Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then, Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 748.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is an amendment everybody can vote for because you want to protect your States. The bill phases out the estate tax for the State portion much quicker than it phases out the entire estate tax. It is going to put a real financial burden on our States. Under the existing bill, the State portion would be repealed much faster, not leaving our States enough time to prepare and plan for the loss of revenue. That is unfair to our State governments. This amendment, sponsored by Senator Graham and myself, would result in the full repeal of the estate tax but would phase out the State estate tax portion at a rate consistent with the repeal of the Federal portion and would pay for it through a temporary reduction in the top marginal rate cuts. This would provide for a responsible full repeal of the estate tax while leaving time for our States to plan for this loss of revenue to the States. I yield back the time, Mr. President.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I was not aware that a point of order would lie on this. I would like to know what the Parliamentarian says.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today, the Cuban American National Foundation will dedicate Miami's ``Freedom Tower'' in celebration of Cuban Independence Day. This historic landmark is known to many Cuban political refugees as the ``Ellis Island of the South.'' The Freedom Tower served as an immigration processing center in the 1960's and 1970's and became a symbol of democracy and freedom to Cubans fleeing from tyranny and oppression. I rise today to recognize not only this dedication, but the hard work and sacrifice of the Cuban Americans in Florida who have added so much to our Nation, and who, through their work to restore the Freedom Tower, have given us yet another gift.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise in support as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator Bayh and other colleagues to create a ``Trust Fund Protection Trigger.'' this amendment is simple. This amendment would keep us honest. It would prevent us from raiding Social Security and Medicare Trust funds. As long as specified debt reduction targets are met, the phase in of tax cuts continue as scheduled. This amendment to the tax cut reconciliation bill would create a safety mechanism to address the danger of fiscally irresponsible tax cuts or federal spending leading our nation back to a period of budget deficits. We must make sure we continue paying down our national debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from West Virginia for his insight and tell him that apparently there is a lot of similarity in the thinking of the people of West Virginia and the thinking of the people of Florida. Indeed, they take for granted that if we are saying we are going to eliminate the marriage penalty so that it doesn't penalize married people, so that it promotes family-- that if they take for granted that we are going to do that, they expect to have that tax benefit immediately instead of having to wait 5 years into the future. It is common sense to me, if we have made this promise to the people of America, and I have made this promise to the people of Florida, that we should have that tax benefit--in other words, that you are not penalized in the Tax Code if you are married--instituted immediately. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his comments.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the ranking member for the time. I compliment the Senator from Washington on her amendment and for the tremendous insight she brings, as someone who has participated on a school board, as a mom, who understands education from the grassroots. As the Senator from Washington was talking, I couldn't help but think, I don't get to go to the movies very much, but there was one movie about 2 years ago named ``October Sky'' that I saw. It was about a coal mining town in West Virginia and how the escape for those young people in school from a life of coal mining was only through the avenue of a dedicated teacher who ignited their little minds. In this particular case, they were called the rocket boys. They went out and built miniature rockets, won the State science fair, got the college scholarships, and were able to go to college. It is based on a true story about one of those rocket boys who went on to become a very accomplished NASA engineer. It popped into my mind because of what the Senator was saying about the importance of the teacher and the teacher being able to interrelate with the children in that classroom. If it is a classroom of 50 or 60 children, that personal attention, that interaction just isn't going to occur. How many studies do we have to undertake to understand that when class size is reduced, particularly in the formative years of kindergarten through the third grade, it shows up in spades later on in life by the child's ability to accomplish and succeed. The Senator's amendment is so clear. This is like voting against motherhood. I can't imagine anybody would not be supporting this amendment. We have already had 2 years of experience with this program. It clearly has started to work. The Senator wants to extend this program for another 5 years for a total program of 7 years. If I went to my State and asked the average citizen on the street: Do you want to lower class size by hiring more teachers over a 7-year period, to have the Federal Government invest more by hiring 100,000 teachers, I would get an almost unanimous response. I add my voice of appreciation to the Senator from Washington for her wonderful commentary and for her very insightful amendment.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the chairman of my committee has given courageous leadership in trying to sort through all of the funny money and the distorted figures as we try to make some sense out of this budget resolution. