Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Yes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I may need another couple of minutes. I thank you for this opportunity to support the Boxer amendment. This is just a lot of common sense. You have seen all of the technical and scientific statements that have been made about why it is important to reduce the level of arsenic in drinking water. We have recently, in Florida, encountered another aspect of arsenic poisoning which has brought this particular element to the forefront of Floridians' minds. It is the fact of arsenic-treated wood--the wood being used for playground equipment. And now we are having so many of our cities and our counties closing the playgrounds because when the rains come, it leeches through the arsenic-treated wood onto the playground soil, and in many cases local health departments have determined that that is unsafe for children. Yet everyone is really in confusion as to what is safe and what is unsafe. The EPA was not even going to complete that study until 2003. We urged them to speed it up. They promised that by this June they would have their study done, and now they have delayed it on into the fall. In the meantime, local governments have closed playgrounds. Some of them have reopened the playgrounds, not knowing whether this poison, known as arsenic, used in treating the wood--and it was never known that it would be a problem--whether or not this is a hazard to our children's health in the soil of those playgrounds. I tell you this story because this is on the minds of a lot of Floridians right now. As we come to a question of what is the safe level of arsenic in drinking water, as Senator Boxer has said over and over, EPA has stated that arsenic is dangerous. They have classified it as a known carcinogen. They have said over a long period of time that we ought to be studying this. As a matter of fact, in 1962 the U.S. Public Health Service recommended decreasing the 50 parts per billion standard to 10 parts per billion.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. May I have an additional minute?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I can't say everything I want to say in 1 minute. Let me conclude by saying that if ever there was something having to do with common sense, and you have all of this scientific evidence behind you that says we ought to reduce the standard from 50 to 10 parts per billion, then we as stewards of the public trust ought to act on that. So, Madam President, that is why I stand and strongly advocate that our colleagues vote for this amendment. I am pleased to join Senator Boxer as a sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to voice my enthusiastic support for Josefina Carbonell's nomination to be Assistant Secretary for Aging at the Department of Health and Human Services. She has served her community admirably, and is highly respected for her work with the Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Miami-Dade County. This is an organization she founded in 1972. Under her leadership, it has grown from a one-site project into the largest aging, health and nutrition program in Florida and the largest Hispanic geriatric health and human service organization in the nation. Today Little Havana operates twenty-one different sites, serving over 55,000 registered clients. The program served over one million meals to 50,000 older Americans in 2000, and now operate six senior centers and three adult care centers, and while providing services through numerous federal health-care and employment programs. As a young girl, Ms. Carbonell came to this country from Cuba and dedicated her life to serving her community. Her contributions to the well-being of the greater Miami community are well-known, and, I would say some have become legendary. Her many years living and working among South Florida's large senior population and her direct hands-on experience providing services for these citizens make her a superb choice to be Assistant Secretary for Aging at the Department of Health and Human Services. In Josefina Carbonell, our seniors will have an outstanding advocate in Washington. I look forward to working with her to improve both the quality of life for our senior citizens and the services we provide them.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for that clarification. The bill before us makes the best of a difficult situation by spreading limited funds over as many worthwhile transportation programs and projects as possible. I believe the committee has worked diligently to support a great number of projects in spite of limited resources. I further understand that if additional resources cannot be found, it might be possible to redistribute funds over a more diverse list of worthwhile recipients than is currently outlined in the Committee's report. Specifically, there are two counties in Florida, Brevard County and Polk County, that are deserving of federal funds for bus acquisition, which were unfortunately not included in either the House or Senate reports. I understand that the Senator from Washington may be able to work with conferees to see that these counties receive some federal funds for bus and bus facilities, either by finding additional resources or by reallocating funds within this account. Is this correct?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wanted to add my voice to the Senator from North Dakota. It is just beyond me that in the name of free trade we would be for sacrificing the safety of Americans on American highways. I had occasion to rise on the floor yesterday to point out with a chart all of the huge differences between the safety standards for trucks in Mexico and trucks in America. If there is one consistent complaint I have had in a lifetime of public service to my constituents, it is about safety on our roadways. How many times over the course of three decades have the people of Florida said to me as their elected representative that they saw this or that safety violation or they were concerned about how the truck suddenly cut them off or that they saw a truck spewing all kinds of emissions. If we then allow new lower standard Mexican trucks on American roadways, not even to speak of the lower safety standards that have been articulated by the Senator from North Dakota, what about the environmental standards? What about all of the emissions that will be coming from these trucks that we don't allow from our own trucks? Are we not concerned about our environment? Are we not concerned about global warming? Are we not getting ready to seriously address the mileage standards of automobiles and SUVs in order to try to reduce the emissions into the atmosphere to try to do something about global warming? Here we are about to address an amendment that is going to allow for lower emission standards for Mexican trucks. It is, as we say in the South, just beyond me that we would seriously allow, in the name of free trade, this safety-jeopardizing situation for our American motorists on our American highways. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise in support of the Murray-Shelby version of the question of Mexican trucks on American highways that is in the Department of Transportation appropriations bill. I support free trade, but free trade does not mean sacrificing the safety of Americans on our highways. If you will just look at the comparison of safety standards for American trucks and Mexican trucks, the hours of service that a driver can perform are unlimited under Mexican standards. There are no random drug tests. A medical condition that will disqualify in America does not necessarily do so in Mexico. The age for drivers of these trucks established in America is 21 and only 18 in Mexico. The maximum weight on our highways in America is 80,000 pounds. In Mexico, it is 135,000 pounds. As to vehicle safety standards, such as antilock brakes, in Mexico they do not even have to have brakes on the front wheels. And then as to the question of cargo, carrying of hazardous materials, we have very strict standards in this country. In Mexico, they are very lax. There are fewer identified chemicals and fewer licensure requirements. If ever there has been a case where the commonsense standards, the desires, and the wants of the American people are quite apparent, it is the Americans who get behind the wheel and drive on our highways and on the interstates and encounter huge trucks. How many times have we had, as a driver of a smaller vehicle, a concern about the safety of that big truck that was in front of us or passing around us or that was cutting from one lane to another in front of us. We have in the interest of free trade in America a proposal to severely lower the standards of trucks coming from Mexico that we, as the consuming American public, as the driving American public, will have to encounter. This is not even speaking on the question of the environment. I have been speaking only on the question of safety. On the question of the environment and emission standards, we clearly have in the various States different emission standards. In Mexico, those are much less. I simply ask the question, Do we want to drive on our highways and encounter trucks with a driver who could be driving with no sleep; that because there was not a random drug test, that driver may be on drugs; he may have a medical condition that impairs his safety; he is less than 21 years of age; he is driving a truck of 135,000 pounds instead of 80,000 pounds; he does not have antilock brakes--indeed, no brakes on the front wheels; and that truck is carrying significant hazardous materials, not even to speak of the fact he is spewing all kinds of pollutants in that acrid smoke we all detest when we are behind a big truck. The case is quite compelling. I would even be for a more stringent standard than the Senator from Washington has inserted into this bill, but her compromise, along with Senator Shelby, is a good start in protecting the American people on their highways. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. About 3 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will speak on the matter of the Transportation bill.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Floridians who travel Interstate 4 between Tampa and Orlando need relief. The congestion they encounter on the I-4 corridor is paralyzing, and it is not just a problem for our residents in Florida. It is also a nuisance for the millions of tourists who visit central Florida each year. With each new tourist attraction comes another traffic snarl. We must find ways to relieve the gridlock, but double-decker highways are not the answer. Last year, Florida's voters approved an initiative in a statewide referendum that requires the State to build a high-speed train linking five of our largest urban areas, and the spending measure that is now before the Senate, particularly today--and we hope to complete it today--will begin to start helping Florida meet that goal. I am very grateful to our colleagues for including in this Transportation appropriations bill $4.5 million for bullet train planning in the corridor from Orlando to Tampa. Senator Graham and I fought for this funding because we knew that our traffic problems could not be solved by adding more lanes to our highways. And we have an excellent opportunity in this high-traffic corridor between Tampa and Orlando, where you can't build your way out of the problem with new lanes, of creating a model for a new kind of transportation corridor with specialized lanes and a high-speed rail running down its center. The State of Florida has also committed $4.5 million in planning money to a high-speed rail authority, and with this kind of partnership between the State government and the Federal Government, we can make this high-speed train a reality in that corridor that needs it so desperately. The benefits could be enormous. A high-speed train between Tampa and Orlando could travel more than 120 miles an hour, providing commuters with a safer and faster alternative to their daily battles with the traffic gridlock and the traffic jams. I commend the Senator from Washington, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, and her ranking member, the Senator from Alabama. I am so pleased the committee has provided this important funding, and I am going to continue to work with my colleague from Florida to see that this money is included in the final version of this bill. Mr. President, I thank you very much for this opportunity to state something that is so important to Florida. