Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to respond to the comments of several of our Senate colleagues. Many of my friends across the aisle have recently spoken about Fidel Castro's announcement that he plans to begin drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba. This means that oil rigs will be operating just 50 miles from the Coast of Florida and near the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. My colleagues argue that if Castro can drill 50 miles from Florida, American companies must have the right to meet them on the same playing field and beat them at their own game. This line of reasoning, however, has several flaws. Since when have we made any law or set any business or environmental standard using Cuba as a model? I am astounded that we would attempt to justify our actions by holding up Castro's actions as an example to follow. The answer to Castro's outrageous proposal to drill 50 miles from Florida is not to kick off a race to see who can set up the most rigs in our precious coastal waters--the answer is to hit back hard and fast to stop Castro from drilling so close to our shores. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that this debate, at its heart, is not about Castro. Preventing drilling off the coast of Florida is about preserving one of America's most important coastlines: a stretch of precious land and sea where critical environmental, economic and military assets overlap. What is truly important to understand in this debate is how inextricably linked these three elements of our national interest are: environmental protection is critical to the tourism industry that is the economic backbone of the southeastern United States, and above it all, our military uses this protected area for essential land-, air- and sea exercises and testing. Florida, as a community and an economic entity, has worked hard, tremendously hard, to build a $62 billion tourism industry employing nearly 1 million citizens. This industry would not exist on such a large, vital scale without the unique and precious environment that is the beauty and essence of our state. Florida is windswept beaches, clear blue water, and the great ``River of Grass'' itself--the Everglades. And all of these wonders of nature are inhabited by some of America's most beautiful and exotic wildlife: manatees, crocodiles, panthers and ospreys. We have learned the hard way that failing to protect our environment has deadly consequences, consequences that will have a stark impact on the very tourism industry that support so many families in our state. In fact, Congress has invested some $8 billion in restoring this remarkable ecosystem. Now that investment is put at risk. In January 1969, an explosion at a California offshore drilling site caused a 200,000-gallon crude oil spill off the coast. While small in comparison to other spills, that incident dealt a devastating blow to neighboring beaches and aquatic life. As tides brought an 800-square- mile slick ashore, oil coated 35 miles of the coastline, blackening beaches and killing thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, fish and other wildlife. A national outcry followed, and sparked a movement that led to legal bans on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. This wise ban is now at risk--nearly 40 years after that deadly spill in California, must we be doomed to repeat the past? After so many years and so much additional economic and environmental research, we know better than ever that the real value lies in protecting the tourism industry and its environmental foundation. I refuse to see the long-standing consensus against drilling off of Florida scrapped for the sake of ``keeping up with the Castros.'' And, finally, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the grave consequences that oil drilling poses not only to America's beaches and environment, but also to our national interests and foreign policy. We must do all we can to prevent Castro from drilling for oil so close to the shores of Florida. Foreign oil companies must not provide the props to support Castro's regime without facing stiff penalties. For all of these reasons, I am introducing legislation today that will nullify the agreement that defines the maritime borders between the United States and Cuba. This agreement was negotiated in 1977--a different era--when oil drilling so close to our shores was not contemplated. The agreement draws a line through the middle of the 90 miles of ocean that separate our two countries. Without this line, foreign oil companies have no legal basis for exploring in waters that are claimed by both the U.S. and Cuba. We cannot allow this agreement-- never ratified by the Senate--to enable Castro's foolhardy exploration for oil in areas so near to some of the most pristine waters in our country. The legislation also takes a second step to further dissuade foreign oil companies from exploring for oil so close to our coastline. It will bar the Secretary of State from granting visas to executives of foreign oil companies who invest in petroleum development off the North coast of Cuba. This legislation, an expansion of the landmark Helms-Burton law, is a step in the right direction. It is only a first step, but I call on my colleagues to join me in preventing a tyrannical dictator from drilling for oil so close to our shores. I ask 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 today to respond to the comments of several of our Senate colleagues. Many of my friends across the aisle have recently spoken about Fidel Castro's announcement that he plans to begin drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba. This means that oil rigs will be operating just 50 miles from the Coast of Florida and near the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. My colleagues argue that if Castro can drill 50 miles from Florida, American companies must have the right to meet them on the same playing field and beat them at their own game. This line of reasoning, however, has several flaws. Since when have we made any law or set any business or environmental standard using Cuba as a model? I am astounded that we would attempt to justify our actions by holding up Castro's actions as an example to follow. The answer to Castro's outrageous proposal to drill 50 miles from Florida is not to kick off a race to see who can set up the most rigs in our precious coastal waters--the answer is to hit back hard and fast to stop Castro from drilling so close to our shores. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that this debate, at its heart, is not about Castro. Preventing drilling off the coast of Florida is about preserving one of America's most important coastlines: a stretch of precious land and sea where critical environmental, economic and military assets overlap. What is truly important to understand in this debate is how inextricably linked these three elements of our national interest are: environmental protection is critical to the tourism industry that is the economic backbone of the southeastern United States, and above it all, our military uses this protected area for essential land-, air- and sea exercises and testing. Florida, as a community and an economic entity, has worked hard, tremendously hard, to build a $62 billion tourism industry employing nearly 1 million citizens. This industry would not exist on such a large, vital scale without the unique and precious environment that is the beauty and essence of our state. Florida is windswept beaches, clear blue water, and the great ``River of Grass'' itself--the Everglades. And all of these wonders of nature are inhabited by some of America's most beautiful and exotic wildlife: manatees, crocodiles, panthers and ospreys. We have learned the hard way that failing to protect our environment has deadly consequences, consequences that will have a stark impact on the very tourism industry that support so many families in our state. In fact, Congress has invested some $8 billion in restoring this remarkable ecosystem. Now that investment is put at risk. In January 1969, an explosion at a California offshore drilling site caused a 200,000-gallon crude oil spill off the coast. While small in comparison to other spills, that incident dealt a devastating blow to neighboring beaches and aquatic life. As tides brought an 800-square- mile slick ashore, oil coated 35 miles of the coastline, blackening beaches and killing thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, fish and other wildlife. A national outcry followed, and sparked a movement that led to legal bans on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. This wise ban is now at risk--nearly 40 years after that deadly spill in California, must we be doomed to repeat the past? After so many years and so much additional economic and environmental research, we know better than ever that the real value lies in protecting the tourism industry and its environmental foundation. I refuse to see the long-standing consensus against drilling off of Florida scrapped for the sake of ``keeping up with the Castros.'' And, finally, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the grave consequences that oil drilling poses not only to America's beaches and environment, but also to our national interests and foreign policy. We must do all we can to prevent Castro from drilling for oil so close to the shores of Florida. Foreign oil companies must not provide the props to support Castro's regime without facing stiff penalties. For all of these reasons, I am introducing legislation today that will nullify the agreement that defines the maritime borders between the United States and Cuba. This agreement was negotiated in 1977--a different era--when oil drilling so close to our shores was not contemplated. The agreement draws a line through the middle of the 90 miles of ocean that separate our two countries. Without this line, foreign oil companies have no legal basis for exploring in waters that are claimed by both the U.S. and Cuba. We cannot allow this agreement-- never ratified by the Senate--to enable Castro's foolhardy exploration for oil in areas so near to some of the most pristine waters in our country. The legislation also takes a second step to further dissuade foreign oil companies from exploring for oil so close to our coastline. It will bar the Secretary of State from granting visas to executives of foreign oil companies who invest in petroleum development off the North coast of Cuba. This legislation, an expansion of the landmark Helms-Burton law, is a step in the right direction. It is only a first step, but I call on my colleagues to join me in preventing a tyrannical dictator from drilling for oil so close to our shores. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield for purposes of a question and that he retain the floor. Mr. President, to the Senator from Oregon, I certainly commend him. Something is out of whack where we have a system of payments, royalty or otherwise, or tax credits, otherwise can be characterized in the vernacular of the street as giveaways, to an industry that at this point is reporting their first quarter profits. It is expected today or tomorrow that ExxonMobile will report a profit in excess of $9 billion for 3 months. That is profit for 3 months. That doesn't include the other major oil companies. So I ask the Senator from Oregon, he has made a proposal--I don't know if it is the one that is on the floor right now--to eliminate the $1.5 billion giveaway. Will the Senator flesh out that particular proposal?