Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I am aware of the hour of the recess, and I will be very brief. But I wished to come and express my condolences to the family of Senator Thomas and to share for them, spread upon the pages of the Congressional Record, the fact that a faithful member of the weekly Senators Prayer Breakfast was Senator Thomas. The gathering is private, Senators only. All Senators check their egos and check their partisanship at the door and join together as friends in a spiritual setting. What a delight it was for this Senator to share that collegiality with Senator Thomas on a weekly basis in the proceedings of the Senate. For that friendship, that collegiality, I am especially grateful. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the last several years, hundreds of Americans have died from inhaling the poisonous carbon monoxide emitted by portable, gas-powered generators. It is well past time for Congress to step in and end these needless deaths. That is why today I am introducing the Portable Generator Safety Act of 2007. As most of us know, portable generators are frequently used to provide electricity during temporary power outages. These generators use fuel-burning engines that give off poisonous carbon monoxide gas in their exhaust. Every hurricane season, news stories come from Florida and elsewhere about people killed or seriously injured by carbon monoxide poisoning caused by portable generators. From 2000 through 2006, at least 260 carbon monoxide poisoning deaths were reported to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. In the last 3 months of 2006 alone, 32 people died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by generators. These people died because portable generators are not manufactured to automatically cut off when high carbon monoxide levels are reached, and because generators still do not have adequate carbon monoxide warning labels. Here is what is especially troubling about these senseless deaths: the Consumer Product Safety Commission has studied and known for years that people were dying from carbon monoxide poisoning at an incredibly alarming rate. In study after study, Commission staff has recognized the high death rate from portable generators, and found that current regulations are inadequate to protect consumers. In January of this year, the Commission finally adopted warning label requirements for portable generators, nearly 10 years after they started looking into the issue. While I appreciate this initial step, I remain very troubled that the Commission again refused to take the most logical step, adoption of mandatory Federal safety standards. Enough is enough. Industry self-regulation, which works in some settings, clearly is not working in this area. Congress must now step in and do its part to eliminate these tragic and avoidable deaths. My bill, the Portable Generator Safety Act of 2007, takes some simple, common sense steps. The bill requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to pass tough Federal regulations within 180 days of enactment of this bill. The new regulations would have three key components. First, every portable generator would be required to have a sensor that automatically shuts off the generator before lethal levels of carbon monoxide are reached. Other products, such as portable heaters, already contain these types of sensors, and they save lives. Second, every portable generator must have clearly written warnings on the packaging, in the instruction manual accompanying the generator, and on the generator itself. In January, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued new regulations requiring placement of warning labels on generators. Unfortunately, these labels are not as clear as they should be. This bill will require clear, easy-to-read warnings that consumers will read both when they purchase the generators and when they power them up in emergency situations. Third, this legislation will require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to carry out a comprehensive education program warning the public of the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning. How many more innocent people must die before we require the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the portable generator industry to take some sensible, pro-consumer steps? The National Hurricane Center just issued its 2007 hurricane season forecast, and it looks like we will have an above-average year for hurricane activity. I hope we are not back here at the end of the year asking these same questions. I ask unanimous consent that the text in the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the last several years, hundreds of Americans have died from inhaling the poisonous carbon monoxide emitted by portable, gas-powered generators. It is well past time for Congress to step in and end these needless deaths. That is why today I am introducing the Portable Generator Safety Act of 2007. As most of us know, portable generators are frequently used to provide electricity during temporary power outages. These generators use fuel-burning engines that give off poisonous carbon monoxide gas in their exhaust. Every hurricane season, news stories come from Florida and elsewhere about people killed or seriously injured by carbon monoxide poisoning caused by portable generators. From 2000 through 2006, at least 260 carbon monoxide poisoning deaths were reported to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. In the last 3 months of 2006 alone, 32 people died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by generators. These people died because portable generators are not manufactured