Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Alaska for this clarification. I was concerned that this provision was an attempt to predetermine a missile defense deployment decision.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify a provision of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill regarding human space flight funding within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA. In its report, the Appropriations Committee included language removing a restriction placed on $40 million in fiscal year 2000 Human Space Flight funding. The restriction required these funds to be used for a dedicated shuttle research mission. With various delays in the shuttle manifest, the STS 107 mission has been rescheduled for May 2002. Removing the restriction will allow NASA to use the $40 million to cover costs associated with the delay of STS 107 mission and for research to be conducted abroad the International Space Station. The followon shuttle dedicated research mission, also known as ``R 2,'' is now not expected to fly until at least 2004. This mission was intended as a ``gap-filler'' to support the scientific community during construction of the International Space Station. At the same time, the agency is proposing to decrease funding for Space Station research in order to pay for cost overuns associated with building the vehicle itself. The life and microgravity science community is already under funded. Continuing to delay the ``R 2'' mission will only exacerbate the research community's already strained situation. While I do not oppose this reprogramming request, I agree with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee about the need to balance such requests with maintaining life and microgravity research conducted aboard the shuttle and space station. While NASA certainly needs to meet its obligations, I am concerned that the redirection of these funds will ultimately preclude NASA from pursuing the dedicated research flight entirely. The Senate language associated with the supplemental appropriations bill directs NASA to consult with Congress on the research planned for the R 2 mission in the context of the future funding required to support space station research. I expect NASA to continue to work on the R 2 mission, or a suitable equivalent, and look forward to working with NASA and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee in receiving and reviewing these research plans.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would like to ask the Senator from Alaska to confirm my understanding of the intent of the provision regarding Fort Greely, AK, in section 1205 of this supplemental. I understand this provision will allow the Secretary of the Army to modify a previously made determination that the property in question was excess to the needs of the Army and surplus to the needs of the Federal Government. Modifying this decision will allow the Secretary of the Army to retain this property until such time as a determination is made as to whether this property is needed for any defense purpose. Is that the intent of this provision?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, over the past few days of debate on this Patients' Bill of Rights, we have heard the many horror stories of what happens to people when HMOs put profits ahead of patients. We have heard of one man in a wheelchair whose HMO ordered his oxygen tanks removed from his house; we heard of a youngster whose brain tumor was missed because the HMO refused to allow the necessary test; and we heard of others pleading with their HMO to get coverage for critical procedures either for themselves or their families. These, unfortunately, are not isolated examples. They are happening every day all across this country which is why the people of America are demanding reform and why we are seeing the public surveys now showing support for this legislation to the tune of 81 percent in favor of this legislation. The people also realize the system is not working for the doctors either. Just last week, I learned of a doctor who is assessing his existing patients a $1,500 annual membership fee for the privilege of continuing their treatment. He wants to cull his current patient list from 3,000 patients down to 600, and by charging this annual membership fee, the doctor shrinks his practice and yet he maintains his profits. The patients who cannot afford the annual membership fee have to find another doctor. I find this outrageous and unethical, and it sets a bad precedent for the future of our health care industry. All of these incidents and the debate over this legislation have made one thing very clear: Our health care system is failing most of the people in the country. Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my strong support for this Bipartisan Patient Bill of Rights. It represents a critical first step, an important first step in a long journey of a thousand miles of reforming America's health care system. In short, this legislation puts medical decisions back in the hands of doctors and patients instead of HMO bureaucrats. It gives patients the right to see a specialist when needed, fixing a system that so often blocks a woman's access to necessary care. This legislation will ensure direct access for a woman to an OB/GYN if that is who she wants as a primary care physician. This bill gives patients access to the emergency room without first seeking clearance from their health care provider. We have heard many horror stories recounted in the Senate of people denied access to a certain emergency room because they had to go to another. This legislation also protects the doctor-patient relationship, a very sacred relationship, by ending restrictions on which health care options doctors can recommend. Currently, we know doctors say they fear retribution from the health insurance industry if they pursue more costly medical treatment for their patients. This bill also prohibits HMOs from offering financial incentives to doctors for recommending limited care. It prohibits HMOs from punishing doctors who seek top-notch care for patients. What we are trying to do in this legislation is reinject common sense and good medical practice in protecting the doctor-patient relationship so the patient knows the doctor is going to prescribe what is the very best medical treatment appropriate for the circumstances. In spite of claims to the contrary, yesterday the American Medical Association and other health groups reported in States with recently enacted accountability and legal remedies, the new laws did not produce any documented increase in the number of uninsured, one of the specious arguments that the opponents to this legislation have advanced. The most crucial issue is whether a patient can seek legal recourse for the wrongdoing by a managed care company. This bill will enable patients to hold their insurance companies accountable for harmful actions. Under current law, if malpractice is committed, if there are grievous wrongs, a patient can recover from a doctor, from a hospital, from other providers, but under current law they cannot recover from an HMO. That is one of the main fundamental