add to those savings. America is an ownership society where people get to make choices about how they spend their money and where they are going to spend it. With a choice as important as where and how our children are educated, we need to put more of the power in the hands of the parents. While this is in no way comprehensive education reform, it is another big step in the right direction. I encourage my Senate colleagues to learn more about the TEACH Act and to work with me to push through this legislation that will help our children across America receive the education that they need. Remember, if we do not continue to invest in our future today, tomorrow will not show us the bright promise that it can. Let us carry that promise home to more Americans today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss a bill that aims to give America's children access to greater educational opportunities. As history has taught us, advanced societies are always built on a foundation of a few shared values--and education is a chief component of that foundation. For 21st century America to continue to lead the world, the leaders of this great Nation of ours must remain committed to providing every American child the opportunity to succeed in the classroom. A quality education unlocks the doors that lead to bigger life opportunities. As the axiom goes, knowledge is power [attributed to Sir Francis Bacon]. In addition, our educational system should be helping parents to make better choices, not taking choices away from them. That is why I am introducing the Tax and Education Assistance for Children (TEACH) Act of 2006. Representative Vito Fossella of New York has already introduced this bill in the House of Representatives, where it has collected 34 cosponsors. Six of those cosponsors come from my home State of Florida. Those cosponsors are Jeff Miller, Ginny Brown-Waite, Dave Weldon, John Mica, Katherine Harris and Tom Feeney. There is a good reason for this. In Florida and across America today, our public schools are facing new and troubling challenges. Many public schools are suffering from overcrowding, leading to a myriad of problems such as teacher shortages, threats to campus security, a lack of books, desks, and computers, to name a few. In this country, known to the world as a ``land of opportunity,'' American parents deserve better than to have their children suffer through a failing school system. We live in a consumer-driven society where numerous choices abound: car or SUV, caffeinated or decaf, book in print or book on tape. We live in a country where you can make airline reservations from a portable electronic device, where a doctor can remotely assist in a surgery from thousands of miles away, where we can power our homes with Sun, wind, or water, and yet too often parents do not have a basic choice for their children: public school or private school. Many parents would like to send their children to a traditional private, religious, or military school, however, they are often unable to do so because of the high costs of such an endeavor. Many middle-class parents make enough to take care of their families, but not enough for their families to pick up and move to a better school district or for them to send their children to a private school where they are living. As we know, it is the innate desire of parents to want to provide the very best for their children. While public schools are the right choice for tens of millions of American children each and every year, more than 5 million American students currently attend private schools at little or no cost to American taxpayers. We want to help students reach their maximum potential. In this country and around the globe, the best educated people are nearly always the ones leading their respective communities forward. This bill would establish a tax credit of up to $4,500 per family for private elementary or secondary school tuition. Single parents would also be eligible for the credit. And because we always want to be responsible with how taxpayers' money is spent, the tax credit is nonrefundable. To elaborate, this means that if tuition is only three thousand dollars at a school, families will only be able to deduct that amount. This credit would pass along a small portion of taxpayer savings back to the families that help generate it. For all those middle-class and lower income families across America who feel trapped, who feel as if they don't have the power to choose what is best for their children and their educational needs, the TEACH Act of 2006 will make it possible for them to choose the best learning environment for their children. It is also important to note that this bill does not institute a voucher program. Instead, as a Federal income tax credit, it helps families to have choices, while not detracting from the funding sources needed to continue upkeep of and improvements in our public schools. This bill would alleviate the financial burden on our public schools, and thus allow schools to devote greater resources toward improving the educational experience for all students. And the American taxpayer should not worry that this bill will reduce the funding for their child's school or for any other public school--it won't. What it will do is increase the value of every child's educational experience, be it in a public or private school. According to the U.S. Census Bureau statistics from 2004, the cost of educating a student in the public school system is close to $8,000 a year. Multiplied out, this comes to a total savings of over $42 billion a year for our public school systems. If the millions of privately educated students in this country were to be publicly educated, every taxpayer would have to bear that burden. With this legislation, parents win because their children get the best education possible and the American taxpayer wins because they owe nothing more. And where Florida is concerned, according to the aforementioned U.S. Census Bureau statistics, approximately, $6,000 is spent annually per public school student in the Sunshine State. With more than 350,000 students attending private schools in Florida annually, our State's taxpayers save $2.2 billion--and that savings can benefit public schools. The TEACH Act of 2006 would help to add to those savings. America is an ownership society where people get to make choices about how they spend their money and where they are going to spend it. With a choice as important as where and how our children are educated, we need to put more of the power in the hands of the parents. While this is in no way comprehensive education reform, it is another big step in the right direction. I encourage my Senate colleagues to learn more about the TEACH Act and to work with me to push through this legislation that will help our children across America receive the education that they need. Remember, if we do not continue to invest in our future today, tomorrow will not show us the bright promise that it can. Let us carry that promise home to more Americans today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, over the last several days we have been discussing the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. Today, in an hour or so from now, we will have a cloture vote on this