to automatically cut off when high carbon monoxide levels are reached, and because generators still do not have adequate carbon monoxide warning labels. Here is what is especially troubling about these senseless deaths: the Consumer Product Safety Commission has studied and known for years that people were dying from carbon monoxide poisoning at an incredibly alarming rate. In study after study, Commission staff has recognized the high death rate from portable generators, and found that current regulations are inadequate to protect consumers. In January of this year, the Commission finally adopted warning label requirements for portable generators, nearly 10 years after they started looking into the issue. While I appreciate this initial step, I remain very troubled that the Commission again refused to take the most logical step, adoption of mandatory Federal safety standards. Enough is enough. Industry self-regulation, which works in some settings, clearly is not working in this area. Congress must now step in and do its part to eliminate these tragic and avoidable deaths. My bill, the Portable Generator Safety Act of 2007, takes some simple, common sense steps. The bill requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to pass tough Federal regulations within 180 days of enactment of this bill. The new regulations would have three key components. First, every portable generator would be required to have a sensor that automatically shuts off the generator before lethal levels of carbon monoxide are reached. Other products, such as portable heaters, already contain these types of sensors, and they save lives. Second, every portable generator must have clearly written warnings on the packaging, in the instruction manual accompanying the generator, and on the generator itself. In January, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued new regulations requiring placement of warning labels on generators. Unfortunately, these labels are not as clear as they should be. This bill will require clear, easy-to-read warnings that consumers will read both when they purchase the generators and when they power them up in emergency situations. Third, this legislation will require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to carry out a comprehensive education program warning the public of the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning. How many more innocent people must die before we require the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the portable generator industry to take some sensible, pro-consumer steps? The National Hurricane Center just issued its 2007 hurricane season forecast, and it looks like we will have an above-average year for hurricane activity. I hope we are not back here at the end of the year asking these same questions. I ask unanimous consent that the text in the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the White House has just announced the President has withdrawn the nomination of Michael Baroody to be the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I think this is a wise move on the part of the White House because of the perceived conflict of interest of Mr. Baroody--an employee of the National Association of Manufacturers being nominated to be the Chairman of the very regulatory agency that governs the regulation and the safety of the very products of the industry from which he comes. It would be like, in my former life as the elected insurance commissioner, if in a State where the Governor appointed the insurance commissioner, a regulator, the Governor would pick an executive of an insurance company to regulate the very industry he came from as the insurance commissioner. By the way, that happens with tremendous frequency in the 50 States, that they appoint the insurance commissioner, and they are usually there for less than a year. Then the revolving door turns again, and they go right back into the very industry from which they came and of which they had just been the regulator. Putting someone from the National Association of Manufacturers at the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a similar kind of potential conflict of interest. I will give you another example. My former colleague and friend in the House, Billy Tauzin--a distinguished public servant, Congressman formerly from Louisiana--now is the head of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. This would be like the White House appointing Billy Tauzin--the very head of an association in the industry--to regulate that industry by making him head of the Food and Drug Administration, the regulatory body that would regulate the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, I do not think the White House would even think of doing such a thing. Well, a similar kind of conflict of interest arose. But a more serious note even arose than the potential conflict when it became apparent there was a severance package that had been created for Mr. Baroody while he was still in the employ of the National Association of Manufacturers that was for $150,000; and subsequently we learned of an additional amendment to that severance package, after it was announced he was nominated to be Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Mr. Baroody came in and we had a discussion about this issue. He had his own explanation. I do not take anything from that explanation. So, naturally, the next request that I made was that I think the Commerce Committee ought to see the documents of the $150,000 severance package and its amendments, its subsequent modification. Mr. Baroody said he would consider that request. Of course, the clock was ticking because there was going to be a hearing in front of the Commerce Committee tomorrow on his nomination. But, in the meantime, the White House has just announced it is having the President withdraw the nomination. I will conclude by saying we have a saying down in the South in regard to avoiding a conflict of interest. It is like putting a fox in charge of the hen house, the very hen house with the hens you want to protect. It is an apparent conflict of interest. I think the White House was well served to withdraw the nomination.