principles of this legislation, to change that, so they can hold those HMOs accountable. Before I came to the Senate, I was the elected insurance commissioner of Florida for 6 years. I saw how some insurance companies--and I don't say all because I am proud of those insurance companies that would stand up for the rights of their patients and would stand up to protect their patients, but I saw how some insurance companies tried to put profits ahead of patients. Unfortunately, many patients often have little or no recourse. There is no reason why HMOs should have special protection from lawsuits. The AMA has so stated and endorsed a patient's right to sue. It is estimated more than 190 million Americans are enrolled in health plans, and 75 percent of them under current law are unable to sue their health plans for anything but the cost of denied treatment. Clearly, the status quo works for the industry, but it fails consumers. We need this legislation to enable people to be able to redress their wrongs in State courts for damages limited only by State regulations. It has been a long time coming. It has taken 5 years to get this legislation to the floor because for 5 years special interests have prevented this bill from becoming law. As a result, the people of Florida and the people throughout this Nation have suffered. We must end the industry strangle hold on this legislation and we must take the first meaningful steps toward overall health care reform. I submit that this legislation is a major first step in the overall journey toward health care reform. We must put the people before the special interests. We must put an end to these consumer horror tales that we have heard with all too much frequency during the course of debate on this legislation. I thank colleagues for the privilege of addressing this issue and for indulging me in my comments. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to take a moment while the leadership of the Senate is, at this very moment, deciding which course the rest of the day will take with regard to this important legislation, the Patients' Bill of Rights. While we have a moment in which we might reflect on other items, I want to draw to the attention of the Senate the considerable concern of 16 million Floridians that the Bush administration is trying to drill for oil and gas off the shores of the State of Florida. It is most instructive, if one looks at a map of the Gulf of Mexico, where colored in on the gulf waters are the active drilling leases. One will see clearly that, from the central Gulf of Mexico all the way to the western Gulf of Mexico, almost all of the waters of the gulf are shaded in, indicating active oil and gas drilling leases. Indeed, there is a reason for that. It is because the reserves were there, the oil and gas deposits are there, the future reserves are expected to be there. As a matter of fact, I believe it is 80 percent of all economically recoverable, undiscovered gas reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf--which not only includes the gulf but also the Atlantic and Pacitic--80 percent of the Nation's known, recoverable gas reserves in the central and western gulf and 60 percent of the future recoverable oil reserves are in that area too. They are no in the area off the State of Florida. The State of Florida has consistently taken the position that we should not have oil and gas drilling because of the high cost and potential damage to our environment and to our economy. One of our primary industries is the tourism industry, which so often is dependent upon those pure, sugary white beaches being unspoiled so millions of visitors who come to Florida to enjoy the sunshine and the waters and the beaches can do so without having to worry about having oil spread across the beach. I can tell you that 16 million Floridians, in unison, do not want oil lapping up on our beaches. The cost to our environment and the cost to our economy would be simply too high. Why, you would ask, other than that the oil and gas reserves are in the central and western gulf, is there not any drilling off the coast of Florida? It goes back to the early 1980s, under the Reagan administration and a Secretary of the Interior, James Watt. He offered tracts for lease from as far north as Cape Hatteras, NC, in the Atlantic, south all the way as far as Fort Pierce, FL. I had the privilege of being a Member of the House of Representatives at the time. So I went to work, knowing the people of my congressional district, in the early 1980s, didn't want oil lapping up onto their beaches. We were able to persuade the appropriations subcommittee on the Department of the Interior appropriations bill to insert language that said no money appropriated under this act shall be used for offering for lease tracts such and such, and then listed the tracts all the way from North Carolina south to Fort Pierce, FL. And we prevailed in the appropriations. The administration left Floridians alone on offshore oil drilling for a couple of years but came back under a new Secretary of the Interior and tried again. This time it was harder to stop. This time it escalated all the way to the full House Appropriations Committee. But we finally prevailed, interestingly, not on the threat to the economy or to the environment of Florida, and indeed the United States eastern coastline, but prevailed by getting NASA and the Defense Department to own up to the fact that you cannot have oil rigs down there in the footprint of where you are dropping solid rocket boosters off the space shuttle and where you are dropping first stages off the expendable booster rockets that are being launched out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force station. And we have not been bothered since the early 1980s, in Florida, about offshore oil drilling--until now. The bush administration is pressing a 6-million-acre lease off the northwest coast of Florida in a strange configuration called lease-sale 181, of which the bulk of the 6 million acres is 100 miles offshore but a stovepipe runs northward to within about 20 miles of the Alabama coastline, which is about 20 miles, then, from the white sands of Perdido Key, State of Florida. In a meeting of the Vice President with a Florida congressional members delegation, the Vice President suggested a compromise, which was to knock off that stovepipe coming off the bulk of the 6 million acres. That is no compromise. That is unacceptable because that is still oil drilling off the State of Florida where the future reserves are shown to be not as abundant. The tradeoff to 16 million Floridians is simply not worth what potentially could be discovered in oil and gas--the despoiling of our environment and the killing of our economy. Thus, it was such welcome news when we learned last week that the other side of the Capitol, the House of Representatives, added to the Interior appropriations bill an amendment that would prohibit such drilling. The vehicle was the Interior appropriations bill. It prohibits it for only 6 months. It will be my intention, and certainly the intention of my wonderful colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Florida, Mr. Graham, that