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the programs in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Report that prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon-usable material. These programs are vital to the national security of the United States. Appropriately, the committee has expressed concern that the ``proposed budget would seriously erode progress made at great expense to assure the Nation's capability to detect and mitigate global proliferation activities.'' By providing $106.8 million above the President's request, the committee has restored many of the administration's cuts to nuclear non-proliferation programs. Programs restored by the committee include the Nuclear Cities Initiative, which redirects Russian nuclear expertise and reduces Russian nuclear infrastructure. This project was given a $14.5 million boost. An additional $15 million was added to the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program, which funds joint non-military research and development projects, pairs U.S. industries with industries in the former Soviet Union and identifies and creates non- military commercial applications. I support the committee's recommendation that some of the excess funds for this program be directed to projects within Russian nuclear cities, in coordination with the Nuclear Cities Initiative. While encouraging, these actions by the committee merely move us back to the starting line. I also would like to express my support for the committee recommendation of $300 million to recapitalize existing operation facilities. The President proposed nothing in his budget to recapitalize our nuclear infrastructure. The National Nuclear Security Administration released a study last year on defense programs facilities and infrastructure assessment that reviewed the conditions of our nuclear facilities and labs. The report identified a $650 million annual shortfall over the next five years in our nuclear weapons complex, with unfunded priority requirements increasing by $200 million per year. This is unacceptable. Many of our facilities are World War II-era and in dire need of upgrades and repair. I have visited the facilities in Oak Ridge, TN, and can personally attest to the amount of recapitalization and modernization needed. The President's budget addressed none of these needs. Recently the distinguished former leader of this body, the Honorable Howard Baker from Tennessee, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the serious funding inadequacies in non- proliferation programs run by the Department of Energy. As Co-Chair of the Baker-Cutler Task Force, Baker testified that increased funding is critical to the future of these vital programs. He testified that in the former Soviet Union ``over 40,000 nuclear weapons, over a thousand metric tons of nuclear materials, vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons materials, and thousands of missiles. This Cold War arsenal is spread across 11 time zones, but lacks the Cold War infrastructure that provided the control and financing necessary to assure [they] remain securely beyond the reach of terrorists . . . The most urgent unmet National Security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or our citizens at home.'' As a result, the Baker-Cutler report called for an increase in funding for such initiatives--approximately $30 billion over the next 8-10 years. I urge the Senate to consider the efforts and work of Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler and provide the resources needed to fund these programs and facilities because they are vital to our national security. Our nuclear weapons complex and infrastructure will become even more important if the president seeks to reduce our stockpile as part of a new strategic framework. I encourage President Bush to place appropriate emphasis on nonproliferation as we develop this new framework with Russia and other involved nations.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the administration's policy is to try to drill its way out of an energy problem--and that is clearly reflected in their nominee for the number two position at the Interior Department, J. Steven Griles. I have expressed my opposition to Mr. Griles prior to today, in the form of an objection to a Senate vote on his nomination. However, based on assurances I received today from Interior Secretary Norton--specifically that the agency's upcoming 5-year plan contains no new drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, beyond the disputed area in lease sale 181--I have withdrawn my objection to proceeding to a vote. I also met with Mr. Griles this morning. While I respect his commitment to public service, I cannot vote for his nomination. He has a history of advocating for oil and gas exploration off the coasts of both Florida and California. In fact, his record as a former Reagan administration official and an oil- and gas-industry lobbyist reveals his aggressive support for expanded oil drilling in sensitive waters. Mr. Griles' support for drilling is so forthcoming that in biographical information he supplied the Senate for his confirmation he emphasizes his record for helping lease ``more Federal offshore oil and gas acreage during 1984-1989 than in any prior period of federal leasing activities.'' His position is clear. Unfortunately, this position presents a serious risk to Florida's economy and environment. I thought I would take this opportunity to clear up for the Senator from Alaska some of the things he said. The Senator from Alaska should know that this Senator from Florida did not place a hold on the Griles nomination until June 19. That is just a matter of some 2\1/2\ weeks ago. It became apparent to me--and it didn't have anything to do with personalities or politics--on the substance of the matter that this was something of such importance to Florida on whether or not we were going to have drilling off the coast of Florida which would threaten the economy of Florida because of its beaches. I think Florida has the longest coastline of any State in the country. So much of our economic lifeblood comes from those pristine beaches. When I looked at the substance of the nominee's background I saw that he had been an advocate for offshore oil drilling not only over a decade ago in California but where he stated in his testimony that he was in favor of drilling for the entire 6 million acres of the lease sale 181 and what that represented as a threat to Florida in that original lease sale coming to within 30 miles of Perdido Key, which is the westernmost beach of the State of Florida. It became very clear as a matter of substance to me that it was going to be something that was perceived to be--and he was perceived to be--a threat to the economic lifeblood of the State of Florida. Only on June 19 did I write a letter to the majority leader asking him to honor my request, which was a hold on the consideration of the nomination. Today, Mr. Griles came to see me. I find him entirely a delightful fellow, an engaging fellow, and one with whom I shared exactly this story. I asked him the question: Since the likelihood was that the reduced lease sale 181 was in fact going to be approved--the administration apparently had been working it very hard and had the votes, as the vote earlier today