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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, I rise to introduce the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2007. This bill would provide States with the resources they need to rid our schools of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I believe steroid use doesn't begin at the professional level. I am very concerned about performance-enhancing drug use among young athletes, specifically high school athletes. Steroid use among high school students is on the rise. It more than doubled among high school students from 1991 to 2003, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, a study by the University of Michigan shows that the percentage of 12 graders who said they had used steroids some time in their lives rose from 1.9 percent in 1996 to 3.4 percent in 2004. This is unacceptable and a health risk to our children. In 2004, the Polk County School District became the first in Florida to establish random testing for high school athletes, and the Florida House passed a bill that would have made Florida the first State to require steroid testing for high school athletes. That bill stalled in the Senate, but now Florida and other States are considering a similar law. Currently, less than 4 percent of U.S. high schools test athletes for steroids, and no State requires high schools to test athletes. Schools and States say that cost is usually the reason they don't test. In response, I am introducing this legislation to help States with the resources they need to curb the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. My legislation would provide federal grants directly to States so that they can develop and implement performance-enhancing drug testing programs. The Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2007 would authorize $20 million in grants to States to create statewide pilot drug testing programs for performance-enhancing drugs. States that receive the grants would be required to incorporate recovery, counseling, and treatment programs for those students who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs. Stopping the use of performance-enhancing drugs goes beyond testing. That is why my legislation also would require States that receive grants to allocate no less than 10 percent of the funding to establish statewide policies to discourage steroid use, through educational or other related means. There is no simple solution to the issue of steroids in sports. Congress can do its part by enacting the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2007. But the sports leagues, their players, coaches, and parents all must play an active role. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2007. This bill would provide States with the resources they need to rid our schools of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I believe steroid use doesn't begin at the professional level. I am very concerned about performance-enhancing drug use among young athletes, specifically high school athletes. Steroid use among high school students is on the rise. It more than doubled among high school students from 1991 to 2003, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, a study by the University of Michigan shows that the percentage of 12 graders who said they had used steroids some time in their lives rose from 1.9 percent in 1996 to 3.4 percent in 2004. This is unacceptable and a health risk to our children. In 2004, the Polk County School District became the first in Florida to establish random testing for high school athletes, and the Florida House passed a bill that would have made Florida the first State to require steroid testing for high school athletes. That bill stalled in the Senate, but now Florida and other States are considering a similar law. Currently, less than 4 percent of U.S. high schools test athletes for steroids, and no State requires high schools to test athletes. Schools and States say that cost is usually the reason they don't test. In response, I am introducing this legislation to help States with the resources they need to curb the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. My legislation would provide federal grants directly to States so that they can develop and implement performance-enhancing drug testing programs. The Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2007 would authorize $20 million in grants to States to create statewide pilot drug testing programs for performance-enhancing drugs. States that receive the grants would be required to incorporate recovery, counseling, and treatment programs for those students who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs. Stopping the use of performance-enhancing drugs goes beyond testing. That is why my legislation also would require States that receive grants to allocate no less than 10 percent of the funding to establish statewide policies to discourage steroid use, through educational or other related means. There is no simple solution to the issue of steroids in sports. Congress can do its part by enacting the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2007. But the sports leagues, their players, coaches, and parents all must play an active role. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I congratulate Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who has done an absolutely masterful job in charting the boat of the Budget Committee through considerably hazardous waters, to be able to end up with a vote like he did today, 52 to 40, in the passage of the budget. It is a budget that clearly is trying to accommodate enormous spending that we have to do for the defense establishment, for the national security needs of this country, and at the same time, to attack the issue of how we are going to pay for it. The reality is, there are certain taxes we recognize we are going to have to do something about, because if we don't, it is going to hit the middle class. We have to do something about the 10-percent level for the lower income group. We have to do something about the child tax credit. Since all of them are tax cuts, it is going to cost revenue. We even have to tackle the issue of the estate tax, trying to craft a compromise which in this bill allows for then the Finance Committee to approach an exemption of $3.5 million per person of the estate tax and then reduce the tax rate from 55 to 45 percent that the balance of the estate would be taxed. That would protect the family farms, the family businesses, the vast majority of them in the country. I compliment the Senator from North Dakota, who has had to be so dextrous and so insightful. Every little jot and tittle, every nuance he has had to attend to. It is a real confirmation of his ability that he gets a resounding vote as he did today on passage of the budget. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have introduced a bill that will honor one of Florida's great jurists, the Honorable C. Clyde Atkins, by naming the Federal building at 301 North Miami Avenue in Miami, FL, the ``C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse.'' This is a fitting tribute to Judge Atkins. His public service provides a model for members of the legal profession, indeed, for all Americans, who respect the rule of law and believe in equal justice under law. Before becoming a judge, Judge Atkins, who earned his law degree at the University of Florida, already had distinguished himself in private practice. He served as the president of both the Florida bar and the Dade County Bar Association. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Atkins to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He served until his death in 1999 at the age of 84. From 1977 until 1982, Judge Atkins was the chief judge for the Southern District, and his leadership ensured that the court remained effective through a period when Miami confronted serious problems involving refugees, violence, and drug smuggling. Judge Atkins rendered important decisions in the areas of civil rights and civil liberties. By the luck of the draw, he was assigned to many controversial cases, earning him the nickname ``Hard Luck Clyde,'' and it was for those rulings, often involving important civil rights and civil liberties issues, that he will be best remembered. For example, in a decision involving Miami's homeless population, he ordered the creation of ``safe zones'' where the homeless could congregate without fear of arrest. This important decision had a ripple effect, helping to give rise to efforts throughout the Nation to rehabilitate the homeless through training and the creation of shelters. He also ruled in support of Cuban and Haitian refugees who were held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and against the government's repatriation policy. And finally, he presided over the desegregation of Dade County's public schools for more than 20 years. Judge Atkins was a person of faith. He was the first Catholic appointed to the bench in the Southern District, and Pope Benedict VI named him a Knight of St. Gregory. Judge Atkins also earned recognition from the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Anti- Defamation League, and the American Judicature Society, to name a few. The proposal to name the courthouse in Miami after Judge Atkins has been supported by leaders of the bar in the Southern District, including the Dade County Bar Association. Passage of my bill will ensure that the C. Clyde Atkins Courthouse will stand as an enduring tribute to an admired and respected Federal judge and the principles for which he stood for generations to come.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have introduced a bill that will honor one of Florida's great jurists, the Honorable C. Clyde Atkins, by naming the Federal building at 301 North Miami Avenue in Miami, FL, the ``C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse.'' This is a fitting tribute to Judge Atkins. His public service provides a model for members of the legal profession, indeed, for all Americans, who respect the rule of law and believe in equal justice under law. Before becoming a judge, Judge Atkins, who earned his law degree at the University of Florida, already had distinguished himself in private practice. He served as the president of both the Florida bar and the Dade County Bar Association. