Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Reg Leichty of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of my statement.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my grave concern about the administration's decision that apparently favors the interests of big insurance companies over the health privacy rights of Americans. I was dismayed to learn on Tuesday that the Secretary of Health and Human Services prevented new medical privacy rules from coming into effect. In essence, these rules would have prevented doctors and insurers from sharing private medical information about their patients. The delay ostensibly is to allow further discussion. But it makes no sense. The rules have been debated in Washington for nearly 10 years. The Secretary's decision was unfortunate. There are no acceptable excuses for their delay. Consumers deserve to have their personally identifiable information protected from prying eyes. I promised the people of my State in the course of the last 6 to 8 months of the discussion in the course of the campaign that I would make protecting their privacy one of my top priorities, because too often these days, personally identifiable medical and financial information is being shared, bought, or sold, and it is being done without the consent of the consumer. This practice must stop. It is our job to pass legislation that will stop it. Today, I am going to be introducing two bills that begin to address aspects of the privacy crisis. Both bills build upon the undeniable principle that information gathered for one purpose should never be disclosed, made available, or otherwise used for another purpose without the consumer's consent. Clearly, we should be able to share information with our doctor that we don't want revealed to other people, particularly an employer or a money lender. I am going to work hard to try to pass these privacy protections for every American. The first bill prohibits banks and financial institutions from selling or sharing private customer information. I strongly believe that financial institutions should not be allowed to pass along confidential customer, financial, or medical information to affiliates, business partners, or others who wish to turn a profit from an individual's personal data. I have a little bit of background in this because 6 years ago, when I had the privilege of being the elected insurance commissioner of the State of Florida, there was a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court entitled Barnett Banks v. Bill Nelson, in my capacity as insurance commissioner. The issue was on a technical question of a 1916 Federal law as to whether or not banks could sell insurance. The Court ruled, on the basis of that law, that it pertained to the business of insurance, the upshot of which was that banks could sell insurance. In our argument, we noted that if that occurred, there was always the possibility that you had to protect against coercion and protect against privacy rights being invaded. As a result of that unanimous Supreme Court decision, Congress then, in 1999, enacted the Financial Services Modernization Act. In the 11th hour of the closing of the session in October, the promise was made that, if you can pass this bill now, we will come back next year--the year 2000--and enact the privacy protections. That promise was not fulfilled in the year 2000. For under the present condition of the law, there is a gaping loophole on privacy protection. In an era of mergers, under the new law, banks can now join with insurance companies and then evaluate the medical information of their affiliates' policyholders before deciding whether or not to issue a loan. What my legislation will do is require the express written consent of the consumer before any personally identifiable medical information can be shared or sold, and the express consent of the consumer before any personally identifiable financial information can be shared or sold. For the consumer, privacy should always be the assumption. To prevent coercion, this legislation I am introducing prohibits banks and financial companies from denying service to customers who refuse to consent to the sale of their personally identifiable financial and medical information. To make sure financial institutions take this law seriously, under the legislation, officers of the company can incur personal liability for failing to comply. This is a serious problem: the invasion of our privacy under the current condition of the law. It demands a serious remedy. I am going to be encouraging all of our colleagues to join with me and fulfill the promise that the Congress made in 1999 in the enactment of the Financial Services Modernization Act by plugging this gaping loophole where there is no privacy protection. There is a second bill that I am introducing today. It makes the selling or purchasing of an individual's Social Security number a Federal crime. Social Security numbers are often the key to unlocking vast stores of personal information, both in the private sector and the Federal Government. If there is any personal identification number, it is the Social Security number. We look all around us and we see that identity theft has grown at an alarming rate during the past decade--in many cases, through the Social Security number abuse. My goodness, we have heard of credit cards being established in somebody else's name by the theft of their Social Security number and running up huge bills. We have heard these stories over and over, and even the confusion caused by identity theft, where crimes are reported to be attributed to an individual who does not have anything to do with it. When a Social Security number falls into the wrong hands, tremendous financial and personal damage can be incurred. To tackle this terrible problem, this legislation that I am introducing today establishes criminal and monetary penalties. The bill creates both prison terms and fines of up to $100,000 for buying or selling Social Security numbers. I hope in this field of privacy protection that the Senate is going to ultimately fulfill the promise that it made 2 years ago and move quickly in this session to protect the privacy of our American citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my grave concern about the administration's decision that apparently favors the interests of big insurance companies over the health privacy rights of Americans. I was dismayed to learn on Tuesday that the Secretary of Health and Human Services prevented new medical privacy rules from coming into effect. In essence, these rules would have prevented doctors and insurers from sharing private medical information about their patients. The delay