showed--what was his intention with regard to the drilling in the rest of the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area? He said since he had not been confirmed that he could not speak with the administration. But he offered that he thought he could get an answer from the administration and get back to me before this vote occurred. Indeed, it was within a few minutes that a phone call came in that Secretary Norton was requesting to come and see me, of which I gladly received her. It is the first time I had met her --a very gracious lady. And I asked her the same question. And she said: Senator, I want to assure you that in the 5-year plan, which is going to be issued next week, there will be no additional lease sales in the 5-year plan. And the 5-year plan that will be issued next week is operative, effectively, as law, since a lease cannot be offered for sale or lease unless it is in the 5-year plan. That was a little bit of good news. It was on the basis of that that I additionally encouraged the majority leader that I thought he was right. It is his prerogative as majority leader to lift the hold. I shared with Mr. Griles that I was going to vote against his nomination because of his history. I am glad that I was in this Chamber to hear my friend from Alaska so that he could hear from his colleague from Florida as to exactly what my intention on the substance of the matter has been. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I say to Senator Graham, if he would like some time of the 2 minutes for closing, I will certainly yield to him. Madam President, yesterday we had the Durbin amendment, and it was not tabled by a vote of 57-42. It was on the issue of oil drilling in national monuments, national treasures. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, the beaches of Florida are national treasures to us because of the importance of the beaches to our economy. If there is an oilspill, and a slick comes in on one of our beaches, it will shut down a beach, such as Clearwater Beach, for years and years. In an economy with a $50 billion tourism industry, in the Nation's fourth largest State, that is simply not worth the risk to us in Florida. For the first time, the eastern planning area of the gulf, which heretofore has not been drilled, save for one test drill up here, is being invaded by this offering for lease of 1.5 million acres coming across the line. It is inevitable, in the march eastward, it would go straight toward Tampa Bay. This is a matter of national treasure to us. You all honored that yesterday in adopting the Durbin amendment, by not allowing drilling in the areas of national monuments. Senator Graham and I ask that you join with us today in helping us preserve our national treasure.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 893.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the things that have been said on the floor. The Senator from Alaska has referred to the proponents of this amendment throwing their bodies in front of the train, a vehicle, or whatever. I gladly do so because of the stakes that are in this for the State of Florida. I would like to point out that according to the statistics compiled by the Department of Interior, during the period between 1980 and 1999--almost two decades--some 3 million gallons of oil was spilled from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas operations in 73 incidents. In addition, in one incident in April of this year, more than 90,000 gallons of saltwater and crude oil spilled out of a pipeline in Alaska's North Slope, becoming the fourth major incident there. I point out the Department of Interior statistics simply to counter the perception that all of the Senators who have spoken in opposition to this amendment, of invading the eastern Gulf by drilling in an area which heretofore has been off limits to drilling, come from an oil- producing State. What do you expect? They articulate the interests of the economic engines of their State. But when they give the impression that, in fact, offshore oil drilling is so safe, that there is no risk, and say instead the risk is in tankers, indeed, we know the risk in tankers because we saw what happened with the Exxon Valdez. But when they point out the fact that oil drilling and gas drilling is so safe and there are no spills, that is not what the facts say as compiled by the Department of the Interior. Some 3 million gallons of oil from Outer Continental Shelf have been spilled in 73 incidents in time period between 1980 and 1999. I want to clear up another statement that was made. It is stated there is all this oil out there. That is contrary to all of the engineering and the technology we have seen. Indeed, let me tell you what has been estimated is in this lease sale 181. It is not some huge find. In this new lease sale 181, it is, in fact, a find of only 10 days' worth--10 days, T-E-N, 1-0--of energy for this country. Is that worth the risk to an industry that needs to protect its beaches and its environment? I say that it is not worth the tradeoff. It is not worth the risk. As a matter of fact, the Natural Resources Defense Council has stated that in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, where the oil and gas industry has been pressing to drill--this area that, as you can see, is not violated, including this area shown on the map that is shaded in yellow, which is the subject of the lease sale we are trying to block-- indeed, it said 60 percent of the Nation's undiscovered economically recoverable Outer Continental Shelf oil and 80 percent of the Nation's undiscovered economically recoverable Outer Continental Shelf gas is located in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. So protecting this area that for years we have had a moratorium on because of its sensitivity to the ecology and economy of the surrounding areas--protecting that area will still leave a vast majority of the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas available to the industry. According to one study that even minimizes the risk of an oil spill, the chance of an oil spill in this area is as high as 37 percent. That is according to the Minerals Management Service. So I want to respond to my colleagues, all of whom are from oil States, I want to make it very clear to them, this is not a NIMBY amendment that we are offering. We are not saying: Not in my backyard because oil rigs might spoil the view from our famous beaches. Indeed, we acknowledge that the latest plan--not the former one but the latest--would keep them out of sight. But Florida is unique in its dependence on those beaches, and it is unique on