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Atkins to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He served until his death in 1999 at the age of 84. From 1977 until 1982, Judge Atkins was the chief judge for the Southern District, and his leadership ensured that the court remained effective through a period when Miami confronted serious problems involving refugees, violence, and drug smuggling. Judge Atkins rendered important decisions in the areas of civil rights and civil liberties. By the luck of the draw, he was assigned to many controversial cases, earning him the nickname ``Hard Luck Clyde,'' and it was for those rulings, often involving important civil rights and civil liberties issues, that he will be best remembered. For example, in a decision involving Miami's homeless population, he ordered the creation of ``safe zones'' where the homeless could congregate without fear of arrest. This important decision had a ripple effect, helping to give rise to efforts throughout the Nation to rehabilitate the homeless through training and the creation of shelters. He also ruled in support of Cuban and Haitian refugees who were held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and against the government's repatriation policy. And finally, he presided over the desegregation of Dade County's public schools for more than 20 years. Judge Atkins was a person of faith. He was the first Catholic appointed to the bench in the Southern District, and Pope Benedict VI named him a Knight of St. Gregory. Judge Atkins also earned recognition from the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Anti- Defamation League, and the American Judicature Society, to name a few. The proposal to name the courthouse in Miami after Judge Atkins has been supported by leaders of the bar in the Southern District, including the Dade County Bar Association. Passage of my bill will ensure that the C. Clyde Atkins Courthouse will stand as an enduring tribute to an admired and respected Federal judge and the principles for which he stood for generations to come.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the hour allocated to me in debate postcloture and which I have not used be allocated to Senator Boxer, the manager of the bill.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to speak on the bill, and I wanted to congratulate Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for their combined leadership, their working together to bring this legislation to the floor. It has been a long time coming. We passed it here last year thanks to the leadership of both of them. Senator Inhofe was chairman. Now Senator Boxer is the Chair. It is now time for us to pass it again. It has only been 7 years since we have had a Water Resources and Development Act. We desperately need it for all of these water projects across the country that need to be authorized. Of course, one of the ones I want to speak to not only affects our State of Florida, the Everglades restoration, but it clearly affects a lot of the ecosystems of planet Earth. We violated Mother Nature over the course of the last half century. As a result of massive hurricanes in the early part of the last century, particularly the hurricane of 1928 that killed over 2,000 people in the Lake Okeechobee region--many of them drowned--the emphasis back then was, when the floods came: Get the water off. So over the course of the years, through then, up through the mid- 1900s, you had all of this diking and draining that went on, to the point at which the mindset was: Get the water away when the floods come. But, of course, what everybody was ignoring was Mother Nature and what she had created in this incredible system that starts south of Orlando in the center part of the State, and starts meandering water south into the Kissimmee River, meandering through its oxbows where all of the marsh grasses were cleansing the water, and then it reaches the big lake, Lake Okeechobee, which then Mother Nature had the water absolutely proceed south through very rich muck lands, in a slow sheet flow that flowed into what we now know as the Everglades. Ultimately that water then flowed on out, in through the southwest part of Florida, and in the south part of Florida, into what is known as Florida Bay, which is that area south of the tip of the peninsula of Florida and inside the bow created by the Florida Keys. What mankind did was disrupt that natural flow of the water. As a result, when the floods came: Get the water off. So we were now sending fresh water into tidewater in these very delicate brackish water situations that were so important to wildlife and marine life, and making it much too much fresh water, not brackish water, as a result, also dumping water that contained excessive nutrients, so that as this water flowed out, the tidewater in places like the Loxahatchee River and to the east the St. Lucie River, you suddenly have these rivers that had way too much fresh water and way too many nutrients. What you got was the growing of algae, the sucking out of the oxygen, and creating nearly dead rivers. Everybody got concerned about this along about the 1980s and into the 1990s. The legislature and the Federal Government started realizing we have to go back and redo things. The problem was, it was a lot different then in Florida than what Mother Nature first had created, because now there was a huge agricultural industry just to the south of Lake Okeechobee on all of that rich muck land, and now there were 6 million people living in South Florida who had to have a source of water. So that is what was developed, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project. It is a project that will span over 20 years, and it is a project that needs funding, half from the Federal Government and half from the State Government and its entities, including the water management district, the local governments, and so forth. That half and half is how we are ultimately going to be able to restore the Everglades and still provide water for the agriculture industry as well as the 6 million people who live there. Now, I must say, it is pretty tough right now because