ostensibly is to allow further discussion. But it makes no sense. The rules have been debated in Washington for nearly 10 years. The Secretary's decision was unfortunate. There are no acceptable excuses for their delay. Consumers deserve to have their personally identifiable information protected from prying eyes. I promised the people of my State in the course of the last 6 to 8 months of the discussion in the course of the campaign that I would make protecting their privacy one of my top priorities, because too often these days, personally identifiable medical and financial information is being shared, bought, or sold, and it is being done without the consent of the consumer. This practice must stop. It is our job to pass legislation that will stop it. Today, I am going to be introducing two bills that begin to address aspects of the privacy crisis. Both bills build upon the undeniable principle that information gathered for one purpose should never be disclosed, made available, or otherwise used for another purpose without the consumer's consent. Clearly, we should be able to share information with our doctor that we don't want revealed to other people, particularly an employer or a money lender. I am going to work hard to try to pass these privacy protections for every American. The first bill prohibits banks and financial institutions from selling or sharing private customer information. I strongly believe that financial institutions should not be allowed to pass along confidential customer, financial, or medical information to affiliates, business partners, or others who wish to turn a profit from an individual's personal data. I have a little bit of background in this because 6 years ago, when I had the privilege of being the elected insurance commissioner of the State of Florida, there was a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court entitled Barnett Banks v. Bill Nelson, in my capacity as insurance commissioner. The issue was on a technical question of a 1916 Federal law as to whether or not banks could sell insurance. The Court ruled, on the basis of that law, that it pertained to the business of insurance, the upshot of which was that banks could sell insurance. In our argument, we noted that if that occurred, there was always the possibility that you had to protect against coercion and protect against privacy rights being invaded. As a result of that unanimous Supreme Court decision, Congress then, in 1999, enacted the Financial Services Modernization Act. In the 11th hour of the closing of the session in October, the promise was made that, if you can pass this bill now, we will come back next year--the year 2000--and enact the privacy protections. That promise was not fulfilled in the year 2000. For under the present condition of the law, there is a gaping loophole on privacy protection. In an era of mergers, under the new law, banks can now join with insurance companies and then evaluate the medical information of their affiliates' policyholders before deciding whether or not to issue a loan. What my legislation will do is require the express written consent of the consumer before any personally identifiable medical information can be shared or sold, and the express consent of the consumer before any personally identifiable financial information can be shared or sold. For the consumer, privacy should always be the assumption. To prevent coercion, this legislation I am introducing prohibits banks and financial companies from denying service to customers who refuse to consent to the sale of their personally identifiable financial and medical information. To make sure financial institutions take this law seriously, under the legislation, officers of the company can incur personal liability for failing to comply. This is a serious problem: the invasion of our privacy under the current condition of the law. It demands a serious remedy. I am going to be encouraging all of our colleagues to join with me and fulfill the promise that the Congress made in 1999 in the enactment of the Financial Services Modernization Act by plugging this gaping loophole where there is no privacy protection. There is a second bill that I am introducing today. It makes the selling or purchasing of an individual's Social Security number a Federal crime. Social Security numbers are often the key to unlocking vast stores of personal information, both in the private sector and the Federal Government. If there is any personal identification number, it is the Social Security number. We look all around us and we see that identity theft has grown at an alarming rate during the past decade--in many cases, through the Social Security number abuse. My goodness, we have heard of credit cards being established in somebody else's name by the theft of their Social Security number and running up huge bills. We have heard these stories over and over, and even the confusion caused by identity theft, where crimes are reported to be attributed to an individual who does not have anything to do with it. When a Social Security number falls into the wrong hands, tremendous financial and personal damage can be incurred. To tackle this terrible problem, this legislation that I am introducing today establishes criminal and monetary penalties. The bill creates both prison terms and fines of up to $100,000 for buying or selling Social Security numbers. I hope in this field of privacy protection that the Senate is going to ultimately fulfill the promise that it made 2 years ago and move quickly in this session to protect the privacy of our American citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President--that has a nice ring to it-- it is a privilege for me to take the floor and speak on an unrelated subject but a subject that is of considerable importance to the country and to the decisions we will be making very shortly. That is the adoption of a budget and the decision in that budget of how large the tax cut should be. Just in the last 24 hours, we have seen a consequence of the tax cut that now is proposed by the administration that is soaring upwards of $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years, a tax cut that the fiscal effect of $2.5 trillion would be so large as not only to wipe out all of the available surplus over the next 10 years, but to cause us to suddenly plunge back into deficit spending. We see a consequence of this in the last 24 hours in the fact that the administration is now not proposing to increase the defense budget. Personally, I think we should be looking at a minimum of increasing the defense budget over the next decade to the tune of $100 billion. The administration, now recognizing that its tax cut is going