we in the future will offer amendments either to the Interior appropriations bill, to bring it in conformity with the House-passed bill, or more likely amendments that would cause a prohibition of lease-sale 181 as well as offering similar amendments to the authorizing bill that will come out of Chairman Bingaman's committee. I want our colleagues to be clear. This is an issue of enormous magnitude to 16 million Floridians. It happens to be of enormous magnitude to New Jersey, the State of the Senator who sits as Presiding Officer, as well as all the States in New England which value so much the pristine waters and the waters particularly as you get on north of New Hampshire and Maine--those waters that produce such delicacies as the Maine lobsters. This is a matter of grave concern to many of us. It is time to draw the line in the sand--hopefully, not a line that will be washed over by oil on our beaches' sands but, rather, a line that will indicate the unanimity of 16 million Floridians, joined by their sister States along the eastern seaboard, of opposition to offshore oil drilling.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I think I can conclude in 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. I rise on behalf of thousands of Florida consumers who would like to see control over their medical care returned to their doctors. As the former elected insurance commissioner in Florida, I have talked with many of these consumers. And I've seen first-hand what some of the big insurance companies will do to them, if you let them. For too long, these same insurers have killed efforts in the Congress to hold them accountable. These lobbying efforts would merely be tiresome, if it were not for the real life horror stories that prove the industry's claims that this is a bad bill are false claims. Over the last two days, all of us have heard the horror stories from many of these consumers--stories of HMOs denying care to sick patients; stories of accountants, not doctors, making decisions about medical treatment. Some of these stories involve injury, harm, and even death. Let me tell you about a couple of examples from Florida. One 62-year-old south Florida woman began complaining of headaches and was referred to a neurologist, who ordered a CT scan and MRI of her brain. The HMO refused the request. The doctor persisted, but to no avail. The appeals went on for 6 weeks, until the woman was admitted into the hospital paralyzed on her left side. There, she underwent a CT scan that revealed a tumor the size of an orange. She was immediately taken into surgery. She remains paralyzed. Two days after the surgery, her HMO finally approved the procedures requested by her doctor. Sadly, current law only allows this patient to sue her HMO for the cost of the scan. She has no other legal recourse. I will give you another example. A Pensacola woman was told by her HMO that she must see a network physician for a referral to a special hospital that could treat her rare cancer. After switching to this new doctor, who concurred with the need for treatment, the HMO again denied her coverage. Her medical bills are expected to reach $180,000. And despite her life-threatening illness, her HMO continues to deny full coverage. The newspapers are full of such stories. And the common denominator seems to be that none of these patients have any recourse against their HMO. This is unacceptable. Medical decisions should be made by doctors, not accountants. HMO accountants are making life-threatening decisions, and the patients are suffering the consequences. These stories from Florida illustrate the need for Federal legislation. We must stop the practice of denying care, denying claims and putting profits ahead of patients. The legislation we are finally debating lets people and their doctors--not HMO accountants--decide on the best medical treatments, not the cheapest. Sick patients should not have to battle an illness and their HMO at the same time. The issue before us in this debate is simple: either you are for protecting patients, or you are for maintaining the status quo, which protects HMOs. I support this legislation because it provides patients with the protections they currently lack. This bill guarantees access to necessary medical care. It puts the decisionmaking back in the hands of doctors. Under this legislation, patients can participate more easily in life- saving clinical trials. Chronically ill patients can receive the care they need because doctors will determine what is necessary medical treatment. Patients will be able to change doctors without facing delays because they will have more choices. Under this bill, patients will receive prescription drugs on a timely basis. Doctors and patients won't be bound by red tape, and patients will get the drugs prescribed by their physicians, not their HMO accountants. Patients also will be able to designate a specialist as a primary care provider. This means that a cancer patient could use a radiologist as a primary care physician. For sick patients, this makes sense. This Patients' Bill of Rights also allows someone to seek emergency room care, without first contacting their health plan. This bill also addresses another critical issue; that is, financial rewards for doctors. HMOs will no longer be able to offer financial incentives to doctors who limit care. This legislation also prevents HMOs from punishing doctors who advocate on behalf of their patients. By putting the medical decisions back in the doctor's hands, this bill protects the doctor-patient relationship. As expected, insurance companies and managed-care companies are lining up against the proposal that consumers should be able to sue them for harmful treatment. Insurers say the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill will drive up premiums, increase the number of people without insurance and cause employers to drop coverage for their employees. In Texas, where a right-to-sue law has been in effect since 1997, it's been reported that premiums actually declined last year. Further, the Congressional Budget Office says that under this reform legislation, litigation costs related to the patients' right to sue would increase less than 1 percent during 5 years. I ask the assistant Democratic leader if there is any chance for any additional time so I can complete my statement.