its dependence on the visitors who come to those beaches. Expanding drilling into this eastern gulf poses a serious risk not only to our precious natural resources but also to our entire economy. Tourism is the lifeblood of that economy. It is in the range of $50 billion a year. Nothing could wreck our tourist industry quicker than waves of black oil lapping up on our white-sand beaches, regardless of whether the spill occurred 30 miles offshore or whether it is 100 miles offshore. By the administration's own reckoning, the new leases would provide only enough oil and natural gas to meet just a few days of our Nation's needs. Is that worth the risk? Of course not. This is a commonsense approach. It is not worth the risk--not to Florida, not to the Nation-- and it is not worth the risk to an area whose economy is so intertwined with a lot of the population that do not want this drilling. My amendment would prohibit the Interior Department from selling new oil and gas leases anywhere in this eastern gulf planning area for 6 months from the time of enactment of this bill--only 6 months. It is intended to be a first step toward what I hope Senator Graham and I will be able to offer--and I think we have assurances of offering an amendment to the Energy Department authorization bill for a continuation of this moratorium. For the sake of Florida, and for the sake of our Nation, I ask for your support. I reserve the remainder of our time and yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, in offering this amendment, let me frame the amendment so everyone understands the context of the amendment. In the House of Representatives' discussion of the Interior appropriations bill some 3 or 4 weeks ago, a bipartisan amendment was offered by two Members of Congress from Florida. The amendment that was attached by an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives was with regard to a proposed lease sale, designated as 181, in the Gulf of Mexico, for the purpose of drilling for oil and gas. The House of Representatives, in a fairly substantial bipartisan vote passed a prohibition of the offering of the lease sale for 6 months. Specifically, this amendment tracks the House amendment identically, in essence saying no money appropriated under this act, the Interior appropriations bill, can be used for the purpose of offering for oil and gas drilling lease sale 181. Lease sale 181 was originally proposed as a tract of some 6 million acres. It is in the eastern planning area of the gulf, an area that heretofore has not been violated with any drilling. When the White House saw that there was considerable opposition, almost unanimous, from the Florida congressional delegation, the White House scaled back the proposal from approximately 6 million acres to some 1.5 million acres. It is in a location that starts to violate the eastern planning area of the gulf by some 1.5 million acres, in which drilling for oil and gas could occur. Why am I opposed to that? I could say that clearly the people of Florida have expressed their opinion over and over and over again, in huge numbers, with huge majorities, whether that be in the expressions through previous bills in previous years, by both the Senate and the House delegations from Florida, or whether that has been in the body in which I last served as an elected, statewide cabinet official of the State of Florida, in resolutions by the Governor and the cabinet of Florida opposing offshore oil drilling off Florida. Why is there such intensity in Florida about not having drilling in the eastern planning area of the gulf? It is simply this: We have a $50 billion-a-year industry of tourism. A lot of that tourism is concentrated along the coast of Florida. The Good Lord has given us the beneficent sugary white, powdered sand beaches. The beauty of those beaches has attracted, over decades and decades--indeed, over the last century--people to come to Florida to enjoy our beautiful environment. It is without question in most Floridians' minds that they see the possibility of oil spills from drilling off of Florida in the eastern gulf planning area, and it would, in fact, be a devastating economic blow--a spike right to the heart in our $50 billion-a-year tourism industry. Floridians happen to have another reason for not wanting drilling. That is the fact that we are very sensitive about our environment. As a matter of fact, so much of our tourism is inextricably intertwined with preserving our environment and protecting it. The bottom line is that Floridians simply do not want waves of oil lapping onto the beaches. I think we will hear testimony today by those who are on the opposite side of the issue who will say that drilling for oil and gas in the offshore Outer Continental Shelf has, in fact, became a lot safer. That well may be the case. But the fact is that according to the Minerals Management Service, the chance of an oil spill in lease sale 181 is all the way up to a 37-percent chance. Floridians simply do not want to take the risk of a 37-percent chance of an oil spill and that slick floating across the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and washing up onto the beaches of Florida where so much of our prized environment is displayed for the wonderful people who come to enjoy the natural bounty and beneficence of Florida. I want to draw your attention to this map of the Gulf of Mexico. This map is very revealing with regard to the Florida story. I have talked to Senators in this Chamber who have had the White House tell them their side of the story. When they see this map, they say: I had no idea it was like that. This map tells a completely different story. The story they are being told by the White House is that a compromise has been made that is acceptable, a compromise in which originally lease sale 181 included 6 million acres, part of which was this stovepipe that came up close to the Alabama shoreline, which was, in fact, within about 30 miles of Perdido Key, which is our western most beach in the State of Florida. What they are being told by the White House is that the compromise of shrinking lease sale 181 is acceptable because it narrows it down, as represented here by the yellow, to a tract of 1.5 million acres instead of 6 million. They point out that it is 100 miles from Pensacola Beach, and that it is some 280 miles from Clearwater and St. Petersburg. Whereas, the original lease sale 181 was 213 miles from the west coast of Florida, and still 100 miles from here up at the top of the stovepipe. Of course, it was much closer. But what they are not telling is the full story, and that is what I wanted to show with