to absorb all of the available surplus, has just, in the last 24 hours, laid out the fact that it will not ask for an increase in the defense budget. When that occurs, I am quite concerned about our existing troops and what their pay is, the fact that there would be no increase for maintenance and operating costs, such as spare parts and rising fuel costs, a part of the defense budget that is absolutely essential to keeping our existing systems and equipment ready in case they have to be deployed, and the sufficient allocation of fuel so that our troops can have the proper training that is essential to their readiness. I can tell you there are a lot of pilots out there right now whose morale is pretty low because they don't feel as if they are getting enough flying hours, so that if the call comes and they have to go abroad to defend this country--particularly the pilots who are flying these precise pinpoint missions, not even to speak of the ones who have to engage in aerial combat--they will have had that training. This is going to be the consequence of keeping down the defense budget that this administration is reflecting because of its fiscal proposal of a tax cut so large that it is going to absorb all of the projected surplus--and, by the way, that may never materialize--over the next decade. If you cut the defense budget too severely, you are suddenly going to have systems that have not been upgraded and we will have unsafe planes and ships. That is simply a consequence that I don't think is in the interest of this country. After all, one of the main reasons for a national Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. So we are starting to see the ripple effects of this proposed fiscal policy. Why can't this fiscal policy instead be one that is balanced with a substantial tax cut? The question is not a tax cut or not; the question is how large should the tax cut be? That is where I argue for balance, so that we have a substantial tax cut balanced with the increased spending needs. And I have just given one example of defense. To give you another example, strengthening the Social Security fund; another example is modernizing Medicare with a prescription drug benefit; to give another example, increased investment in education. I have just listed only four additional areas. In this time of prosperity and budget surpluses, if we are fiscally disciplined, and if we are fiscally conservative, then we can meet all of the needs in a budget that will be balanced and that will protect the investment and spending needs as well as returning part of the surplus in the form of a tax cut. We have seen the charts offered by the Congressional Budget Office as to the projected surplus. I likened it, from my old position as the State fire marshal in Florida, to a fireman's hose. When that fireman takes that hose into a fire and he starts turning the nozzle, it first goes into fog, a light spray, and then increasingly, as you turn the nozzle, it goes into a straight stream of water. The charts we saw by the CBO projecting what the surplus would be over the next 10 years look like the spray coming off of a fireman's hose. For the chart with a line up to the present showing what the surplus is today, as you project it over 10 years, the range is from a huge surplus 10 years out to no surplus at all 10 years out indeed, into deficit. That is the inaccuracy of forecasting that CBO has admitted is truth. They also stated to us in the Budget Committee that the projected surplus--60 percent of it--will not materialize until the last 5 years of the 10-year period--all the more increasing the uncertainty of what is going to be available. So my plea to our colleagues, Madam President, is to let us be conservative in our planning, let us be fiscally disciplined and not fall back into the trap that I personally experienced when I voted for the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 and suddenly realized that I had made a mistake--and the country at large understood that it was a mistake-- because the cut was so big, we had to undo it in the decade of the 1980s not once but three times. It had run us into such deficits in the range of about $20 billion at the end of the decade of the 1970s to deficits that were in excess of $300 billion per year by the end of the decade of the 1980s. In other words, the Government of the United States was spending $300 billion more each year than it had coming in in revenue, and that was getting tacked on to the national debt, which is what took us from a debt in the 1970s in the range of $700 billion to a national debt that is in excess of $3.5 trillion today. My argument to our distinguished colleagues in this august body is to use balance, let's use fiscal discipline, and let's use fiscal conservatism as we plan and adopt the next budget for the United States of America. Madam President, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, one of the most able and capable of this body, a former Administrator of the Veterans' Administration in the Carter administration, a former distinguished Secretary of State of the State of Georgia, a distinguished junior Senator, now senior Senator, and even more so, I am proud that he is my good, personal friend. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, many of my Democratic colleagues rose today and expressed their objections to the nomination of former Senator Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. I do not wish to recapitulate their arguments, but I share many of their concerns regarding his nomination. I believe former Senator John Ashcroft has been a dedicated public servant who has acted in what he felt was the public's best interest. But his record has stirred controversy on a wide-range of issues. The position of attorney general is one of great importance to the people of the United States. An Attorney General must unite the citizens. Unfortunately, Senator Ashcroft's record has tended to be divisive rather than unifying. Most importantly, many Floridians are afraid that Senator Ashcroft will turn back the clock on civil rights after all the progress that has been made over the years. Based on his record and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I share their concern. An Attorney General, of all the Cabinet officers, must be perceived to be the most vigilant enforcer of the law, an attorney who will represent all the people's interest. I am afraid this nomination does not meet that test. Thus, I am voting against confirmation.