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Democratic leader. Mr. President, I end by saying our health care delivery system is failing, and it is failing doctors and nurses and providers as well as the patients. Only recently I learned of a doctor in Boca Raton who has started charging his existing patients a $1,500 annual membership fee in order to continue his patients' medical care. This is outrageous, and it is symptomatic of the need for reform of the entire health insurance system. Clearly, we need reform. This Patients' Bill of Rights is just a first step, but a necessary step, toward health care reform. We cannot afford to miss the opportunity. We cannot allow the special interests to stall and delay any longer. We must act now. The people deserve no less. I thank you, Mr. President, for your indulgence, and I thank the Democratic leader very much for the additional time so I could conclude my statement on this very important piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I, along with my colleagues Senators Feingold, Harkin, and Leahy, have introduced S. Res. 91, a resolution that condemns the brutal murder of Carlos Caceres, an American citizen, decries the inadequately disproportionate sentences given by the Indonesian judicial system to the self-confessed killers of the three U.N. aid workers, and offers condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Carlos Caceres and the other victims of the September 6 attack. This resolution also expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the officials at the U.S. Department of State should, at every appropriate meeting with officials of the Indonesian government, stress the importance of ending the climate of impunity which shields those individuals, including senior members of the Indonesian military, suspected of perpetrating, collaborating in, or covering up extrajudicial killings, and other abuses of human rights. (2) the President should consider the willingness of the government of Indonesia to make rapid and substantive progress in judicial reform, and in the criminal accountability of those responsible for human rights abuses on the island of Timor, among those factors taken into account when determining the level of U.S. financial support provided to Indonesia, whether directly or through international financial institutions. On September 6, 2000, a paramilitary mob killed three United Nations aid workers, including the United States citizen Carlos Caceres, in the West Timor town of Atambua. Mr. Caceres and the other victims were stabbed and hacked to death with exceptional brutality, and their bodies were then set on fire and dragged through the streets. Mr. Caceres previously had emailed a plea for help saying that ``The militias are on their way'' and that ``we sit here like bait.'' Several weeks ago, an Indonesian court in Jakarta meted out only token sentences to the murderers of Carlos Caceres and the other U.N. workers, and failed to allot any punishment whatsoever to the Indonesian military commanders alleged to have sanctioned this attack. In addition, the self-confessed killer of Carlos Caceres, a pro- government militia member was sentenced to spend no more than 20 months in jail, and remarked afterwards, ``I accept the sentence with pride.'' The murders of Carlos Caceres and the other U.N. workers fit a pattern of killings perpetrated or sanctioned by the Indonesian military in Aceh, Irian Jaya, and other parts of the nation. Despite government promises of judicial accountability, since the initiation of democratic rule in Indonesia in 1998 no senior military official has yet been put on trial for human rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, torture, or incitement of mob violence. I propose that the U.S. Senate go on record to stress the importance of ending the climate of impunity which shields those individuals--especially senior members of the Indonesian military--suspected of perpetrating, collaborating in, or covering up extrajudicial killings, torture, and other abuses of human rights. The Senate urges the President and Congress to make every effort to consider the need for reform when determining policy towards Indonesia.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise on this first day of consideration of the Patients' Bill of Rights to say that this is a glorious day, that finally, after a 5-year wait, the Senate can take up this important legislation. It is my hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not block this legislation, as has been rumored all over the Capitol today. We have heard that there will be all kinds of efforts to delay and distract. This issue is way too important for this country to withstand such potentially dilatory tactics. Indeed, the people of this country embrace patient protection and they embrace it in a bipartisan and, indeed, a nonpartisan fashion. What does this bill do? It simply addresses a grievous wrong under American law. Currently, health care providers are held accountable for their mistakes and their malpractice, save for one type of health care provider--an insurance entity known as a health maintenance organization. An HMO is exempt under the law. So this Patients' Bill of Rights brings to the floor of this Senate the opportunity to change the law so that HMOs are held accountable for their grievous mistakes. This is just common sense and clearly, a standard of fairness. This is why we are seeing wide acceptance of the principles of this legislation reflected in the polls all over this country. Now let's not be deceived. Those who want to torpedo this legislation say that they support a Patients' Bill of Rights, and then they get all mired in the discussion of the technical details. But it is clear cut: Either you are for the patient or for the HMO when it comes down to the question of accountability for grievous mistakes. Now there has, in the course of this discussion, arisen a very legitimate concern. HMOs are a major provider of insurance for employers. Therefore, an employer is quite concerned that they might have some liability because they engage the particular HMO as their insurance company. So, quite naturally, an employer does not want to have joint liability with an HMO that has perpetrated some grievous malpractice. In this bipartisan legislation offered by Senators McCain, Edwards, and Kennedy, there is protection for the employer, and the employer would only be liable if the employer had participated in that grievous malpractice. So as that issue arises, particularly among the business community, which legitimately ought to be concerned with that issue, don't be deceived, because you are protected. As we get into the discussion of this legislation, let's remember what this is all about. You are either for protecting patients or you are for the status quo, which protects HMOs. Current law states that an HMO cannot be sued for any grievous wrongs, whereas a physician, a nurse, a hospital, or any other health care provider who commits a grievous wrong against a patient can be held accountable. So it is a stark choice: Do you want to protect the patients, or do you want to protect HMOs? You will get all the other arguments about whether or not this is going to increase the cost to patients. There will be some increase, but often as we consider the formulation of law, we have to consider the tradeoffs. Is this protection of a patient's right worth the tradeoff of a small--a very small--increase in the cost? Eighty percent of the American people clearly say they want the rights of a patient protected. I am glad that we finally have this issue before us. One of the greatest experiences in my professional life and a great honor for me was having served for the last 6 years as the elected insurance commissioner of the State of Florida. In that capacity, I dealt weekly with insurance companies, health insurance rates, and what it took to keep those insurance companies and HMOs financially