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Florida was hit by four hurricanes in 2005, a devastating year for killer storms. Starting with Delmis in July, followed by Katrina in August, Rita in September, and finishing with Wilma in October, when the hurricane season finally ended, 39 of Florida's 67 counties had been declared Federal disaster areas. In the aftermath, 40,000 roofs were repaired by the Army Corps; ``Blue Roof' program and approximately 3,000 temporary trailers were used as housing for Floridians left homeless by the storms. While I am emely appreciative of the assistance extended to Florida by this body, today I joined Senators Cornyn and Hutchison of Texas and Senator Landrieu of Louisiana on an amendment to H.R. 4939, the supplemental appropriations bill, which ensures no State will receive an allocation ofless than 3.5 percent of the $5.2 billion included in this bill for disaster Community Development Block Grant funds. This is extremely important to the panhandle of Florida because the last suppemental appropriation bill of fiscal year 2006 did not include Hurricane Dennis. After Dennis made landfall, 27 percent or over 12,000 homes were damaged in Santa Rosa County the same region decimated by Hurricane Ivan in 2004, Escambia County suffered $73.8 million in damages from Dennis. Franklin County's oyster beds and processing plant were nearly destroyed. Parts of Wakulla County were left under water by storm surges of more than 10 feet. I have not forgotten Dennis' victims and want them to know I am fighting for them. South Florida will also benefit greatly from additional CDBG dollars. With total insured losses of $8 billion, Wilma is ranked the second most expensive hurricane among the eight to strike Florida during 2004 and 2005. I thank the committee for crafting language in the bill we are now considering which would make communities impacted by Dennis eligible for relief. Further, I note the House did not include similar language and urge my colleagues in the Florida delegation to fight to keep the Senate provision intact during conference.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator's point that he makes very well is that foreign governments, such as the Republic of China, drilling off the north coast of Cuba, because of the currents--the currents come up there in the Gulf of Mexico and down around the Florida Keys, what is known as the Straits of Florida, and then northward, as it turns into the gulf stream--the Senator is making the point that illegitimate or unrestrained second-rate drilling that would occur off the north Cuban coast could threaten the delicate environment and ecology of the coral reefs and the Florida coast. Is that one of the points the Senator would make?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. This Senator, if I might conclude and compliment the Senator from Idaho, certainly has a commonality of interest with the Senator with regard to countries such as China drilling off the north coast of Cuba and the threat not only to U.S. interests that that portends but also to the interests of Florida. We will debate the question of oil drilling out there in the military area of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, particularly at a time that the people recognize that we ought to be independent of oil, not continuing the dependence that we have.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator will further yield, I would point out very respectfully to the Senator that the chart he shows with the oblong green block there--that is the existing lease of Lease Sale 181. What is proposed is an additional 4 million acres to the east.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Yes, sir. In there is the area that is restricted because it is the largest training and testing area for the U.S. military in the world. It is, as declared by the Pentagon, incompatible to have rigs where we are doing the testing and training of our U.S. military. I ask the Senator, who is a great supporter of the military, why did all pilot training for the FA-22 come to Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, and why, in the realignment, did all pilot training for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter come to Eglin Air Force Base, and why did all of the U.S. Navy Atlantic fleet training come to northwest Florida after it was shut down?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, American consumers and public safety officials find themselves confronted by yet another fraudulent scam in the digital age. This time the scam is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senator Snowe, the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2006, to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing. It seems like every week we hear of new threats to our privacy and new ways to use the Internet to endanger consumers' financial security and physical safety. For several years now, I have been fighting back, pushing legislation to combat frauds such as identity theft and the unauthorized sale of consumer telephone records. Now it is time to fight caller I.D. spoofing. What is caller I.D. spoofing? It is a technique that allows a telephone caller to alter the phone number that appears on the recipient's caller I.D. system. In other words, spoofing allows someone to hide behind a misleading phone number to try to scam consumers or trick law enforcement officials. As the Miami Herald wrote on March 12, 2006, caller I.D. spoofing gives ``debt collectors, telemarketers, and even scam artists the upper hand in the wearisome game of phone call `gotcha'.'' Beyond that scenario, let me give you a few shocking examples of how caller ID spoofing has been exploited in recent months: In one dangerous hoax, a sharp-shooting SWAT team was forced to shut down a neighborhood in New Brunswick, NJ, after receiving what they believed was a legitimate distress call. But what really had happened was that the caller used spoofing to trick law enforcement into thinking the emergency call was coming from a certain apartment in that neighborhood. It was all a cruel trick perpetrated with a deceptive phone number. In another