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator further yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding for me to make the comment that it is not only a great privilege to serve here and to represent my State, but it is doubly a pleasure to serve with the quality of Members of this body as exemplified by the senior Senator from West Virginia. He is someone I have naturally gravitated to in these first few weeks as someone from whom I can learn a lot. Of course, I knew of his tremendous talents as one of the best orators who has ever been produced in the Senate. His reputation precedes him as one of the best fiddlers the Nation has ever produced, and now I am delighted to know how he got started as an expert fiddler by virtue of the story he told us of receiving the gift of a violin as a child. I thank the Senator for his comments, and I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I had the privilege of coming to Congress in 1978 and being assigned as a freshman in January of 1979 to the House Budget Committee. In 1979, I never thought I would live to see the day we would balance the budget, much less did I think I would live to see the day that, in fact, we would get into a surplus situation. Now, in this time of prosperity and budget surpluses, it is very much incumbent upon us to be fiscally wise and fiscally disciplined in how we use these budget surpluses so we do not go back into the boom-and-bust cycles that we have experienced in the past. Mr. President, 22 years ago as a freshman member of the House Budget Committee--I am now a freshman member of the Senate Budget Committee-- we had an annual deficit somewhere in the range of about $20 billion to $24 billion. Then, as we moved into the decade of the 1980s, that annual deficit crept higher and higher and higher. Toward the end of the decade of the 1980s, we exceeded $300 billion in annual deficit spending. That is not the kind of financial situation you want. Indeed, we just had Mr. Greenspan before the Budget Committee and he continued the very severe lecture that he has given us for years, which is: Be very fiscally disciplined and wise, and don't return to that era of deficit spending. I bring this up today--and this is, by the way, my maiden speech in the Senate, so what a privilege for me to be here, what a privilege to represent such a dynamic State as the State of Florida--but I rise on the occasion of my maiden speech to talk about the potential pitfalls that could take us back into deficit spending. In these times of prosperity and budget surpluses, it is important for us to be very wise and fiscally conservative in making these choices--and we are going to make some choices very soon. One of the first choices we have to make is: Are we going to use all of the Social Security surplus and most of the Medicare trust fund surplus to be applied to reducing the national debt? I can tell you the people in Florida believe very firmly that we should use the surplus to reduce and ultimately pay off the national debt. I think most of us, almost unanimously in this Chamber, would be dedicated to that particular part of budgetary restraint. We have the surpluses. We need to do that. The next question that is going to face us, then, is: What should be the size of the tax cut? I am going to argue and articulate about what my people have educated me, and that is to craft a Federal budget that will be balanced so we can have a substantial tax cut and, at the same time, we can address a number of other very important needs facing this country, such as modernizing Medicare, a 35-year-old system, to provide a guaranteed prescription drug benefit. I will give another example: a substantial investment in education that will help bring down class sizes and pay teachers more to give them the respect they need in their profession and who ought to have the very best to compete with the private sector, so that we have the very best teaching for our children; an investment in education that will also enable us to make the classrooms more safe and the schools safe. In addition to lowering class sizes, paying teachers more, and making the schools safe, we should have our schools accountable for the product they produce. That is just another example. Clearly, defense is another important priority: the new systems we are going to need, the research and development that will be needed. Indeed, what is one of the main reasons for having a National Government? It is to provide for the common defense, not even speaking about the question of pay for our men and women in our armed forces. I have only listed three, and there are many more. I mentioned prescription drugs, education, and defense, all being needs in which, over the next decade, this Government is going to have to invest more. The question is: With the available surplus, after we subtract the Social Security surplus and the Medicare trust fund surplus, with what is left, what is wise for us then to enact in a tax cut? Should it be the tax cut that is proposed by the administration which, after one considers the interest cost and the alternative minimum tax, is going to be in the range of a $2.2 trillion tax cut over a decade? What that would do is wipe out all of the available remaining surplus over the next decade so there would not be anything left for prescription drugs, education, defense, strengthening Social Security, the environment, and I could go on and on. What I argue in my maiden speech in this august body, of which I am so privileged to be a part, is that we approach our budget with balance, that we keep in mind primarily paying down the national debt with the surplus, and that as we make choices, we make them wisely on a substantial tax cut, but a tax cut that leaves enough of the surplus left to do these other things; plus one more thing, and that is, we need a rainy day fund. We do not know that these budget projections are going to pan out over the course of the next 10 years. We ought to have a cushion. We ought to be conservative in our fiscal planning so that if those budget projections do not turn out to be accurate, then we have a cushion to fall back on so we never get back into the situation we were in during the decade of the eighties when, in 1981, we enacted a tax cut that was so large--and I voted for it; I admit I am gun shy on this because of the lessons I learned--we had to undo it not once but three times, in 1983, 1986, and again in 1990 when I had the privilege of serving in the Congress. I argue for balance, I argue for fiscal restraint, I argue for fiscal discipline, I argue for fiscal conservatism as we make these choices in the budget that we will be adopting over the next several months. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Indeed, I yield with pleasure.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with and that I may proceed for 5 minutes.