very important legislation. For my part, I have tried to make it clear how important this legislation is to my State of Florida, how important the protection of our fragile environment in our State is to our people. As a young 15-year-old, I came to Florida as many people who have been transplanted from elsewhere, to enjoy a Florida lifestyle. Since that time I have been in love with this wonderful State, what it has to offer to people, to families, and the great traditions Florida has had as a place to enjoy the outdoors. I have on countless occasions enjoyed Florida's beaches, fishing, enjoyed other outdoor pursuits which are such a natural part of what Florida is about. As the years have gone by, I have passed that on and instilled that in my children, as I did a little bit yesterday, passing it on to my grandchildren when we were enjoying New Smyrna beach yesterday, under that hot Florida sun, but also the beautiful sandy beaches. Part of what this bill is about for Floridians is protecting the future, passing that love on to other generations by ensuring that Florida remains pristine, that it remains the kind of place a visitor from all over the country would choose to come to enjoy year after year and where other Florida families might begin to develop and enjoy their own family traditions, enjoying the great outdoors Florida has to offer, our sandy beaches, the fishing, and other recreational opportunities that come about as a result of this wonderful natural habitat we have. But also protecting it is important as an economic consideration. It is part of what makes Florida's economy so thriving and important--the tourism. Before there was Disney and Universal Studios, and those types of attractions, it was the beaches and the climate that brought folks to Florida to come and enjoy. At the end of the day, that is our calling card. Protecting Florida's environment is not something we take lightly. Protecting the environment in Florida is not something that is a Republican or a Democratic issue. That is why Senator Nelson, my colleague from Florida, and I have worked so closely together over the last year or so as this great debate has raged on about what to do to protect Florida, while at the same time yielding ever more increasing pressures to drill and explore in the Outer Continental Shelf. In the Senate, I maintain another tradition--the tradition of other Florida Senators, Connie Mack, Bob Graham, others who have fought over time to protect Florida's treasures from those who don't share our values. I am proud to be part of that tradition. I am firmly committed to this tradition. And in that tradition, I have worked very hard on--and I am proud to say--what I believe has been a good compromise for our State, along with Senator Nelson and members of the Florida delegation in the House of Representatives, who have worked diligently as well to protect their areas of Florida, protect the State and at the same time understanding the great pressures we are under and the battle that has gotten fiercer and fiercer as demand has increased for ever more production of gas and oil. As the prices at the pump continue to go up, as prices drive businesses abroad and overseas because of the high cost of natural gas, that pressure has been ever increasing. What I want to do today, in hoping that the people across the State and also across our Nation understand, is say that this bill puts the control of the future of our State in our hands. As the map here shows, it provides a tremendous zone of protection for the State of Louisiana--125 miles south of Pensacola and the panhandle, but almost 320 some miles from Naples and 237 miles from Tampa. This yellow area is all part of the zone of protection that Florida will enjoy until the year 2022, a long time from now. As a result of that protection, we have also done something very important to our State, which is upholding the tradition of our military readiness. This is a military mission line here, where no drilling will take place east of this line. What this does is protects the training missions that take place out of Eglin Air Force Base, Hurlburt Field, and the Naval Air Station in Pensacola as well. They train and practice. They test in this area here the guided munitions that are such a part of the necessary and difficult and dangerous world in which we live. Those marvelous weapons can sometimes make the difference between striking the right target or not due to these tests in the Gulf of Mexico. The F-22 fighter, which is going to be a very important part of the future of our military readiness, is going to train here. It is so fast that it requires the vastness of the Gulf of Mexico to be able to conduct maneuvers and training exercises that are necessary. So this is a zone of protection for our State until 2022. Some might say it is just protection for the gulf. What about the Keys and the east coast of Florida? That is under a moratorium presently. The important protection here is to the gulf coast. What has been under siege, gone after, is this area denoted as 181 and this shore, which is the stovepipe. This is what we have been seeking to protect, so we could protect our beaches until we had assurances that as exploration took place in this area for what is such a needed product, we also were protecting the military line and Florida's west coast. The east coast at this point is not under the same kinds of threat. At the end of the day, there are going to be other attempts that we will have to fight and do what we can to protect Florida. At this moment, the crucial protection was to the gulf coast. I am very thankful to Senator Domenici, chairman of the Energy Committee, who worked closely with me and has allowed me to play a role in crafting this important legislation, attempting to understand Florida's concerns, attempting to understand the difficult choices we have to make in this issue. Also, I appreciate the members of the House of Representatives. They have passed a very different bill from this one. I believe the protections for Florida in this bill are superior. I will take a moment to thank them for their diligence and vigilance for our State and for trying to come up with solutions and answers in a different environment than I have worked in with Senator Nelson in the Senate. I want to make sure that, with great respect, we hope this is the legislation that will ultimately emerge and be passed by both Houses. I cannot support the House version. I have had clear assurances from our leaders that we are committed to working from the framework of the Senate bill. That has been important to me, and while I respect the hard work of our House colleagues and their autonomy as a body of Congress, I believe also we have to prevail on this Senate version of the bill. It is what the Senate can pass this year. It is the reality of the situation. I am hopeful we can impress upon our colleagues in the House by an overwhelming vote of support for this measure. Now is the time and this is the opportunity to protect Florida while at the same time providing some measure of improvement to the conditions we find ourselves in today with such a desperate need for oil and gas. This area is rich in not only oil but natural gas. The natural gas production from