this map. The green color indicates the existing drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Beyond this boundary is the eastern planning area in which there is no drilling for the simple reason that Floridians have insisted each year that the threat is too great and the risk is too great to despoil our beaches and our environment. As well as that, the estimated future reserves were expected to be very little. In all of the Outer Continental Shelf, which includes not only the Atlantic seaboard, all of the gulf, as well as the Outer Continental Shelf off of the west coast of the United States, California, Oregon, and Washington, 80 percent of the future gas reserves are estimated to be in the area that is already being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico--not in the eastern gulf planning area. And 60 percent of the future oil reserves are estimated to be in that area that is already being drilled known as the western gulf planning area and the central planning area--not in the eastern planning area. We come to the table quite naturally to make our case to the Senate, having had the case overwhelmingly made to the House already that if the future reserves are mostly off the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, the area already being drilled, and the future reserves are not here, why take the risk of an oil spill that would despoil some of the world's most beautiful beaches that support the economy of Florida. To repeat myself, the Minerals Management Service says the chance of a spill in lease sale 181 is up to 37 percent. That is a risk simply not worth taking. I think this map tells the whole story. This area has not been violated--an area called the eastern planning area. Now in the attempt at a so- called compromise, the White House is pushing 1.5 million acres that now go eastward into this area that has not been violated in the past. As you can see, with all of this drilling activity, that yellow spot right there on this map of the gulf is what I call the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. You can see that dirty little nose sticking underneath the edge of that tent. What is going to happen in the future? That camel is going to start crawling into that tent, and that drilling is going to proceed in an inevitable march eastward straight for Tampa Bay. The people of Florida think that is too much of a risk. We could talk about energy and a lot of the things that we ought to be doing that are not the subject of this particular amendment, but I am compelled to bring up the fact that, goodness gracious, if we but improve the miles per gallon for new automobiles manufactured--and there is another very controversial lease sale, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--by 3 miles per gallon on all new vehicles--not the existing vehicles, new vehicles--it would save the equivalent amount of energy that would be produced by all of the oil to be drilled in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So as we approach an energy crisis--and I am looking forward to having a debate when the Department of Energy authorization bill comes to this Chamber--what Senator Graham of Florida and I will probably be offering at that point is a complete moratorium. But for purposes of this Interior appropriations bill, I am offering an amendment that is identical to what was adopted in the House so that if adopted here this will not be an issue in the conference committee but, rather, would be accepted in the conference committee and would become a 6-month moratorium on the offering of this lease sale. So perhaps what we ought to do is to rethink the White House's energy policy of drill, drill, drill. Drill in the areas where the future reserves are already proven. Drill in the areas where the States do not object to the drilling off their shore. Drill in the area where a State such as Louisiana really does not have the God-given beaches, the white sand beaches that we have in Florida that are so much a part of our economy. Save energy by conservation. Use our technological prowess to produce an automobile that will have a much higher miles-per-gallon average. I had the pleasure of riding in one of these hybrids. I could not believe it. It was just as comfortable. The car was just as roomy. The car had just as much pickup. In the hot summer Florida Sun, the air- conditioning worked just as well as any other car. All of the electrical demands of radio and CDs and tape players were all there, with no sacrifice. As we drove down the road, I, as the passenger, could not help but have my eyes riveted to the TV screen in the middle of the console that showed how the engine would be running partly from the gasoline and partly from the battery, and when it was not running from the battery, that the battery, in fact, was recharging--a vehicle known as a hybrid. And I was astounded for my host, the driver, the owner of the vehicle, to tell me that, in fact, this hybrid got a total, in city driving, of 53 miles per gallon. Can you imagine, if we used our technological prowess to get serious about our automobile and transportation fleets, how much energy we could save. Regardless of what we do here, I think that makes just good, sound national energy policy and that we ought to pursue using our technology to improve our miles per gallon. But I bring that point up to say that we have an old country expression in Florida: There are many ways to skin a cat. And you don't just have to skin that cat by saying: We are going to drill, drill, drill; and we are going to do it to the risk of a $50 billion a year tourism economy in Florida. We know in this Nation what the spill of the Exxon Valdez tanker did to the shores of Alaska. We also know what the winds and the wave currents can do with an oil slick in carrying it hundreds of miles within days. And, ladies and gentlemen, Senators all, it is not fair and it is not worth the risk to Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach and Destin and Panama City and Mexico Beach, and all these fragile areas of the ecosystem around Apalachicola Bay, and the big bend of Florida, and down into Cedar Key and the mouth of the Suwannee River, and coming on down to the white sand beaches of Clearwater Beach and St. Petersburg, and then into the very fragile ecosystems of Tampa Bay, and on south from Manatee County and Bradenton, all the way south past Sarasota, down near Charlotte, and into Fort Myers--some of the most beautiful beaches in the world--and south of Fort Myers to Naples--one of the hottest spots for new people to come to Florida and enjoy the environment of Florida--just south