example, a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives was the victim of a sophisticated spoofing plot. It appears that fraudsters placed thousands of spoofed calls to the Member's constituents. In each case, the fraudster made it look like the phone call was dialed from the Member's office, and in each case the fraudster bad-mouthed the Member to the constituent on the other end of the line. The Member found out about this after his congressional office got angry phone calls from constituents. In yet another instance, identity thieves bought stolen credit card numbers. They then called Western Union, set up caller I.D. to make it look like the call originated from the card holder's name, and used the credit card number to order cash transfers, which the identity thieves then picked up. While these examples are serious enough, think about what would happen if a stalker used caller I.D. spoofing to trick his victim into answering the telephone or giving out sensitive personal information. This could put peoples' lives in danger. According to experts, there are countless Internet Web sites--going by names like Tricktel.com or Spooftech.com--that sell their services to criminals and identity thieves, or even bill collectors and private investigators. Any person can go to one of these Web sites, pay money to order a fake phone number, tell the Web site which phone number to reach, and then place the call through a toll-free line. The recipient is then tricked when he or she sees the misleading phone number on his or her caller I.D. system. In essence, these Web sites provide the high-tech tools that identity thieves need to do their dirty work. Armed with a misleading phone number, an identity thief can call a consumer pretending to be representative of the consumer's credit card company or bank. The thief can ask the consumer to authenticate a request for personal account information. Once an identity thief gets hold of this sensitive personal information, he can access a consumer's bank account, credit card account, health information, and who knows what else. Even if a consumer doesn't become a victim of stalking or identity theft, there is a simple concept at work here. Consumers pay money for their caller I.D. service. Consumers expect caller I.D. to be accurate because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone call and whether to trust the person on the other end of the line. If the caller I.D. says that my wife is calling me, when I pick up my phone, I expect my wife to be on the other end of the line. Instead, we have fraudsters and others who want to abuse the system and disguise their true identities. That defeats the whole purpose of caller I.D. Unfortunately the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission have been slow to act. Those agencies have not yet brought any enforcement actions against caller I.D. spoofers. In the meantime, many spoofing companies and the fraudsters that use them believe that their activities are legal. Well, it is time to make it crystal clear that caller I.D. spoofing is not legal. How does the bipartisan Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2006 address the problem of caller I.D. spoofing? Quite simply, this bill plugs the hole in the current law and prohibits anyone from using caller identification services to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller I.D. information. This prohibition covers traditional telephone calls or calls made using Voice-Over- Internet, VOIP, service. Senator Snowe and I don't intend to ban all caller I.D. spoofing. Instead, our bill recognizes that there are legitimate law enforcement uses for spoofing. And the bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to create appropriate exceptions for legitimate business purposes, after hearing public comment on the issue. Anyone who violates this antispoofing law would be subject to a penalty of $10,000 per violation or up to 1 year in jail, as set out in the Communications Act. Additionally, the bill empowers States to help the Federal Government track down and punish these fraudsters. The more law enforcers out there to enforce this law, the better. I note that Chairman Barton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee just introduced a similar bipartisan antispoofing bill, which he expects to pass the House in short order. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2006. We should waste no time in protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, American consumers and public safety officials find themselves confronted by yet another fraudulent scam in the digital age. This time the scam is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.'' Today I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senator Snowe, the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2006, to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D. spoofing. It seems like every week we hear of new threats to our privacy and new ways to use the Internet to endanger consumers' financial security and physical safety. For several years now, I have been fighting back, pushing legislation to combat frauds such as identity theft and the unauthorized sale of consumer telephone records. Now it is time to fight caller I.D. spoofing. What is caller I.D. spoofing? It is a technique that allows a telephone caller to alter the phone number that appears on the recipient's caller I.D. system. In other words, spoofing allows someone to hide behind a misleading phone number to try to scam consumers or trick law enforcement officials. As the Miami Herald wrote on March 12, 2006, caller I.D. spoofing gives ``debt collectors, telemarketers, and even scam artists the upper hand in the wearisome game of phone call `gotcha'.'' Beyond that scenario, let me give you a few shocking examples of how caller ID spoofing has been exploited in recent months: In one dangerous hoax, a sharp-shooting SWAT