this area may be greater than that of oil. That is a tremendously important resource for our Nation today as we try to power our plants and other facilities, at a time when so much electricity is being generated by the use of natural gas. It is important that we do all we can to bring down the price of natural gas. Chairman Domenici believes that, in talking with people in the industry, the passage of this bill could have a significant impact on the price of futures as it relates to natural gas. I hope that will come to pass because that will bode well for our Nation's energy needs and also for those who are trying to maintain jobs here that have been recently moving overseas. Another part of the bill--and the Senator from Louisiana is on the floor; she has been such a good person to work with and is very understanding of Florida, but also has a very different perspective from her State. I know the revenue-sharing parts of the bill are going to be a great opportunity for the Gulf States that do so much of the dirty work involving this--that put their shoreline on the line so the United States can be more energy self-sufficient--to do the things that are necessary as a result of the demanding nature of this work. Florida won't be doing that. Florida sought protection rather than revenue, and that is what we got. I feel good about the bill. I think this is the best Florida can do at this time. The zone of protection we wanted to have, which was 125 miles, has been greatly exceeded in most dimensions, and we can go forward until the year 2022 with a settled plate, understanding that there will be production coming out of the gulf, but it will not impact our State.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. I rise to speak on S. 3711. My understanding is, through a unanimous consent agreement, I am permitted to speak for 10 minutes on the bill.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I join my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, and thank the chairman of the Energy Committee for his help in moving this bill today. I know it is a very important day for the United States but also for the people of Florida. S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, is a bill that will not only provide very needed resources for our Nation, but it also provides something that is very important to those of us who love and are from the State of Florida, which is protections for our State from encroachment by those who would wish to drill and explore for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. For many years, Members of the House and Senate from Florida have been joined in a struggle to ensure that Florida's economic and environmental interests be protected as exploration for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico took place. I am pleased to say that as we have worked through this issue, one of the things that was paramount in our minds was providing some zone of permanent protection for the State of Florida. In this particular arrangement, which we have been able to reach thanks to the good work and understanding of the needs of Florida by Chairman Domenici and others, we have been able to find a zone of protection for the State of Florida--a zone of protection that begins in Pensacola and moves south 125 miles in Florida waters but provides an extraordinary zone of protection for the State of Florida, as we obtained not only 125 miles but frankly 237 miles from the coast of Tampa and almost 325 miles from the coast of Naples. The entire west coast of Florida is going to enjoy protection of well over 200 to 300 miles. We are, in fact, going to be protecting the State of Florida's military mission line. The military in Florida have had a long and close working relationship. We value what they bring to our State and what they provide for our national defense. The military mission line, in this area, is going to be observed and protected. That is what provides this extraordinary zone of protection beyond the 125 miles we see here. Why is this important? Because while we could not do this permanently--and there is no such thing as permanence--we have been able to provide this zone of protection, all of this in yellow, to the State of Florida until the year 2022, a long time from now. In addition, a further protection of that, which is incredibly important for our State, there are any number of leases that were at a different time under different leadership and, perhaps, with not as much thought of the impact it could have on our State, our economy, our beaches, our environment. Many leases were given to oil companies, not much more than 3 miles off the coast of Florida, some 8, 10, 15, or 17 miles off the coast. The State of Florida has, in fact, purchased some of the leases in the past. I commend Governor Bush for leading the effort to do so. Under this bill, under this arrangement, the leases that are interior in the area of Florida can then be swapped out for leases in the areas that will be explored. It is a great and wonderful opportunity for those who are holding leases close to the coast of Florida to swap them out for areas far beyond where they currently are, thus eliminating, beyond the year 2022, any threat on the gulf coast from drilling. This is an important and good day for Florida. It is something we have battled for long and hard. Senator Bill Nelson and I--my colleague from Florida--filed a bill early this year which provides a 150-mile zone of protection. This is not 150 miles relating to the panhandle, but it is 125 miles and is, as others have said, the best deal on the table. Is this the answer to our problems? Certainly not long term, certainly not forever. Certainly we have to understand that the future of America, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, is moving away from our dependence, our addiction to fossil fuels. We have to understand that this is at best a bridge into the future. This is at best a way to provide for now so that Florida industries that have been so dependent on gas, such as the phosphate industry, such as fertilizers, and the generation of electricity to cool and warm Florida homes, will not be imperiled.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds to conclude.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I know Florida can play a significant role in the development of ethanol and other alternative fuels. I know this is an opportunity for us to bridge into the future. I am delighted that today we are going to provide Florida the kind of protection it needs. I welcome the opportunity to move S. 3711. It is the last measure, it is the last line. There cannot be any other way but this way if we will have the support of Florida Senators. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5865, which was received from the House.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley-Baucus substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon on Wednesday, July 26, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 87, which was received from the House. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that following the use or yielding of time, the joint resolution be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage without intervening action or debate.