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership. I strongly support a tax cut that would benefit all Americans fairly, but I support a tax cut that doesn't sacrifice the fiscal discipline that enables us to provide tax relief for this year. I support a tax cut that doesn't abandon our commitment to such critical areas as Social Security, Medicare, education, national defense, and the environment. I was among those voting for such a tax cut when we first debated the budget a few weeks ago. It would have given taxpayers substantial relief--$900 billion over 10 years--while enabling us to meet our Nation's most pressing needs. With the administration demanding $1.6 trillion instead of $900 billion, that sensible proposal of a balanced way of approaching the budget for all of these different needs that I want to talk about, and that my colleague, my senior Senator from Florida, has already talked about, was rejected. Instead, we are now considering a budget resolution calling for a $1.4 trillion tax cut over 10 years that is certain to cost far more if it is carried out. We are about to vote for an illusion, a political head fake, because this budget before the Senate provides none of the additional money we approved for educational reform. Every day now we are on the education bill, S. 1. We have added needed money for lowering classroom size, as we are about to vote on the amendment from the Senator from Washington. We have added money to bring title I up, fully funded, over the course of the next decade. We have put additional money into Head Start, to get children ready to start school at the kindergarten and first grade level. Yet this budget doesn't provide any of that money. This is one of the most inconsistent, legislative decisionmaking times we have ever seen. On the one hand, we are considering a budget resolution that strips out all of the additional money we promised our people last year in the election that was going to be invested in education while, at the same time, we are voting on an educational bill that adds all of this additional investment into education. There is no money here for the public school improvements we all agreed were critically needed. This budget conveniently overlooks anticipated costs for such big ticket items as the President's plans for overhauling the military and the President's plans for building a missile defense system. It is based on distant revenue projections that are uncertain in the best of times and, increasingly, revenue projections of surplus that are very unlikely in our slowing economy. My senior Senator from Florida, who is so kind to be here, knows that I made promises to our people in Florida. I promised to fight any raids on Medicare and Social Security trust funds. Instead of strengthening Medicare and Social Security, which we must do, this unconscionable budget would raid them. Look at the chart referred to in an earlier speech. With everything in this present budget at the end of 10 years, there isn't enough left in the present budget projections, to the tune of $\1/2\ trillion. At the end of 10 years, where will we get it? We will get it by raiding the Medicare trust fund, $326 billion over 10 years. I promised I wasn't going to do that. We are going to get it by raiding the Social Security trust fund, $225 billion over 10 years. I promised I would not do that, and I will not. And I promised to give all children a chance for a quality education. And we are stripping out that money for education. I promised to protect our precious natural resources. There is not any money for that. I promised to strengthen our Nation's military. And there is not any money for that, either. I promised to modernize Medicare with a real prescription drug benefit, and there is no money for that. I promised one of the most sacred promises to all of the people of Florida who have labored under budget deficits and who have worried, as they worry about paying off their mortgages on their homes--I promised to pay down the national debt with this surplus so our economy can grow and prosper. We are not doing that with this budget. No, the budget plan before us would eat up our entire surplus. It would cripple our ability to do all of those things I promised our people in Florida. So I am going to vote against it. Because of the promises I made to our people in Florida, I will continue to fight for reforms and I will continue to fight for tax cuts in the days and the weeks ahead. I will continue to fight for those reforms and tax cuts that will better serve all of our people. I say to the chairman of our committee, my senior Senator, the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, it has been a privilege to be a part of this process. Thank you for letting me express some very deeply felt convictions, most of which were discussed in detail as I had the privilege of visiting all of the back roads and cities, the rural areas, and the backwaters of Florida as I traversed the State last year in the campaign. What a high honor it was to be elected to represent the State of Florida. I came here with those promises. I intend to keep them. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to support the Dodd- Collins amendment. I have had the privilege of being a legislator most of my adult life. I must admit what we are facing today is not a first. I realize that legislation and the legislative process is an imperfect activity. As a matter of fact, it was Bismarck, I believe, who was quoted as saying that making laws is something similar to making sausage. It is a process that you should never see. Today is an example of that, for here we are discussing one of the most important subjects facing this Nation: How we are going to invest additional funding in education, a subject matter that is absolutely essential to the future of this country, while at this very moment discussing and hopefully adopting the Dodd-Collins amendment that will fully fund title I over the next 10 years--title I being the funding for disadvantaged students--while at the same time we have just received the report from the other end of the U.S. Capitol Building that the House is