of there to Marco Island-- a place known as the ``Ten Thousand Islands''--one of the most productive fisheries in the world, and not to speak of coming on around into the Florida Straits into this beautiful land known as the Florida Keys--something that ballads have made famous by people such as Jimmy Buffett who would tell you the same thing that I am telling you today: It is not worth the risk to the Florida environment nor to our economy. That 37-percent risk of oil drilling off of Florida could produce an oilspill that would become a slick that could travel, by wind and wave action, miles within days to despoil these Florida beaches. So I make a plea on behalf of 16 million Floridians that the Senate will debate this, understand it. Do not confuse it by saying that this line is not over the Alabama line. Where is the Alabama line? The Alabama-Florida line is up here as shown on this map. These are the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. And this line right here is the line of demarcation, the beginning of the eastern gulf planning area that has never been violated by drilling. So do not listen to the arguments that this is not over the line. This is over the line, 1\1/2\ million acres over the line. That simply is not worth the risk to us. There are others who have a similar set of circumstances. I want to remind the Senators, the Senators of the Great Lakes, they do not want drilling off their shores. The Senators of New England, especially off of Maine, and that great lobster industry, they do not want the drilling off of their shores. The Senators of the eastern seaboard, with all of their tourism and ecological activities, don't want the drilling there. The Senators off the west coast of the United States don't want the drilling there either. The fact is, the drilling has not occurred here for years because the future reserves are simply not there. I am expecting others and I expect to be joined by my senior Senator, Mr. Graham. What I will do is reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Of course, I yield.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is the 6-month ban identical to the House provision, amendment No. 893.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I do not intend to take that. I see all of the staff smiling at me. But I would like to summarize. I would like to see if I can bring to closure a 3-hour debate on a part of setting any energy policy in this country that is very important not only to us along the gulf coast but to the Nation as a whole. I want to mark the contrast in the debate that you have heard: Every Senator who has spoken in opposition to this amendment to stop oil drilling off Florida in the eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area is from an oil State. That is the beauty of the United States of America. We come, each State represented by two Senators, and bring all of our different interests and constituencies here. But it is an interesting contrast that every opponent to us trying to protect against oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is from an oil State. Senator Graham, my senior colleague from the State of Florida, has eloquently pointed out a number of things. He pointed out in his summary that these light-colored areas are active leases but no drilling has occurred. Senator Graham and I have offered a bill to buy back these leases, just as President George Herbert Walker Bush had proposed buying back a bunch of leases off of the Ten Thousand Islands off of Naples, off of Fort Myers that occurred about a decade ago. We want to get rid of these, including the lease called the Destin Dome, where Chevron has an active permit to drill. Let me give you some statistics about Chevron and its offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and what they have experienced between 1956 and 1995. There were 10 gas blowouts and an additional 5 blowouts of oil and a combination of gas. There were 65 fires and explosions of which at least 28 originated from natural gas, 14 significant pollution incidents, and 40 major accidents, resulting in at least 19 fatalities. There were five pipeline breaks or leaks. I don't have any particular reason to cite this with regard to Chevron, except that Chevron came up because they have an active lease that is ready to be drilled 30 miles off of some of the world's most beautiful beaches called the Destin Dome. What Senator Graham and I would like to do is to see us buy back that lease so that drilling, with a safety record and a blowout record as has been shown by the facts--and remember, facts are stubborn things--so that that won't occur right off of the sugary white sand beaches of Destin, FL. We would like to reacquire that lease, just as the first President Bush had acquired so many leases down here threatening the 10,000 islands of the Florida Keys. That is not the issue here today. The issue today is taking these active drilling leases in the central and western planning areas of the Gulf of Mexico and thrusting eastward toward the coastline of Florida with a new sale of 1.5 million acres. They had 6 million acres in this original lease sale 181. They knew they were not going to pass it. They knew there was too much political opposition. So what they have done is they have scaled it back to 1.5 million acres, thinking they can get it through. It is, in fact, the eastward inevitable march of drilling into the eastern planning area, an area that heretofore has not been violated with this drilling. Let me cite some more statistics as we wrap up this debate. The Department of the Interior, on the day that the Senate and the House goes home for the Fourth of July, on Monday, July 2, announces this deal, that they are shrinking 181. In the course of that announcement, they put out a news bulletin: Secretary Norton announces area of proposed 181 lease sale on Outer Continental Shelf. And in that, the release states: The area also contains 185 billion barrels of oil. You have heard the statistics of how much oil is there. The fact is, it is not 185 billion barrels of oil; it is 185 million barrels of oil that MMS, a part of the Department of the Interior, estimates is in this lease sale 181. So I raise the question again, since this equates to about 10 days' worth of oil and gas energy for this country, is it worth the risk to the beaches of Florida and to the environment of Florida, this eastward march that will inextricably, inexorably happen, is it worth the risk? It is not. I said earlier in my remarks, if ever I have seen anything that looks like the nose of a camel suddenly under the tent, it is that yellow- colored, 