Mr. MARTINEZ

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

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. This is an important and timely piece of legislation that deals with an issue that is very near and dear to Floridians, which is protecting our gulf coast from drilling. Protecting Florida's coastline is an issue of monumental concern to me and to my constituents, and I commend Chairman Domenici and his staff, as well as Leader Frist and Senator Mitch McConnell, for their hard work in forging a strong bipartisan compromise that allows us to do just that. I also thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her work in bringing about this bill. As Floridians know, and many of my colleagues have learned over the past several months, our beaches are extremely important to our way of life. We value their unique and fragile ecosystem. Our State's special scenery and fragile environment bring millions from across the Nation and the globe to enjoy its sugar-sand beaches and world class angling and boating. I have spent a great amount of time and energy since arriving in the Senate fighting to protect Florida's treasures from the threat of offshore drilling, together with my colleague, Senator Nelson, as well as with the Members of the Florida delegation in the House of Representatives. Several different pieces of legislation have been introduced over the past year in the House and the Senate that the Florida delegation has found extremely worrisome, and we have been successful up to this point in keeping drilling at bay. But the drilling battle has gotten fiercer and the stakes have gotten much higher as our Nation struggles to meet our energy demands in an increasingly uncertain world. Pressure continues to mount in Congress to develop Federal deepwater resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. And because high oil and natural gas prices are not a Republican or a Democrat problem but they are our Nation's problem, there is a bipartisan majority that grows stronger each day behind the effort to open the Eastern Planning Zone of the Gulf of Mexico to more drilling. So our options are whether to be part of a solution--a real solution that provides concrete protections for our State--or watch our protections be eaten away year after year by those who do not share Florida's values. I chose to be part of a solution for Florida. I want to assure Floridians that Florida is protected under this bill. This legislation, which I was proud to help negotiate, will provide unprecedented protections for the gulf coast of Florida. This bill establishes in law a 235-mile buffer from Tampa and a minimum of 125 miles of protection from the Panhandle of Florida south through the year 2022. It provides over 300 miles of protection from Naples west. And it protects our very important military mission line. The military mission line is important to Florida because we are also blessed in Florida to host a great number of military facilities and the very important facilities in the Florida Panhandle. Eglin Air Force Base, Hurlburt Field, and the Pensacola Naval Air Station are facilities that rely on the Gulf of Mexico for training and for firing ranges, all of which would be incompatible with drilling. Any lease within 125 miles of the coast, inside the no-drill zone, can be exchanged for new leases in deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the critical ``Stovepipe'' area located in extreme proximity to Pensacola will be protected from oil and gas exploration through the year 2022. These are historic protections that Floridians can count on for years to come. I would like to make clear that this is not an opening for negotiation. I am firmly committed to this deal. Anything else that subtracts from the protections for our State as laid out in this legislation is not enough for our State. This is it. To me, this compromise is a bridge to the future. It is my hope that by 2022, and maybe long before then, we will have developed a long-term energy strategy to lessen our dependence on oil. It is that simple and something I feel very strongly about for our future. Just last year, the Senate passed a large, bipartisan Energy Policy Act that doubled the amount of ethanol in our fuel mix to 7.5 billion gallons. The bill also included provisions that I supported that increased funding for sugarcane and cellulosic ethanol development, as well as $50 million in loan guarantees to build alternative energy plants. We must buckle down and advance the use of renewables and alternative sources of energy. We are only scratching the surface of our future potential, and we should not limit the capacity or ingenuity of America's scientists to tackle this energy problem. However, we need a bridge to get to that future. S. 3711 is a way to keep our industries and utilities running while we find new ways to power our cars, heat and cool our homes, and create our energy-- America's energy. As important a priority as it is to Floridians that we protect our coasts and our environment, we must be realistic about our own energy demands. It is a difficult thing--and it has been a difficult thing as I have tried to fight for Florida's environment--to stand here and say we want no new drilling, we want no drilling anywhere in the gulf, when Florida's size alone makes it one of the Nation's largest consumers. And these consumers are Florida's families who are struggling to fill their cars and heat and cool their homes. These are struggling families who sit around the kitchen table while they balance their family budget and find the budget busted by ever-increasing energy costs. The rising cost of fuel and the strains that this is placing on their pocketbook are dominating talk of America's families. In addition, we have to keep in mind how critical energy is to many of our industries that help drive the economies of our State. As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have heard countless testimony from our Nation's chemical, fertilizer, and manufacturing industries that are vitally dependent on increasing natural gas supplies within our Nation. Unlike petroleum, which is traded globally, much of the natural gas market is traded on a regional basis, and U.S. natural gas prices are among the highest in the world. For example, Florida provides 75 percent of the phosphate fertilizers used by American farmers and gardeners every day. The Florida phosphate industry is one of the State's oldest and largest economic engines, accounting for more than 6,000 direct jobs. The Tampa Port Authority estimates that that industry has created more than 41,000 indirect jobs and $5.9 billion of economic impact in the Tampa Bay region alone. Prior to the significant increases in natural gas prices, the U.S. nitrogen industry typically supplied approximately 85 percent of U.S. farmers' nitrogen fertilizer needs. As a result of the continuing natural gas crisis, farmers have been forced to import more than 50 percent of the nitrogen fertilizers they use. In total, at least 21 nitrogen fertilizer production facilities have closed since July of 1998. Sixteen of those plants have closed permanently. That represents a 25-percent drop in total U.S. production capacity, while five plants remain idle even today. S. 3711 will provide over 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas for our impaired industries, utilities, and also my constituents who are dealing with soaring heating and cooling bills. I would like to focus now on a series of concerns that have been raised regarding this bill, how it is different and, in my opinion, better than OCS legislation recently passed in the House of Representatives. Let me say, first, that my colleagues in the Florida delegation worked tirelessly to find and obtain the best protection possible for our State under very difficult