we have a drought. It simply has not rained. Back in 2005, with Florida smarting from the four hurricanes in 2004, hurricanes that filled up the lake to the point of being concerned about breaching the dike and killing a lot of people from flooding, in anticipation of a 2005 very active hurricane season, they lowered the lake. Well, 2005 ended up not being, for Florida, an active hurricane year. Therefore, the rains were not there, and that started reducing the lake more to the point at which Lake Okeechobee is 5 feet down from what is its normal average. When you combine that with the drought that is occurring now, then you have a real problem. That is why all of the local governments in south Florida have gone to a restriction on water use, which includes now once-a-week watering of lawns. You see the problem. There is a problem in some of the well fields in south Florida. If they do not replenish them with fresh water, you are going to have saltwater intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, the Corps of Army Engineers is working on that right now. That is all the background, which is why this WRDA bill is all the more important for us, because there are several projects that will address this issue of Everglades restoration we have been trying to get authorized since the last authorization bill 7 years ago. One of them is what is called the Indian River Lagoon, and it is that part on the east coast of Florida, the St. Lucie River estuary, where instead of dumping all of that fresh water, all of that nutrient-laden water, you are going to be able to cleanse that water through various Corps projects back closer over to Lake Okeechobee in the center of the State. Another project in here is called the Picayune Strand. It is a project over on the southwest coast, which is going to help restore the flow of water going into the Ten Thousand Islands. It is going to restore 72,000 acres of habitat and ecological connections that will directly affect the Florida Panthers National Wildlife Refuge, the Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands Project Area, and the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. With all of this, it is so important that we pass this bill and we get a conference agreement with the House of Representatives so we can get this bill to the President for signature. Now, I have spoken of a couple affecting Florida. There are several more projects in here, but I have picked the two biggest ones that are critical for the environmental sensitivities, and a major ecological asset for planet Earth. And it is that. It does not just affect Florida, it affects the entire planet. It is like the Amazon River. That certainly just does not affect Brazil; that has global climate effects. I want to thank again the leadership for having brought out this bill. It cannot be soon enough for us to get it passed and to get a conference agreement with the House and to get it signed into law. Then we can start fleshing this out with the appropriations bills to fund these specific water projects. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will conclude with this thought: Naturally, the vote that this Senator will cast on Senator Kyl's motion to instruct conferees is a very uncomfortable one because, for this Senator, if I had my druthers, would I want the estate tax lowered? The answer to that is yes. I have been a sponsor of eliminating the estate tax. But the question is: What is the doable deal? What is the deal that will avoid this ridiculous outcome that is going to occur in 2010, when the estate tax will go away completely in one year and the next year come roaring back--back to its original position in the law back in 2000? That is the compromise we have crafted that is in the budget resolution. I want anybody who is within earshot to understand the position of this Senator in supporting the budget resolution.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Both.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have a saying in the South: being between the devil and the deep blue sea. That somewhat illustrates the position this Senator is in regarding the estate tax, for this Senator has been a sponsor of the elimination of the estate tax for the last 7 years. The problem--as I have conferred with colleagues here, including the Senator from North Dakota, as well as colleagues on the other side--is finding the 60 votes out of 100 Senators in order to be able to pass some form of estate tax relief. The fact is we have Senators who are all over the lot. There are some Senators who don't want to have any estate tax relief, and there are others on the opposite side of the spectrum who think there should be a total abolition of the estate tax and nothing short of that is any good. Well, the truth is, if we had been able to eliminate the estate tax back in 2001, when the Federal Government had a healthy surplus, we would not be facing what we are today, which is trying to eliminate the estate tax, or part of it, when we have a drastic shortage of revenue, the consequences of which keep running up the red ink of the Federal Government and continued deficit financing. Of course, you know who is buying our debt: the banks in China and Japan. So earlier this year, when we crafted a compromise, with Senator Baucus in the lead, having a $3.5 million exemption and lowering the estate tax on that above $3.5 million per person, or a $7 million exemption for a couple, lowering that tax rate from 55 to 45, that seemed to be the compromise by which we could get the 60 votes. I ask the chairman of the committee to confirm that what this Senator is saying is correct--having been able to get that 60 votes, then if we go off onto something else, what is going to happen is that those of us who want some relief for the family farms and the family businesses are not going to be able to make that stick. You cannot have it all. This Senator's attitude is to get something if you cannot have it all. I ask the chairman, the Senator from North Dakota, if the reasoning this Senator has laid out in the compromise that was crafted, to give some estate tax relief, if that is correct?