about to take up a conference committee report on the budget resolution from which the Democratic leadership was excluded. All of the Democrats on the Budget Committee were excluded from knowing what was in that budget conference report. We find, in fact, that what is in it is exactly the opposite of what we are debating right now--that instead of fully funding title I, title I will not be fully funded; much less, it will not even be adequately funded; much less, it will not even be increased over the next 10 years. That is an irony of all ironies. But let's look at some other issues. We understand that the budget resolution may come here tonight for a vote, while at the same time we are discussing the education bill and voting to invest additional resources into education. What we are going to be voting on tonight is a budget resolution that has no increase in funding for education. You can't have it both ways. We understand, although we have not been privy to this documentation yet, that not only are there not going to be the increases in title I, the subject of the amendment that we are discussing for a significant increase--indeed, the full funding of title I--but that there is going to be less funding, with no increases, for safe and educational afterschool opportunities. Head Start is not going to be significantly increased, the program to get children ready to enter kindergarten and the elementary school years. It is going to eliminate the additional funding for the training of our teachers. It is going to eliminate the additional funding for reducing class sizes. And it is going to eliminate funding for making our schools more safe. What we have just talked about is what the American people want. They want safe schools. They want smaller classes. They want better paid teachers and better trained teachers with continuing education opportunities. They want additional opportunities for disadvantaged children. And they want afterschool programs for children. That, in large part, is what this entire bill, S. 1, is about, which we are talking about and have amended. Earlier today we adopted the Harkin amendment. It provided some $180 billion over the next 10 years for children with disabilities. Yet I am told that a stealth budget resolution conference report, that we are not privy to see, is coming to this Chamber for a vote tonight. That is exactly the opposite of what we are doing in the consideration of this education bill. I know the process of legislation is not pretty, but this defies anybody's description about any kind of symmetry because there is none. It is a total irony that we would be giving, with one hand, for one of the most fundamentally important needs of this country, education, and later tonight taking away with the other hand. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I listened closely to the eloquent comments of our colleague from Massachusetts this morning. It was his late brother, President Kennedy, in 1962, who said in a message to the 87th Congress: ``A child miseducated is a child lost.'' Today, nearly four decades later, these words ring truer than ever. Far too many of our children, particularly poor and minority children, remain miseducated today despite efforts over the years to strengthen and reform America's public schools. The latest tests by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, showed that only 32 percent of our Nation's fourth graders were proficient or better in reading and more than one-third of the fourth graders read below basic minimum standards. That is unacceptable, especially today, when the consequences of such poor performance have never been greater. In this era of rapid technological change, business and industry require highly skilled, highly educated workers. If we fail to improve our school systems, many of our young people will be locked out of well-paid jobs and denied opportunities to succeed in a changing global economy. We cannot deny them that opportunity, nor can we deny this Nation the talent and skills it needs to grow and prosper. This 107th Congress must lead so no child is left behind. As for their leadership thus far, I wish to compliment many of our colleagues who have engaged in tough and bipartisan negotiations aimed at ensuring that we adequately address our Nation's educational priorities. The administration has proposed one plan, and some parts of it are very good. They are certainly in step with the reforms many of us have advocated in the past--particularly as I tried to articulate in this last election cycle in Florida. But other parts of the administration's plan are seriously flawed or are grossly underfunded. At the outset we must decide to put partisan interests aside and do what is right for our children. By the way, more than 90 percent of our children attend public schools. We must debate and resolve the important issues that still separate us, keeping in mind our common goal of giving every child the opportunity to succeed, not only in school but also in life. The teachers and public schools in Melbourne, FL, along with my parents, gave me my start and instilled in me a lifelong love of learning. Public elementary and secondary schools gave me the opportunity to go on to college and to law school, and to serve in the Army and the Florida legislature and the U.S. House of Representatives. That public school education also allowed me to serve as Florida's State treasurer and as a member of the State cabinet, as a member of the State board of education, overseeing public education. Now I have the privilege of being here as a Member of the Senate. I am forever indebted to my teachers and to those schools. Those schools were good ones, located in a growing, prospering community along the east coast of Florida. I was blessed. As we know and as the recent reading scores demonstrate, not every child is that fortunate. Too many of them come from broken families, too busy putting food on the table to worry about the absence of books in their homes. Too many attend failing schools in failing neighborhoods, or crumbling schools with overcrowded