1.5 million acres coming into the eastern planning area that has no drilling. Back in the middle 1980s, I was a junior Congressman from the east coast of Florida. The Reagan administration had a Secretary of the Interior named James Watt. James Watt was absolutely intent on drilling for oil off the entire eastern coast of the United States and was offering for lease sale leases from as far north as Cape Hatteras, NC, all the way south to Fort Pierce, FL. I went to work, as the Congressman from the middle eastern coast of Florida, to try to defeat that. And we defeated it in the appropriations bill, in an appropriations subcommittee on this very same Interior Department appropriations. They left me alone. And 2 years later, they came back. This time they had worked the full Appropriations Committee in the House so that they thought they had the votes. And they were running that train down the track for oil drilling from North Carolina to south Florida. The only way that we beat it was to finally get NASA and the Department of Defense to own up to the fact that off the east coast of Florida, where we were launching the space shuttle, you couldn't have oil rigs out there where you were dropping the solid rocket boosters from the space shuttle launches and where you were dropping off the first stages of the expendable booster rockets that were going out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. They have left us alone on oil drilling until now. That was almost 16, 17 years. What we happened to do was call the the Pensacola Naval Air Station. Fast forward 17 years. We decided to call one of the greatest military installations in the world, the naval air station at Pensacola, the place where almost every naval aviator has learned to fly, and we asked if this lease sale 181 were to have a spill-- remember, I cited statistics earlier that the Minerals Management Service says this lease sale has up to a 37- percent possibility of having an oilspill--we said to the executive officer at the Naval Air Station Pensacola: What would happen to Pensacola Naval Air Station and to the Air Force installations at Eglin Air Force Base at Fort Walton and Hurlburt Air Force Base near Fort Walton Beach? No. 1, for both of those military complexes, virtually all testing, training, and operations over water would cease until the oil slick was completely cleaned up. No. 2, flights would cease due to the hazards to pilots if they had to eject over oily water. No. 3, water training and equipment testing would cease. No. 4, test firing of weapons would cease over and into oily water. In other words, the Pensacola Naval Air Station would virtually cease to operate as one of our greatest national assets. We have not even talked about something that is a natural phenomenon in the State of Florida. Look at this peninsula. It is a land that I call paradise, but paradise happens to be a peninsula that sticks down into something known as hurricane highway, for in the course of the summer and into the early fall, because the Lord designed the Earth this way, hurricanes spring up in the gulf, they spring up in the Atlantic, and they go from the Atlantic into the gulf. It is an additional reminder of the additional hazards of Florida offshore oil drilling. As we bring to a close this 3-hour debate, the risk of spill, according to the Government, on this lease sale 181 is all the way up to 37 percent. This lease sale, by the Department's own recognition, is only going to have about 10 days of oil and gas for the entire country. It is not going to lessen the dependence on foreign oil. My goodness, the United States has 5 percent of the world's population, 3 percent of the reserves, but we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. We cannot drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. We have to have a balanced energy policy which includes the use of technology to get greater miles-per-gallon in our transportation, as well as conservation, as well as being balanced with drilling. I recite the statistic I cited that of all the future reserves, they are not in the eastern gulf planning area. Sixty percent of the Nation's undiscovered economically recoverable Outer Continental Shelf oil is in the central and western gulf area where they are already drilling, and for natural gas, of the entire Outer Continental Shelf, 80 percent of the future reserves are from the central and western areas, not from the eastern area. I come back to the point at which we began 3 hours ago: Is it worth the risk? Is it worth the tradeoff: Little oil and gas, and yet the first invasion of the eastern planning area, a huge invasion, a million and a half acres? Is it worth the risk to an economy of a State that has pristine, white sandy beaches on which its economy is so dependent because of a $50 billion-a- year tourism economy? Is it worth it to the estuaries of Apalachicola, the Big Ben, and the Ten Thousand Islands, Tampa Bay, and the Caloosahatchee River, and the sandy beaches from Tampa all the way to Marco Island? It is not worth the risk. It is not worth the tradeoff. That is why for years we see, as depicted by the green color, the active drilling leases off Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, but not off Florida in the eastern planning area of the gulf. I know the White House is putting on a full-court press. I know the oil and gas industry, through all of their innumerable lobbyists, are putting on a full-court press. We heard the Senators from each of the oil States. Not one non-oil-producing State spoke against this today. Yet we have our hands full because the full court lobbying press by every special interest involved in drilling in oil and gas is going to be working this issue as hard as it can before our vote that is going to occur sometime late tomorrow morning. I ask my colleagues to consider the risk to their Outer Continental Shelf and to consider what is in the best interest of the Nation. I am deeply honored that this is one of the first great debates in which I have engaged, in which I have joined so many of those with whom I argued in many of the other debates, such as budget, education, and the Patients' Bill of Rights. This, however, is one of the great debates that will take place, and it is an honor for me to have participated in it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. How many minutes remaining do I have as the proponent?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how many minutes remain in opposition?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield to my colleague, the senior Senator from Florida, such time as he consumes.