viable, while at the same time being able to protect patients' rights. I see this discussion of a Patients' Bill of Rights as the tip of an iceberg in a discussion of the overall reform of the entire health care delivery system. Ultimately, this will become a discussion of the reform of the Medicare system in this country. I hope and have clearly had assurances from our great assistant majority leader, the Senator from Nevada, and our great leader, the Senator from South Dakota, that we are going to take up Medicare reform later this year. We have a great opportunity for taking the first steps addressing the comprehensive question of health care reform and health insurance reform that will ultimately address the fact that 44 million people in this country do not have health insurance, 2\1/2\ million of these people are in my own State of Florida. Clearly, they get health care. They often get it at the most expensive place, which is the emergency room, and at the most expensive time when the sniffles have turned into pneumonia. But that is a discussion for another day. The discussion, however, starts today along the long, tortuous road of health care reform with a most important first step; that is, enacting a Patients' Bill of Rights. I am proud to come to the floor and be able to address this. I intend to speak out on this important issue again and again over the course of the next several days, and the next couple of weeks, until we pass this important piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank both of the Senators from Massachusetts. Indeed, as a new Senator, I am learning that the definition of ``brief'' is generally not understood in this Chamber. Yet I will adhere to the common understanding in Webster's Dictionary of the term ``brief'' and keep it to less than 5 minutes. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. As a product of public education, I am very privileged to be a part of the debate and what I think is going to be part of the solution. One of the major components of the future quality of that is now being considered before this body. This legislation that we are now considering marks a victory for many and, most especially, for the American people who have overwhelmingly said that the education of their children is their No. 1 priority. I have been guided through this debate by the experiences that I bring to this Chamber by my own educational upbringing, and what I experienced in the public schools of Brevard County, FL, was due in large part to having highly qualified teachers. Who among us does not have some significant life-changing or life- steering experience by the interaction with a quality teacher? Those teachers, in my case, were in schools that were in good repair and in an environment that was conducive to learning. So during debate on this bill many of us have pushed for those same goals--reducing class size by putting more teachers in our classrooms, funding to help build and repair our schools, accountability to monitor the progress of each of our schools, and accountability to monitor the progress of every child in those schools. Those principles have been incorporated in the many amendments that have now strengthened this bill, such as increased funding to put a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and to support teacher recruitment; full funding for special education; full funding for title I for disadvantaged students; modernization of school libraries; and also targeting of funds to low-income children. Another example of an amendment that we have is an incentive for schools to adopt high- quality assessments to chart student progress. Today, in this country, some 90 percent of our children attend public schools. To continue that strong and important legacy of our public schools, and now to strengthen them for the many challenges ahead, we must ensure that our public schools are safe and conducive to learning for all students from all walks of life. I believe this bill creates a framework through which we can reach every student, be it an inner-city student, a rural student, a physically challenged student, a low-income student, a suburban student, or a learning impaired student. Our goal is to provide each of those students with the opportunity to achieve. In the end, reaching every student and improving every school is our goal, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction-- an important step. But as we complete action on this bill, we must ensure that our commitment to better education is backed by the appropriations needed to make it happen. That part of the debate won't end this week, or even this year. So at every step of the way I intend to stand up for the Federal assistance needed to ensure a high-quality education for all of our children. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share my heart on this subject that is of most importance to the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the bipartisan leadership that has brought this education bill to us in a most timely manner, at a most important time in the history of public education in this country.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity to address a couple of topics that have been in my heart. I had the privilege of being here Friday afternoon to hear Senator Byrd explain the legislation he was offering to try to get our arms around the problem of global warming. It was in Senator Byrd's presentation to the Senate that he shared with us that a vast majority of the scientific community in fact has recognized that the Earth's temperature is warming and that, indeed, man is contributing to that warming through the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus causing a greenhouse effect. I was so moved by Senator Byrd's presentation, after which he then introduced the legislation, in light of the fact that this present administration had set aside the Kyoto accords and is going about in its own way to try to address the problem. Senator Byrd offered this legislation, sponsored by himself and cosponsored by Senator Stevens, as a means to try to accelerate and focus world attention on this phenomenon; to use Senator Byrd's words, that something out there in fact is happening. I was moved to speak after Senator Byrd's presentation. What I shared was an experience of looking at global warming from the perspective of my past life as the elected insurance commissioner of Florida, recognizing that it would have devastating effects upon a State such as Florida with such an extensive coastline. The rise of the seas would have an immediate effect upon most of our population which is along the coast. The warming of the atmosphere would cause increased frequency and ferociousness of storms, particularly the storms that are a part of our life still in Florida known as hurricanes, and the rising temperature for the tropical and subtropical climes would likewise have the result of increasing pestilence and disease. I was then moved to remember in my mind's eye the view I had out the window of the spacecraft Columbia on the 24th flight of the space shuttle, looking back at planet Earth, how beautiful it is and yet how fragile