circumstances. Some have questioned the protections afforded to the buffer zone around Florida. The buffer zone provided by S. 3711, in my opinion, is clearly preferable to any other one that has been offered as an alternative. This legislation ensures that the Federal Government will continue to have jurisdiction over the Federal waters off each State's coast. We do not cede the responsibility of energy development, environmental protection or military preparedness to the desires of State legislatures. The buffer zone in the Gulf of Mexico is good through the year 2022 and also prohibits drilling in our military critical training areas. Some have asked why Florida's Atlantic coast is not included in this bill. I would say, quite simply, that Florida's Atlantic coast has been under relentless attack for the last year and a half by those who want to drill. The Atlantic coast of Florida is still under a Presidential withdrawal until 2012, as well as the entire eastern and western coasts of the United States. This means that until the year 2012, the eastern coast of Florida is safe. Our compromise legislation in no way weakens the existing coastal protections. The House-passed OCS bill removes the entire Presidential withdrawals off of every coast and forces State legislatures to pass legislation every 5 years to keep or extend those protections. Other coastal Senators have raised their objection to S. 3711 because they want to increase coastal buffer zones in their own States. This is a focused piece of legislation that deals only with the Gulf of Mexico. Adding additional protections to areas that frankly are not promising to the energy industry should not be an impediment to moving forward with this compromise bill. To quote the old bank robber, when asked why he robbed banks, he replied: Because that is where the money is. The area being opened for exploration is the most promising area of discovery for the industry and can be leased right away. During negotiations, I chose to focus on protecting the area of Florida under greatest pressure, and I thank my colleagues, Senator Domenici, Leader Frist, and Senator McConnell, for honoring me and Florida's environmental concerns. The last major concern that has been raised is objection to revenue sharing with western Gulf States and targeted revenues to the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is perfectly fitting and appropriate that we share revenues with the States that produce our Nation's energy and deal with its corresponding onshore repercussions. We in Florida do not want to participate in the development of this extensive oil and gas infrastructure but recognize that others in the western gulf pay the price to bring reliable energy to the country. We share 50 percent of revenues on public land within a State's boundary, and it is fitting that we provide energy-producing States with at least similar treatment. Sharing 37.5 percent of the new OCS revenues will not bankrupt the Nation, nor increase the Nation's national debt. Currently, these areas off the coast are not being leased and are providing no revenue to the General Treasury. Keeping 100 percent of zero revenues is just that--nothing. Finally, for those concerned with funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund, S. 3711 will provide a real boost for the program. The mandatory funding stream established under this bill does not replace appropriated funding and does nothing to disadvantage the program in the appropriations process. The President's budget request has been zeroed out the last 2 years for this program and under our compromise bill, the Land and Water Conservation Fund will provide up to $450 million or 12.5 percent of the revenues generated from the new leasing each year. This compromise was delicate and difficult to forge. Some argue more could have been done for Florida. Others protest that Florida is afforded far too many protections, given that our State consumes nearly 20 million gallons of petroleum per day. High oil and natural gas prices are not a Republican or Democratic problem, but they are our Nation's problem. It is imperative that we pass the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act to provide Florida with the critical environmental protections it needs, as well as bringing 1.25 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to keep our industries and Nation afloat as we develop future sources of alternative energy. Failure to act is not an option. I urge my colleagues to support this well-crafted, bipartisan measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Nelson of Florida, Hutchison, and Bingaman, on the 37th anniversary of the lunar landing when American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin set foot on the Moon, to introduce the Spaceport Equity Act of 2006--a bill to help bring additional investment to the space transportation industry. On June 18th, the Washington Post reported on the launching of Kazakhstan's first satellite and their catapult into the space transportation industry. Home to the world's largest space center, the Baikonur Consmodrome, this ex-Soviet state is joining the list of rivals to the U.S. space industry. America's competitive edge is declining and will continue to do so unless we act now. My colleagues and I recognize this, and that is why we are introducing this most important legislation. U.S. satellite manufacturers face increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles and launch sites, due to the lack of a sufficient domestic launch capability. The United States once dominated the commercial satellite-manufacturing field with an average market share of 83 percent; however, that market share has since declined to 50 percent. An even smaller share of U.S.-manufactured satellites is actually launched from U.S. spaceports. This comes at an estimated loss of $1.5 to $3.0 billion to the U.S. economy. The space economy is made up infrastructure of manufacturers, service providers, and technologists in both the Government and private sector that deploy and operate launch vehicles, satellites, and space platforms. Many everyday goods and services rely on space infrastructure, including broadcast, cable, and satellite television, global internet services, satellite radio, cellular and international phone calls, etc. Satellites are also used for global positioning systems, known as GPS, which enable us to have hands-on directions in our cars and vehicles. GPS is also influential in the trucking, aviation, and maritime industries for day-to-day operations and for our Nation's military operations. Thousands of gas stations use inexpensive small satellite dishes to connect to credit card networks so customers can pay instantly at the pump. Satellites also generate 90 percent of the weather forecasting data in the United States and are used to track hurricanes, tsunamis, and other weather phenomenon. These satellites are launched vertically atop of rockets, propelling them into orbit in space. Because most U.S. space-launch facilities are operated by NASA, priority for launches at these facilities is given to Government projects. This means our commercial satellite needs take a back seat to Government operations. This often leaves U.S. commercial satellite ventures without reliable launch availability. This in turn has forced many companies seeking manufacturing and launch services toward our international competitors. Spaceports are subdivisions of State governments that provide additional launch infrastructure than that available at Federal facilities. They attract and promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Spaceport authorities function much like airport and port authorities by providing economic and transportation incentives to the industry, which in turn benefits the surrounding communities. Many