classrooms. Too many have outdated textbooks, insufficient numbers of books to go around, and tired teachers who believe they lack the support they need. Thanks to economic growth and the fiscal discipline imposed by the Congress, we now have a unique opportunity this session to help our States and local school districts address these problems. We have an opportunity not only to provide more of the financial help needed but also to ensure that those dollars help produce a better education for our children. We must not squander that opportunity now. I am encouraged that the White House has emphasized education. I also am encouraged that progress has been made in the negotiations so that we can give the States and school districts greater flexibility on spending while also holding them more accountable for results. These are goals we all share. I am confident that we can resolve our remaining differences on this legislation and work out the details on how best to achieve those goals that we share. But I am also convinced that the administration's commitment to leave no child behind will be nothing more than an empty slogan unless we bolster it with sufficient resources needed to get the job done. Reform without resources is not reform. In this regard, the President's demand for excessive tax cuts contradicts his pledge to do right by America's schoolchildren. I believe that it would be reckless to risk a return to the annual budget deficits that you and I, Mr. President, experienced in the 1980s and return to mounting national debt by committing this Nation to a tax cut that could overwhelm the projected surplus. It is a tax cut that is said to be $1.6 trillion, but in a real estimate of what it would cost in terms of deficit reduction, it is $2.5 trillion. It would be reckless to use the surplus for that instead of investing any increase in Federal education over the next 10 years. The White House claimed its proposed budget would provide an 11.5 percent increase for education in the coming fiscal year. But the real increase would be half that amount, and could leave the States with unfunded mandates, something the Congress in 1995 vowed that it would never do--put unfunded mandates on the States. If we are truly to leave no child behind, then we can do a whole lot better. We must do better. In my view, there is no higher priority than providing a first-rate education for the children in our public school systems. Our Federal Government, which now provides just 7 percent of the money for all of our schools nationally, ought to provide a larger investment for school construction, for dropout prevention, for smaller and safer classes, for teachers who are both well trained and well paid, and for programs that assist children with preschool education and afterschool care. The amendments we adopted last month in our Senate budget resolution would strengthen the Federal investment in public education and children with disabilities by more than $250 billion over the next decade. We can also help failing schools succeed by strengthening our programs for disadvantaged children and targeting additional Federal money to needy students and to the poorest schools, some represented by the distinguished Senator who honors me with his presence here, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Along with increased support, the education bill that Congress enacts this year should provide for greater accountability. It should condition future help on academic performance standards set by the States and measured by testing students yearly and uniformly within each State. We also need to ensure that the States set meaningful standards and measure real progress. We can do all of this in part by using the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests of fourth and eighth grade students and as a way to audit the results of the yearly State reading and math tests that would be provided under this bill in grades three through eight. So the States do their thing, with their own accountability, but we then will have a national measure, a standard by which to compare the States with the National Assessment of Education Progress test. This will then enable us to confirm that Federal dollars were well spent. Parents have an important role to play. They are entitled to timely report cards from their school districts on the performance of their children's schools, not just their individual child's report card. If, despite our best efforts, a school continues to fail, they ought to have a choice so their kids are not trapped in failure. But when the Nation's taxpayers are paying for it, the choice ought to involve public schools, and not private ones, if it is public school money. I believe our negotiations are on the right track for providing options for transfers to charter schools, magnet schools, or other schools within a district, or for extra help from outside tutoring to summer school. I want to make sure that we don't divert public school tax dollars to private schools through vouchers. We need to improve public schools that perform poorly. We don't need to abandon them. As we make our schools and local school systems accountable, we also need to give them more control and greater flexibility to use the Federal funds in ways that better meet local needs. I believe that we can consolidate programs and cut bureaucratic strings without sacrificing those Federal initiatives that are an essential part of the solution. For example, we know that children learn better in smaller classes. Why in the world would we want to abandon our national commitment to reducing class size, to building new schools and renovating the old ones if we know that creates an environment in which children can better learn? We can do better. In February, I joined with 10 other Senators in introducing the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act, which we call the three Rs. Its aim is to streamline the Federal role in education and eliminate some of the bureaucratic strings that hinder local school districts. Its goal is to establish a clear national priority to ensure that every child has a chance at a quality education. These priorities include--and let's think about these; they are common sense--closing the achievement gap between poor and more affluent children; helping immigrant children learn English; improving teacher quality; reducing class size in the early grades; spurring innovative practices; and promoting choice within the public school framework. I am pleased that many of our proposals are now embraced in the committee bill that is now pending before us. As our deliberations proceed, I will be fighting to ensure that they receive adequate funding. We must succeed in this endeavor. Failure is not an option. We cannot afford to abandon our young people. In the long run, such failure would be far more costly than investing in quality education for all of our children. Let us make sure that no child is miseducated, and let us make sure that no child is lost. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for being kind enough to be interested and to be on the floor as I present my maiden speech on education. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized on the motion.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, just in the remaining moment, I say to the Senator from West Virginia what a tremendous role model he has been to all of us new Senators, including the Senator now presiding in the chair. What a tremendous pillar of historical example he has been in carrying forth the traditions of the Senate and imparting those traditions to the new Senators, and then in his vision for the future to keep alive those traditions. I have been so educated sitting in this Chamber listening to Senator Byrd bring in the history of the world to make his point on a particular argument in which he might be engaged. He recalls to mind, for me, the great orators who have been in this Chamber. Again, that is another part of he being a wonderful role model for all of the new Senators. So I am eternally grateful, and I am especially honored that he would think me worthy of coming and listening to my comments today on education.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and recognize the achievements of a distinguished Floridian and former congressman, the Honorable Paul Rogers. The National Institutes of Health is dedicating the Paul Rogers Plaza at Bethesda, MD on June 12, 2001 in recognition of his phenomenal efforts and ardent advocacy for public health and medical research. Paul Rogers represented Florida's 11th District in the House of Representatives from 1956 to 1979, where he earned the distinguished and fitting title, ``Mr. Health.'' During his twenty-four years of service in Congress and eight years as the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment, he consistently demonstrated his heartfelt commitment to improving medical care and technology and preserving our fragile environment. His extensive list of legislative accomplishments and contributions is too great to fully recount, but there are several legislative achievements that are particularly noteworthy. The National Cancer Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Medicare-Medicaid Anti Fraud and Abuse Act are just a few of Paul Rogers' endeavors that continue to impact our nation today. It is fitting that the National Institutes of Health has chosen to honor him with a permanent plaque at the Paul Rogers Plaza, as I am certain that the beneficial effect of his public service on the health of American people will continue to be felt for many years to come. Paul Rogers' foresight in the areas of medical research and environmental regulation brought about cutting edge policies that continue to protect Americans everyday. His prolific efforts helped bring these critical issues to the forefront of our nation's agenda. As we continue to debate and develop new legislation aimed at improving the health of Americans and our environment, we should take a moment to consider and thank the men and women, like ``Mr. Health,'' who initiated this crusade. I am extremely pleased that Paul Rogers' tireless efforts are being duly recognized by the National Institutes of Health.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Washington Post reported this morning that several prominent banks, insurance companies and law firms regularly purchased consumers' confidential financial information from an information broker that illegally gathered the data using ``pretext'' calling. This despicable practice involves a caller who contacts a business or government entity and uses a person's social security number or other personal identifier to trick an unsuspecting clerk to provide confidential information about everything from a person's checking account balance to her investment portfolio. The prohibition against this fraudulent practice was recently strengthened by Congress through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, but reports of abuse have continued. Information brokers with little regard for people's privacy are doing the dirty work for organizations that otherwise portray themselves as privacy proponents. These so-called information brokers allow companies seeking such information to cut corners at the expense of consumers. And the apparent willingness of some in the financial industry to purchase such information calls into question the industry's commitment to protecting consumers' privacy. Further, if companies buy information from suspect sources, there are limited prohibitions on redistributing it. If a company isn't required to get a customer's express consent prior to selling, sharing or disclosing his information, then the customer has little opportunity to stop the spread of inaccurate information. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation that, if passed, would help minimize the collateral damage that can occur when financial institutions purchase information from these suspect firms. My bill would require a consumer's express consent before a financial company can share personally identifiable financial information with its affiliates and express written consent before it can transfer personally identifiable medical information. I want to put the consumers in control. Consumer control ensures that personally identifiable information is only used for the purpose it was gathered for and protects consumers from the further spread of inaccurate information. Too often these days, personally identifiable medical and financial information is being shared, bought, or sold; and, it's being done without the consent of the consumer. This practice must stop. And it is our job to pass legislation that will stop it. I call on my colleagues in the Banking committee to move forward with this legislation as soon as possible, so that it can be considered by the full Senate. Now is the time to close the financial privacy loophole so that we prevent a further erosion of our privacy rights.