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is timely for me to make these remarks because there has been a conversation that has occurred in Kansas today between the Governor of Kansas and the President of the United States over the question of the adequacy of the National Guard and its equipment. The reason I am making these remarks is that this Senator from Florida has sounded this alarm bell several weeks ago on the basis of a GAO report of the inadequacy of the equipment of the National Guard in each of the States. In my State of Florida, the GAO report says they only have 53 percent of their equipment. In the State of New Mexico, they only have 33 percent of their equipment. You now heard the commentary from both the Governor of Kansas, as well as the head of the National Guard, the adjutant general of Kansas, who state they are short of equipment. I can tell you that, in Florida, we are 500 humvees short. We are 600 trucks short--that is both 5 ton and deuce and a half. We are 4,400 night vision goggles short. Why I am saying this today as a follow-on to sounding this alarm several weeks ago is we are not far from June 1, which is the beginning of hurricane season. The Florida National Guard is the best trained as a National Guard but especially so for taking care of the aftermath of a hurricane. If we only have category 1, 2, and 3 hurricanes, the Guard tells me they have the equipment. But if the big one hits--the big one being a category 4 or 5 hitting from the water--a highly densely urbanized area of the coast, they will be short. Then the Guard would rely on their compact with other Guard units to supply equipment. For example, Pennsylvania is one of those States in the compact. But Pennsylvania is short of equipment as well. We are trying to put additional appropriations in this war funding bill for equipment for our National Guard units, but as Lieutenant General Blum, the head of the National Guard for the country, said, they are $40 billion short of equipment. I will read you a statement from the Florida National Guard in case there is any doubt in anybody's mind: It is true that we are short of equipment. We need these pieces of equipment to speed up our response to local emergencies and to help save lives. And he continues: They can draw on these additional units and equipment through that compact. But in the case of a major hurricane-- And I continue to quote the Florida National Guard-- we plan to have these other assets prepositioned prior to landfall or moving to Florida as soon as possible. However, we cannot afford any additional significant losses of equipment. Losing more equipment from Florida to support our active duty mobilization sites will put us at risk to respond effectively to our State during a time of great need. We have to be serious all over this country about the equipment needs for our National Guard when it is called on to respond to that aspect of their job, which is to be activated by the Governor of the respective States under statewide emergencies.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in the month of April, 16 children in this country have been backed over and killed by an automobile backing out of the driveway. Each of us can visualize what I am saying right now because we have a car in the garage or in our home driveway, we walk around to make sure there are no obstructions and then get into our car, and we really don't know that a small child may, in fact, have gotten in the way. Last year, over 200 children in this country--in the United States alone--over 200 children were killed by these kinds of accidents. Last month, of the 16 who were killed nationwide, 3 of them were in Florida. I have had come to me moms and dads who have agonized and who have gone through the grieving of losing a child. A couple from Boca Raton, FL, who have spurred a national effort, came to me. Their child was only 5 feet in front of the mom, and out backs a car as they are walking down the sidewalk and it was too late; that child is gone. It is so easily fixable with our technology. If you rent an Avis rent-a-car and it is a high-end car, it already has a built-in device that has a sensor in the back. Higher end automobiles such as the Lexus have a television screen with a little camera mounted in the rear. The sensor emits a beep, and the frequency of the beep increases as you get closer and closer to an object. It is estimated that such a device may cost in the range of $50. So the question is, Are we going to encourage the automobile manufacturers to include this to stop these kinds of needless deaths? Increasingly, the Members of the Senate are going to hear from moms and dads who have gone through the grief of losing a child that could have been prevented. So it is my hope we will get some action. I now bring to the attention of the Senate that it is my understanding this is getting ready to be put on the consent calendar in the House of Representatives, and it is my understanding we would consider this under unanimous consent here in the Senate, and we could then save some children's lives; otherwise, their parents will grieve forever. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.