States are forming space authorities to pursue ways of developing space transportation infrastructure. The Florida Space Authority was the first such entity, which was created as a subdivision of the Florida State government by Florida's Governor and State legislature in 1989. Florida Space Authority is focused on leading the State's space industry in new directions through partnering with the commercial space industry to improve space transportation and provide innovative, forward-thinking solutions to the challenges facing this evolving industry. The last few years have begun a new phase in space exploration. Spaceports presently operate in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, but efforts are underway to establish 13 additional commercial spaceports in Alabama, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves but also companies that develop the needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles. When including these industry partners with spaceports, at least 23 States are directly impacted by the commercial space transportation industry. Both spaceports and industry partners face increasing pressure from government-sponsored or subsidized competitors in Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, Russia, and now Kazakhstan. Commercial space transportation is a growing part of the U.S. economy. In 2004, this industry alone generated a total of nearly $98.1 billion dollars in economic activity, over $25 billion in earnings, and over 550,000 jobs; and $56.5 billion, more than half of this economic activity, was from satellite services. A 2004 Gallup poll shows overwhelming public support for space exploration. Roughly 80 percent of Americans agree that ``America's space program helps give America the scientific and technological edge it needs to compete in the international marketplace.'' And 76 percent agree that our space program ``benefits the nation's economy'' and inspires ``students to pursue careers in technical fields.'' The space industry has also led to a number of ``spin-off'' technologies--those influenced by space technology research and development. Home roof insulation and air filtration, antilock brakes, athletic shoes, vehicle protective airbags, cellular phones, and lasik surgery all owe thanks to NASA and space-based research. The list of space ``spin-off' technologies is estimated to exceed 40,000. These related technologies have helped employ tens of millions of Americans. Encouraging commercial investment in the space industry and increasing U.S. marketshare in this industry will certainly lead to additional innovation and technology that will impact other fields. As you can see, this once government-dominated industry is now becoming a diverse mix of government and commercial entities--also leading way into future avenues of commercial space transportation, such as space tourism. The increase in recent commercial launches includes the debut of the first commercial crewed suborbital launches of SpaceShipOne--leading the way to public space travel. ``Space tourism,'' as public space travel is now referred, has the potential to become a major growth industry. Recent market studies have shown space tourism has the potential to become a billion-dollar industry within 20 years. Even though the average American may not be able to participate in public space travel, its potential impact on our economy and international competitiveness is something to be appreciated. Space tourism industry players expect there to be a market demand of at least 15,000 Americans per year to travel into suborbit and orbital flights. This would require an estimated 665 launches per year by 2010. If the United States continues as is, we will only be able to capture 10 percent market share, at best, of this emerging industry. If needed infrastructure is added, however, the United States is expected to pick up 60 to 70 percent of space flight demand by 2010. Every launch that we do not provide for in the United States means a loss to our economy and a gain for our international competitors. The Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation Division expects a $3 billion dollar loss to our economy if we do not meet the rising demand for space tourism. Currently, U.S. launch facilities are few and most are owned and operated by the Federal Government, putting commercial users in direct competition with the U.S. military, NASA, and other Government entities, which get priority over commercial projects. If the United States is to remain competitive in the commercial space industry, added and improved infrastructure will be needed to support this growing industry. On a more local note, my own State of Florida could stand to gain much by way of economic development from increased investment in spaceport infrastructure. According to recent studies by the Florida Space Authority, increase spaceport infrastructure and activity in Florida could mean as much as $29.7 million in additional economic activity by the year 2015--this does not include the economic activity generated from impacted tourism, secondary contracts, and spinoff technologies. Other modes of transportation--highways, airports, and seaports-- currently enjoy a tax incentive for meeting their infrastructure needs, so why not spaceports? This Spaceport Equity Act of 2006 would provide spaceports with the same treatment provided for airports, seaports, rail, and other transit projects under the exempt facility bond rules. With international competition on the rise, our Nation's spaceports are a vital component of the infrastructure needed to expand and enhance the U.S. role in the international space arena. The Spaceport Equity Act is an important step to increasing our competitiveness in this field because it will stimulate investment in expanding and modernizing our space launch facilities and lower the costs of financing spaceport projects. Since 1968, tax-exempt bonds have played a crucial role in meeting airport investment needs, with 50 percent or more of major airport projects being financed through municipal tax-exempt bonds. By extending this favorable tax treatment to spaceports, this bill will help meet spaceport needs and increase our Nation's ability to compete with expanded international interests in space exploration and technology. Similar legislation has been considered since the 1980s, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the needs of this important sector. This proposal does not provide direct Federal spending for our commercial space transportation industry but, rather, creates the conditions necessary to stimulate private capital investment in industry infrastructure. By issuing tax-free bonds to finance spaceport infrastructure, space authorities could provide site-specific and vehicle-specific tailoring to promote the competition and innovation necessary to maintain the U.S. competitive edge in the space transportation industry. This is an efficient means for achieving our space transportation needs, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this most important effort by cosponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Nelson of Florida, Hutchison, and Bingaman, on the 37th anniversary of the lunar landing when American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin set foot on the Moon, to introduce the Spaceport Equity Act of 2006--a bill to help bring additional investment to the space transportation industry. On June 18th, the Washington Post reported on the launching of Kazakhstan's first satellite and their catapult into the space transportation industry. Home to the world's largest space center, the Baikonur Consmodrome, this ex-Soviet state is joining the list of rivals to the U.S. space industry. America's competitive edge is declining and will continue to do so unless we act now. My colleagues and I recognize this, and that is why we are introducing this most important legislation. U.S. satellite manufacturers face increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles and launch sites, due to the lack of a sufficient domestic launch capability. The United States once dominated the commercial satellite-manufacturing field with an average market share of 83 percent; however, that market share has since declined to 50 percent. An even smaller share of U.S.