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 ask consent I be given 10 minutes to address the Senate.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to oil and gas exploration off the coast of Florida. Specifically, the issue at hand is the sale of Lease Sale 181. I am certainly not alone. There are 16 million Floridians who join in this opposition. Senator Bob Graham as well, Florida State elected officials, certainly the legislature of Florida and most of the Florida congressional delegation opposes any drilling in Lease Sale 181. Lease Sale 181 may not be included in the current moratorium on lease sales off the coast of Florida, but in the hearts of all Floridians it is part of the moratorium. Moreover, there has never been a production drilling rig actually producing off the coast of Florida because Floridians unequivocally oppose offshore drilling because of the threat it presents to the State's greatest natural and economic resource: our coastal environment. Florida's coastal waters provide an irreplaceable link in the life cycle of many species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's beaches, fisheries, and wildlife draw millions of tourists each year from around the globe, supporting our State's largest industry, tourism. Florida's commercial fishing industry relies on these estuaries as nurseries for the most commercially harvested fish. Nearly 90 percent of the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico are caught on the West Florida Shelf and contribute directly to Florida's economy. Oil spills would be devastating to Florida's beaches, coastal waters, reefs, and fisheries. The chronic pollution and discharges from drilling would detrimentally effect the shallow, clean water marine communities found on the Florida outer continental shelf. For these reasons, I cannot sit back and watch as my State, one of our nation's environmental jewels, is degraded. I know some may have differing views because other issues or concerns consume their constituents; and I respect those views. However, in Florida the environment and tourism are of paramount importance. The beaches, the abundant fisheries, and the pristine waters make Florida what it is today; and the people of Florida want it to stay that way. Just as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would not solve the administration's claimed energy crisis, drilling in Lease Sale 181 will not either. Increased conservation and increased fuel efficiency in our cars would do more to meet our country's energy needs than drilling in Lease Sale 181. For these reasons, I must adamantly object to and vigorously oppose the sale of Lease Sale 181; and I hope the rest of this body listens to the pleas of Floridians. All of the oil and gas that would come out of this proposed lease sale would only give about 2 months worth of energy for the country. That is simply not a viable tradeoff for the damage it would do to our economy and our environment. We are not willing to make that tradeoff in Florida. As a matter of fact, as you talk about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, isn't it interesting. If you put it into the context of all the barrels of oil that are projected to be pumped from that wildlife refuge, that energy consumption could be replaced if we but increased all new vehicles in their energy efficiency by 3 miles per gallon. That puts the crisis in context. Conservation is considerably important. The use of research and development to produce more energy-efficient appliances, more energy- efficient automobiles--there is no reason why this country that has the technological prowess cannot produce a car that is economical and that will get 80 miles per gallon. We have that within our grasp. Think what that would do to our energy consumption. As a matter of fact, when you look at the uses of energy by this Nation, the transportation sector is the sector that consumes most of that energy. Just think what future energy-efficient automobiles could do for us. But that is a subject of larger proportions. Today, I rise on behalf of a State that has ecologically pristine beaches and the need to be kept just that way. This proposed lease sale for oil and gas drilling clearly jeopardizes the future economy and ecology of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter of critical importance to the State of Florida; that is, the prospect that soon, under the new administration, we might have the sale-for-lease tracts for offshore oil drilling off the coast of the State of Florida. There has been in place presently a moratorium in one form or another since 1989 regarding drilling off the coast of the State of Florida. And there is presently offered, through this new administration, through the Department of the Interior, a proposed lease sale called ``lease sale 181,'' which comes within 30 miles of Perdido Key, which is in northwest Florida. It is explained by the new administration that most of the tract for lease is 100 miles off the coast. But there is indeed a part that comes to within a few miles of the coast of Alabama and close to the State of Florida-Alabama line. This lease tract would come within some 20 to 30 miles of the pristine white beaches of the State of Florida. I can tell you that 16 million Americans