it looks. It is gorgeous. It is a blue and white ball suspended in the middle of nothing. Space is nothing. It is an airless vacuum that goes on and on for billions and billions of light years. In the midst of that void is this wonderful creation we call home, planet Earth. I described to Senator Byrd Friday that on the first day, you are looking at nation states. On the second day, you are looking at continents. On the third day, you are looking at the whole planet. That is the perspective you have. The first time you look out, you are looking for home. You are looking for Florida, and then you are looking for America. Then in a few days you are looking for home, and there it is, planet Earth, blue because of the oceans, white because of the clouds. If you look at the land mass, it is usually a dull brown except in parts where there are the contrasts of colors, such as the Horn of Africa, the bright, almost orange-reddish sands of eastern Africa set off against the bright blue waters of the Indian Ocean. I am saying all of this because I wanted to add to the comments I made on Friday about global warming. I was struck with the beauty of this creation, but I was also struck with how fragile it looked. I could see how we are not being good stewards. I could see the destruction of the rain forests, and then I could look to the east and see the mouth of the Amazon. The waters of the Atlantic were discolored for hundreds of miles with the silt that resulted from the destruction of the trees hundreds of miles upriver. I would look at the rim of the Earth, a bright blue band. But on closer inspection, you could see the thin film enveloping the Earth that sustains all of our life known as the atmosphere. I came away from that experience of 6 days in outer space with a profound sense that I needed to be a better steward of what God has given us in this beautiful, colorful planet called Earth. That is what I was moved to think of when Senator Byrd introduced his legislation concerning global warming; that we better be serious and listen to the scientific community, saying that things are changing, that people in States such as mine along the coast of this country had better be wary of the immediate effects upon the consequences of global warming, and that we should be better stewards of what we have been given by our creator, if, in fact, we are doing what we ought to do. I have often let my imagination wander with regard to space travel. I firmly believe that in my lifetime, certainly in the lifetime of a lot of our young friends, we will see an international mission from planet Earth to another planet, probably Mars. When we get there, are those dry river beds that we see in our telescopes? And if they are, what happened to that water? And if we find, in fact, that there was water, then there likely was life. And if there was life, to what degree did it develop; was it civilized? And if it was civilized, what happened? What can we learn so that we can be better stewards of our civilization on planet Earth? Senator Byrd, as he so eloquently expressed his concerns and interest and, therefore, the offering of the legislation to study the problem, was most timely. The President is on his way to Europe tonight to discuss this issue with the many leaders of Europe, their concern that he unilaterally disregarded the Kyoto accords. If we are not going to have the Kyoto accords for the nations of the world to come together to do something about the rise of the greenhouse effect on planet Earth, then we better get together with some other kind of protocol quickly. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens are offering that kind of leadership as a way. It is just one suggestion, but it is an important suggestion. It is timely. I took this moment to offer those thoughts and, again, to say my profound appreciation to the great Senator from the State of West Virginia for what he has offered. I yield the floor. (Mr. NELSON of Florida assumed the chair.)

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have been spellbound by the remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, addressing a problem facing planet Earth that all too often we have ignored. Yet as he so cogently has expressed, indeed, it is a problem. There is something happening out there. It has been my concern that the present administration, for whatever reason, has chosen not to approach addressing the issue of global climate change through the Kyoto accords. And because the administration has so decided, it is all the more important for leaders such as Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens to speak out on a phenomenon that, in fact, is occurring. The scientific community is fairly unanimous. It is not totally unanimous. Because of that, that is used as an excuse for others to say that global warming is not upon us. That counters all of the scientific evidence and the testimony of a vast majority of the scientific community that it has happened. We also know that there is, in fact, a correlation, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has stated, between the production of CO2 into the atmosphere and global warming. I commend the Senator from West Virginia for offering this legislation to try to get the Nation's mind focused on the problem and a comprehensive effort of trying to determine what we are going to do about it before it is too late. In my previous governmental capacity, in the position of Insurance Commissioner of the State of Florida, I tried to sound the alarm bell, and it was very difficult to get people to pay attention, especially insurance companies that would have a great deal to lose because global warming will cause the rise of the seas. When you come from a State such as mine, that has enormous implications since most of our 16 million population is along the coast of Florida. The increase of global temperature will also cause the intensity of storms to increase, as well as their frequency. Florida is a land that we call paradise, but it happens to be a peninsula sticking down into the middle of something known as Hurricane Highway. Hurricanes are a part of our life, and global warming foretells, for us, an increased intensity of hurricanes and an increased frequency of hurricanes. That has enormous implications on not only our lifestyles but our economic activity--particularly in a State such as Florida that has so many miles exposed to water. Increased global warming also portends, for the entire globe, the increased likelihood of pestilence and disease, all of which have tremendous impacts on us as a nation if this phenomenon occurs. The Senator is so kind to stay and listen to my remarks which in large part are directed to him in my affection and appreciation for him and his comments and his legislation. But allow me to divert to the recesses of my memory and to my mind's eye. In 1986, as I looked out the window of the spacecraft Columbia, high above the Earth, in Earth orbit, looking back at home that suddenly, over the course of days in space, is not Florida or America but home becomes the planet, this beautiful blue and white ball suspended in the middle of nothing--and space