-manufactured satellites is actually launched from U.S. spaceports. This comes at an estimated loss of $1.5 to $3.0 billion to the U.S. economy. The space economy is made up infrastructure of manufacturers, service providers, and technologists in both the Government and private sector that deploy and operate launch vehicles, satellites, and space platforms. Many everyday goods and services rely on space infrastructure, including broadcast, cable, and satellite television, global internet services, satellite radio, cellular and international phone calls, etc. Satellites are also used for global positioning systems, known as GPS, which enable us to have hands-on directions in our cars and vehicles. GPS is also influential in the trucking, aviation, and maritime industries for day-to-day operations and for our Nation's military operations. Thousands of gas stations use inexpensive small satellite dishes to connect to credit card networks so customers can pay instantly at the pump. Satellites also generate 90 percent of the weather forecasting data in the United States and are used to track hurricanes, tsunamis, and other weather phenomenon. These satellites are launched vertically atop of rockets, propelling them into orbit in space. Because most U.S. space-launch facilities are operated by NASA, priority for launches at these facilities is given to Government projects. This means our commercial satellite needs take a back seat to Government operations. This often leaves U.S. commercial satellite ventures without reliable launch availability. This in turn has forced many companies seeking manufacturing and launch services toward our international competitors. Spaceports are subdivisions of State governments that provide additional launch infrastructure than that available at Federal facilities. They attract and promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. Spaceport authorities function much like airport and port authorities by providing economic and transportation incentives to the industry, which in turn benefits the surrounding communities. Many States are forming space authorities to pursue ways of developing space transportation infrastructure. The Florida Space Authority was the first such entity, which was created as a subdivision of the Florida State government by Florida's Governor and State legislature in 1989. Florida Space Authority is focused on leading the State's space industry in new directions through partnering with the commercial space industry to improve space transportation and provide innovative, forward-thinking solutions to the challenges facing this evolving industry. The last few years have begun a new phase in space exploration. Spaceports presently operate in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, but efforts are underway to establish 13 additional commercial spaceports in Alabama, California, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves but also companies that develop the needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles. When including these industry partners with spaceports, at least 23 States are directly impacted by the commercial space transportation industry. Both spaceports and industry partners face increasing pressure from government-sponsored or subsidized competitors in Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, Russia, and now Kazakhstan. Commercial space transportation is a growing part of the U.S. economy. In 2004, this industry alone generated a total of nearly $98.1 billion dollars in economic activity, over $25 billion in earnings, and over 550,000 jobs; and $56.5 billion, more than half of this economic activity, was from satellite services. A 2004 Gallup poll shows overwhelming public support for space exploration. Roughly 80 percent of Americans agree that ``America's space program helps give America the scientific and technological edge it needs to compete in the international marketplace.'' And 76 percent agree that our space program ``benefits the nation's economy'' and inspires ``students to pursue careers in technical fields.'' The space industry has also led to a number of ``spin-off'' technologies--those influenced by space technology research and development. Home roof insulation and air filtration, antilock brakes, athletic shoes, vehicle protective airbags, cellular phones, and lasik surgery all owe thanks to NASA and space-based research. The list of space ``spin-off' technologies is estimated to exceed 40,000. These related technologies have helped employ tens of millions of Americans. Encouraging commercial investment in the space industry and increasing U.S. marketshare in this industry will certainly lead to additional innovation and technology that will impact other fields. As you can see, this once government-dominated industry is now becoming a diverse mix of government and commercial entities--also leading way into future avenues of commercial space transportation, such as space tourism. The increase in recent commercial launches includes the debut of the first commercial crewed suborbital launches of SpaceShipOne--leading the way to public space travel. ``Space tourism,'' as public space travel is now referred, has the potential to become a major growth industry. Recent market studies have shown space tourism has the potential to become a billion-dollar industry within 20 years. Even though the average American may not be able to participate in public space travel, its potential impact on our economy and international competitiveness is something to be appreciated. Space tourism industry players expect there to be a market demand of at least 15,000 Americans per year to travel into suborbit and orbital flights. This would require an estimated 665 launches per year by 2010. If the United States continues as is, we will only be able to capture 10 percent market share, at best, of this emerging industry. If needed infrastructure is added, however, the United States is expected to pick up 60 to 70 percent of space flight demand by 2010. Every launch that we do not provide for in the United States means a loss to our economy and a gain for our international competitors. The Federal Aviation Administration's Commercial Space Transportation Division expects a $3 billion dollar loss to our economy if we do not meet the rising demand for space tourism. Currently, U.S. launch facilities are few and most are owned and operated by the Federal Government, putting commercial users in direct competition with the U.S. military, NASA, and other Government entities, which get priority over commercial projects. If the United States is to remain competitive in the commercial space industry, added and improved infrastructure will be needed to support this growing industry. On a more local note, my own State of Florida could stand to gain much by way of economic development from increased investment in spaceport infrastructure. According to recent studies by the Florida Space Authority, increase spaceport infrastructure and activity in Florida could mean as much as $29.7 million in additional economic activity by the year 2015--this does not include the economic activity generated from impacted tourism, secondary contracts, and spinoff technologies. Other modes of transportation--highways, airports, and seaports-- currently enjoy a tax incentive for meeting their infrastructure