residing in the State of Florida do not want drilling off the coast of our State and have spoken vigorously against it, which is why we have had a moratorium off the State of Florida. Yet the administration continues to persist. Now let me read for you a statement that was made by candidate George W. Bush in the past campaign. He made this statement at West Port Richey, north of Tampa, FL. He said at the time in the campaign, when asked about offshore oil drilling in Florida: I'm going to work with your Governor about offshore drilling here in Florida. We are both against it. We are both against it. Twice he said he was against it. But it is now his position to offer it. Just last week the Tampa Tribune, a very conservative editorial newspaper--in an editorial last Thursday, said: Had George W. Bush openly supported the sale of these leases before the election, he would have lost Florida and the Presidency. Now that is the truth. And promises are being broken. The fact is that they don't need to be because we could address our energy problem if we would be wise by increasing our R&D on alternative fuels, on increased conservation. You don't have to produce your way out of the energy crisis. You can be a lot wiser with using alternative methods. In the discussion of the budget, we saw some dramatic testimony showing that the consumption of energy in the United States, in large part, is allocated to transportation. Why should we not use research and development to build a new automobile that in fact can get 60 to 80 miles per gallon? That would cause a tremendous conservation of energy in this country. That is just one alternative, but it is an alternative we ought to explore and keep the promises that were made in the election. This whole matter of offshore oil drilling suddenly caught my attention back in the early 1980s, when, as a junior Congressman representing a congressional district off the east coast of Florida, suddenly I was confronted with the Reagan administration, through the person of the former Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, offering leases for oil drilling off the east coast of the United States, from as far north as Cape Hatteras, all the way as far south as off Fort Pierce, FL. As a junior Congressman, I went to work with the Appropriations Committee in the House to get them to insert language that would say in the Department of the Interior appropriations bill: No money may be used under this appropriations act for the purpose of offering oil and gas leases in tracts such-and-such--and then we described all of the tracts that were being offered. We won in that year in the Appropriations Committee because of bringing to that committee dramatic testimony from Florida about what would be the environmental and economic damage to our State if waves of oil were lapping up onto the beaches of Florida--not only environmental damage, but economic damage as well, particularly considering Florida's tremendous tourism industry. Well, I thought my fight was over. But sure enough, after a year's lapse, the Reagan administration came back under a new Secretary of the Interior and proposed those oil leases again. So we had to go to work even harder. This time it escalated all the way up to not just the appropriations subcommittee on the Department of the Interior, but to the full Appropriations Committee, where we finally won the vote by pointing to NASA and the Department of Defense to the fact that you can't be dropping solid rocket boosters from the space shuttle and the first stages from expendable booster rockets being launched from the Kennedy Space Center and the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station if you have oil rigs down below. So we won that vote after a hard fight. I thought our fight was over on being able to protect Florida's shores from the threat of environmental and economic damage as a result of oil drilling. But my hope back there in the early 1980s was for naught because in the year 2001, despite a promise that was made last fall, in the year 2000, by candidate for President George W. Bush, one of the first acts of the new Bush administration is to offer for sale lease tract 181 off the coast of the State of Florida for oil and gas drilling. Well, 16 million Floridians will not stand for this. Senator Bob Graham and I will not stand for this. Statewide elected officials expressed many times over, including this Senator who used to be an elected member of the State Cabinet of Florida, will not stand for it. The legislature of the State of Florida will not stand for it. Most of the congressional delegation from the State of Florida will not stand for it. Yet the administration persists. It looks as if we are in for a donnybrook where we will clash our swords and see if the will, the desire of 16 million Floridians will prevail. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, 2 years ago following an indepth study requested by Congress, the National Academy of Sciences recommended we reduce the level of arsenic in drinking water by a significant amount. This is the standard that was, in fact, required in a rule issued by the previous administration, but one that the present administration abruptly overturned last month. In response, I have filed legislation that aims to impose the safer standard of having 80 percent less arsenic in our drinking water than the Bush administration would allow. I believe this is a step needed to protect consumers, children and our environment. Better safe than sorry is a good rule in such matters. This amendment would provide first-year funding of $43 million the Environmental Protection Agency says is needed for smaller cities to be able to improve water systems. This amendment is needed to ensure that cost doesn't prevent public water systems from providing safe, clean drinking water.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I had requested 5 minutes, so would you prefer that I go ahead and take it, or let the Senator from Oregon go ahead, and I will be happy to speak after him? What is the pleasure of the Senator from Oregon?