is nothing. Space goes on and on. It is an airless vacuum that goes on and on for billions of light-years. There in its midst, suspended, is this wonderful creation called planet Earth, our home. As I would look at the rim of the Earth, I could see what sustains all of our life. I could see the atmosphere. As I would look further, I would start to see how we are messing it up. For example, in a ground track coming across South America, I could look out the window of the spacecraft to the west and, because of the color contrast, even from that altitude I could see the destruction of the rain forest in the upper Amazon region. Then, in the same window of the spacecraft, I could look to the east at the mouth of the Amazon River and could see the result of the destruction of the trees for the waters of the Atlantic which were discolored from the silt for hundreds of miles from the mouth of the Amazon. That was a result of the destruction of the trees hundreds of miles upriver. I came away from that experience becoming more of an environmentalist. I came away from that experience with a profound sense of obligation to become a better steward for our planet Earth. The legislation that the Senator has offered is another step in attempting to get this Nation and this planet to recognize that something is changing; that we best use the best minds, the best science, and the best technology to address how we can stop what seems to be the inevitable march of warming the temperature of this planet to the point at which it could cause great destruction. I thank the President for his recognition. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his statement today and for offering this legislation. I thank him for his very kind indulgence to listen to my remarks, which are complimentary to him for what he was offered here today. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report to H.R. 1836, the reconciliation tax legislation. I strongly support paying down our national debt. I support fair tax cuts, marriage penalty relief, and estate tax repeal. I voted for a substitute for a $900 billion tax cut, and another substitute which provided for a $1.2 trillion tax cut. But this bill does not meet my criteria that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will not be touched now or in the future. Because of the fiscally irresponsible way the bill was drafted, with gimmicks like changing the beginning and ending dates of key tax provisions, this bill is flawed public policy that will in fact cost our country much more than the $1.35 trillion allowed by the budget resolution. As a fiscal conservative, I cannot in conscience, nor in substance, vote for this bill. This legislation is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. In order to make the tax cut fit into the limits of $1.35 trillion over 10 years imposed by the budget resolution, this bill suspends the tax cuts in the ninth year, reverting to the status quo of current law with no tax cuts in the tenth year. This is fiscal deception at its worst. If the tax cut is extended in the tenth year by future Congresses, as expected, the cost then becomes $1.53 trillion over 10 years, which breaks the budget agreement, and therefore, throws us into fiscal chaos. This legislation greatly increases the likelihood that the Federal Government will use up all of the projected surplus and there will not be any left over to pay down the national debt without raiding the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. That would be tragic. And if there are additional investments needed over the next decade, as there certainly will be, such as for education, the environment, health care, and national defense, then the federal budget will be written in the red ink of deficit spending. In other words, we would be spending more than we have coming in, and therefore, increasing the national debt. I will not take such a risky course with our economy, and I must express myself in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Florida Voters League for its efforts to save Florida's Board of Regents. Today, the Board of Regents meet for the last time as the chief governing body of our State university system. The individuals who have served our system through the years have been distinguished public servants. I want to recognize them and thank them for their tireless effort throughout the years to ensure our students receive a quality education. Florida's system has faced many challenges over the years, but none have been as potentially destructive as abolishing the board. At a time when Florida faces increasing strains on colleges and universities, it is imperative that we maintain a system that ensures our higher educational institutions receive adequate resources and funding beyond politics. The Board of Regents was created for that very purpose. It has served our State well by ensuring no State university becomes too powerful at the expense of the others. This new system ensures that politicians will govern education, instead of experts and independent voices. In the past, the word of the Board of Regents was respected by legislators and was further supported by the Governor. It was meant to be a nonpartisan governing board. The will of the Universities now, however, will be determined by local political boards and the will of the Legislature. We recently have seen programs granted to universities by legislators, despite the strong opposition of the Board of Regents largely because legislators wanted to bring home ``the bacon'' to their alma mater. It was best described by Dean Weisenfeld of Florida Atlantic University's College of Science when he stated, we need to let ``universities be universities.'' Instead, the fate of our universities might now depend on the strength of their legislative delegations. As my distinguished colleague, Senator Bob Graham, has argued, elimination of the Board returns our State to an antiquated system under which our institutions are pitted against each other for State and Federal dollars. The Board of Regents, on the other hand, has fostered a system of cooperation between our colleges and universities, reduced duplication of programs, and ensured fairness in funding. We must continue that sprit of cooperation if we are to meet the needs of our institutions and achieve our ultimate goals: creating world-class programs, attracting quality faculty and students and ensuring our schools can compete with the nation's best for research dollars. In that spirit, I support Senator Graham's efforts to preserve the Board via constitutional referendum. I applaud the Florida Voter League and other organizations that have chosen to speak out on this important issue. Insuring our State's next generation of leaders receive a quality college education is an issue we can't afford to ignore.