needs, so why not spaceports? This Spaceport Equity Act of 2006 would provide spaceports with the same treatment provided for airports, seaports, rail, and other transit projects under the exempt facility bond rules. With international competition on the rise, our Nation's spaceports are a vital component of the infrastructure needed to expand and enhance the U.S. role in the international space arena. The Spaceport Equity Act is an important step to increasing our competitiveness in this field because it will stimulate investment in expanding and modernizing our space launch facilities and lower the costs of financing spaceport projects. Since 1968, tax-exempt bonds have played a crucial role in meeting airport investment needs, with 50 percent or more of major airport projects being financed through municipal tax-exempt bonds. By extending this favorable tax treatment to spaceports, this bill will help meet spaceport needs and increase our Nation's ability to compete with expanded international interests in space exploration and technology. Similar legislation has been considered since the 1980s, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the needs of this important sector. This proposal does not provide direct Federal spending for our commercial space transportation industry but, rather, creates the conditions necessary to stimulate private capital investment in industry infrastructure. By issuing tax-free bonds to finance spaceport infrastructure, space authorities could provide site-specific and vehicle-specific tailoring to promote the competition and innovation necessary to maintain the U.S. competitive edge in the space transportation industry. This is an efficient means for achieving our space transportation needs, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this most important effort by cosponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MARTINEZ

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act. This is truly a momentous and important day for Florida. My State is home to beautiful beaches, coastal estuaries, numerous ports, and the Everglades. No piece of legislation moving through Congress could have as much lasting improvement on Florida's fragile ecosystem as the WRDA bill. I express my sincere thanks to the EPW chairman, Senator Jim Inhofe, and Senator Bond for their diligent leadership in crafting this legislation. I also thank Majority Leader Frist and Senators Reid and Jeffords for reaching time agreements and allowing this historic legislation to come to the floor. So often the media depicts Congress in such an acrimonious light, and I believe this bill is a testament to the fact that bipartisanship still exists in the Senate and that we can also roll up our sleeves and act for the betterment of our Nation. For too long in our Nation's past, the Federal Government's water resources policies seemed to be in conflict with nature. In the not-so- distant past, the Corps and even the elected congressional and State leadership of Florida was determined to drain the Everglades. One of our most colorful former Governors, Napoleon Bonaparte Broward, famously proclaimed: ``Water will run downhill!'' At that time, draining and improving ``useless swampland'' was the epitome of true conservation because opening the wetlands and marshes of Florida to farming and development was considered a better use of land because it could feed and employ people. The idea that places should be protected for their intrinsic beauty and public enjoyment was a foreign concept. Fortunately for our Nation and Florida, the idea of conservation and restoration has an entirely different and more sophisticated meaning today than it did in years past. In 2000, Congress authorized the landmark Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan to repair and restore the natural sheet flow of water across the Everglades National Park into Florida Bay. CERP projects will capture and store a great deal of the nearly 1.7 billion gallons of fresh water a day which are currently released into the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. This water will be restored in above- and underground reservoirs. And when needed, it will be directed to the wetlands, lakes, rivers, and estuaries of south Florida--providing abundant, clean, fresh water, while also ensuring future urban and agricultural water supplies. This incredible undertaking is the largest environmental restoration project in the world. I am proud to say the State of Florida has made an historic and prolific financial investment of over $3 billion to honor its commitment to the Everglades restoration. And now, with the expected passage of WRDA, new major CERP projects such as the Indian River Lagoon and the Picayune Strand will finally be federally authorized so this important restoration effort can start to take shape. The Indian River Lagoon's South Restoration Project in WRDA is critical to the success of CERP and returning the Saint Lucie estuary to a healthy status. Approximately 2,200 species have been identified in the lagoon system, with 35 of these species listed as threatened or endangered. Implementation of the South Restoration Project will feature more than 12,000 acres of aboveground water reservoirs; 9,000 acres of manmade wetlands; and 90,000 acres of natural storage and water quality areas, including 53,000 acres of restored wetlands. We will also be pleased to restore a great deal of the Saint Lucie River, with a corresponding restoration of 2,600 acres of habitat. Another very important Everglades restoration project included in WRDA is the authorization of the Picayune Strand project. This area was originally planned as the largest subdivision in the United States called Golden Gate Estates. In the early 1960s, the Gulf American Corporation dredged 48 miles of canals, built over 290 miles of roads, and sold thousands of lots before going bankrupt. At that time, there were no Federal or State laws setting drainage standards. So now today we will be moving that area back into somewhat of its natural state and natural habitat, and it will join with the Big Cypress National Preserve and the 10,000 Islands National Wildlife Refuge. It will also provide additional grounds for the Florida Panther Wildlife Refuge. These are great things for our State. They are great things for restoring back to a lot of its original beauty Florida's ecosystem; not just the beauty but also the functionality of providing for wetlands as a renourishment of Florida's aquifer, which also is so important to maintaining the urban lifestyle of south Florida. The need to pass a comprehensive water resources bill in Florida is overwhelming. Florida will benefit tremendously from it. I want to use this opportunity to thank Chairman Inhofe and Senator Bond for including these vital restoration and economic development projects in WRDA. This legislation is long overdue. It is time for us to pass S. 728. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this very important piece of legislation to Florida. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Senator Inhofe, as you know, the 2000 WRDA bill authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. CERP created a permanent and independent peer review panel. The process used to develop CERP had broad public and technical review and participation. Therefore, all CERP projects have already gone through an initial planning stage. However, there are approximately 50 CERP projects that still need additional authorization from Congress. During conference negotiations with the House, would you be willing to examine the impact of additional peer review on CERP projects and its current independent review process?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. I appreciate your leadership and diligence on this important issue. Section 2019