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I just wanted to say as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, to the chairman and my ranking member, as a new Member, I was quite struck today at the testimony taken with regard to Senator Baker. First of all, I saw the deep respect that Senator Biden and Senator Helms had for him. And then I heard the testimony from Senator Dole as well, and Senator Byrd. What struck me was Senator Biden's words, when he referred to Senator Baker as a man of the Senate. Before I came here, I would not have known the depth of feeling in that statement. But as I have had the privilege of getting to know all of you, and to interact with you on a daily basis, I now understand the respect that you accorded to Senator Baker by referring to him as a man of the Senate: Someone whose word can be counted on; someone who has principles; someone whose sense of integrity other people recognize. Isn't that what we need in our Government these days? So it is with a feeling of great privilege that, as a new Senator, I join with all of you supporting Senator Baker to be our Ambassador to this very important country, to further the interests of the United States of America.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the chairman allow me to say one short thing?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have been down this road before. As a Congressman in 1981, I supported the Reagan tax cuts that were promoted as a cure-all for the economic ailments of that era. Instead, they led to year after year of increasing deficits, exploding national debt, and a series of tax increases enacted to stem the tide of red ink. With fiscal discipline and a growing economy, we reversed that tide just 3 years ago. Since 1998, we have enjoyed surpluses instead of deficits. And we have been paying down the debt, reducing the massive interest costs that have burdened America's taxpayers. But now the Government is about to dig into our pockets, pull out our credit cards again, and go stumbling down that road toward economic calamity. And--with smoke and mirrors--some are trying to hide the costs we'll incur along the way. By manipulating the starting and phase-in dates for the various tax cuts--and setting unlikely expiration dates on some of them--this bill is jury-rigged to fit within the $1.35 trillion allotted for tax cuts over 11 years in the Senate's budget resolution. But, the fact is, it won't fit once we consider other tax breaks already in the pipeline and spending priorities such as defense, education and prescription drug benefits. And this bill does not guarantee to pay down the national debt. Every Senator in this Chamber believes we will enact additional tax relief, and provide for our Nation's most pressing needs over the next decade. The additional untold story of this legislation is that--even if that were possible--the cost of this tax plan would triple in the next decade. Unless you believe we are simply going to take back the tax cuts we are promising today, you are talking about a price tag exceeding $4 trillion in the decade from 2012 to 2022--when the baby boomers will all be retired. Is that how we are going to provide for prescription drugs under Medicare and shore up Social Security? By raiding their trust funds? Is that how we are going to protect our environment, improve our Nation's schools and strengthen our military? By giving them fewer resources, instead of more, in the years to come? And is that how we are going to keep our economy growing and prospering? By returning to deficit spending, ever-increasing national debt, and costly interest payments on that debt? That is the road we are headed down. I have been down it before, and I'm convinced it's the wrong road. I am choosing instead to take the conservative road of fiscal responsibility. I strongly support responsible tax cuts of nearly $1 trillion that would give Americans the relief they deserve. I voted for such cuts as some of us tried to amend both this bill and the earlier budget resolution. Specifically, I support tax cuts that meet four criteria-- tax cuts that (1) do not raid Social Security; (2) do not raid Medicare; and (3) provide relief from the marriage tax penalty now, not later; and (4) pay down the national debt. Instead we are left with a tax package that is fiscally irresponsible. With all due respect to Senators Grassley and Baucus, we are about to vote on a tax bill that largely promises future relief based on future surpluses that may not materialize. It poses a serious threat to our economy because it will use up what surplus there is so we cannot pay down the national debt. And it seriously threatens our Medicare and Social Security trust funds--not only in 2012 but beginning next year. I promised the people of Florida I would do everything in my power to enact a substantial tax cut, which is balanced, in order to protect those trust funds and to continue paying down the national debt. I promised I would fight for a prescription drug benefit, and that I would work for better schools, a clean environment and a strong defense. I intend to keep those promises, and I must vote against this bill.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the Boxer-Nelson of Florida amendment seeks to safeguard public health and improve our nation's drinking water by aiding water companies to secure tax-exempt bond to comply with the 10 parts per billion arsenic drinking water standard. Ironically, we offer this amendment today, May 23, 2001, one day after Environmental Protection Agency finalized its decision to delay implementation of a new arsenic standard until February 22, 2002. Thus, the 1942 arsenic standard of 50 parts per billion, a standard put in place before arsenic was known to cause cancer, remains the standard for our nation's drinking water. This is true despite the scientific data which shows that the 50 parts per billion standard could result in one additional case of cancer for every 100 people consuming drinking water. The EPA knows arsenic is dangerous. In fact, the EPA has found another danger associated with arsenic in addition to cancer: genetic alteration of our DNA. In April of this year, a team of EPA scientists published a report in ``Chemical Research Toxicology'' that demonstrates that in addition to causing cancer, arsenic can induce genetic alterations to human DNA. The risks associated with arsenic are widely known not just in this country, but throughout the world. For that reason, the European Union and the World Health Organization have endorsed the 10 parts per billion standard. Costs did not prevent the European Union or the World Health Organization from protecting their citizenry from the risks associated with arsenic. Costs should not prevent the United States either.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am sorry, I could not hear.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to speak of my opposition to the amendment offered yesterday by Senator Dodd, which would replace the estate tax repeal in order to partially pay for nontransportation infrastructure programs and save for debt reduction. I strongly support responsible tax cuts and a full repeal of the estate tax. Even though paying down the national debt is one of my top priorities, I could not support an amendment that does not reflect my position of support for total repeal of the estate tax. I opposed this amendment because the revenue offset did not meet this criterion. vote on amendment no. 747