team was forced to shut down a neighborhood in New Brunswick, NJ, after receiving what they believed was a legitimate distress call. But what really had happened was that the caller used spoofing to trick law enforcement into thinking the emergency call was coming from a certain apartment in that neighborhood. It was all a cruel trick perpetrated with a deceptive phone number. In another example, a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives was the victim of a sophisticated spoofing plot. It appears that fraudsters placed thousands of spoofed calls to the Member's constituents. In each case, the fraudster made it look like the phone call was dialed from the Member's office, and in each case the fraudster bad-mouthed the Member to the constituent on the other end of the line. The Member found out about this after his congressional office got angry phone calls from constituents. In yet another instance, identity thieves bought stolen credit card numbers. They then called Western Union, set up caller I.D. to make it look like the call originated from the card holder's name, and used the credit card number to order cash transfers, which the identity thieves then picked up. While these examples are serious enough, think about what would happen if a stalker used caller I.D. spoofing to trick his victim into answering the telephone or giving out sensitive personal information. This could put peoples' lives in danger. According to experts, there are countless Internet Web sites--going by names like Tricktel.com or Spooftech.com--that sell their services to criminals and identity thieves, or even bill collectors and private investigators. Any person can go to one of these Web sites, pay money to order a fake phone number, tell the Web site which phone number to reach, and then place the call through a toll-free line. The recipient is then tricked when he or she sees the misleading phone number on his or her caller I.D. system. In essence, these Web sites provide the high-tech tools that identity thieves need to do their dirty work. Armed with a misleading phone number, an identity thief can call a consumer pretending to be representative of the consumer's credit card company or bank. The thief can ask the consumer to authenticate a request for personal account information. Once an identity thief gets hold of this sensitive personal information, he can access a consumer's bank account, credit card account, health information, and who knows what else. Even if a consumer doesn't become a victim of stalking or identity theft, there is a simple concept at work here. Consumers pay money for their caller I.D. service. Consumers expect caller I.D. to be accurate because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone call and whether to trust the person on the other end of the line. If the caller I.D. says that my wife is calling me, when I pick up my phone, I expect my wife to be on the other end of the line. Instead, we have fraudsters and others who want to abuse the system and disguise their true identities. That defeats the whole purpose of caller I.D. Unfortunately the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission have been slow to act. Those agencies have not yet brought any enforcement actions against caller I.D. spoofers. In the meantime, many spoofing companies and the fraudsters that use them believe that their activities are legal. Well, it is time to make it crystal clear that caller I.D. spoofing is not legal. How does the bipartisan Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2006 address the problem of caller I.D. spoofing? Quite simply, this bill plugs the hole in the current law and prohibits anyone from using caller identification services to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller I.D. information. This prohibition covers traditional telephone calls or calls made using Voice-Over- Internet, VOIP, service. Senator Snowe and I don't intend to ban all caller I.D. spoofing. Instead, our bill recognizes that there are legitimate law enforcement uses for spoofing. And the bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to create appropriate exceptions for legitimate business purposes, after hearing public comment on the issue. Anyone who violates this antispoofing law would be subject to a penalty of $10,000 per violation or up to 1 year in jail, as set out in the Communications Act. Additionally, the bill empowers States to help the Federal Government track down and punish these fraudsters. The more law enforcers out there to enforce this law, the better. I note that Chairman Barton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee just introduced a similar bipartisan antispoofing bill, which he expects to pass the House in short order. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in supporting the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2006. We should waste no time in protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller I.D. spoofing.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, 25 years ago, on April 12, 1981, the Space Shuttle Columbia lifted off from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. It marked the beginning of a historic two day mission, and more importantly, it was the first of many future shuttle missions. I am pleased to support passage of H. Con. Res. 366, commemorating this important anniversary. I applaud the tremendous bravery of the STS-1 crew--Commander John W. Young and Pilot Robert L. Crippen--on accomplishing the mission safely and successfully. This anniversary is a testament to the thousands of people who worked to bring the Space Shuttle Program to life and to those who have sustained it throughout the years. The Space Shuttle Program brought our Nation commercial and government satellite deliveries, in-orbit satellite repairs, delivery of large science observatories such as the Hubble Space Telescope, Space Lab science missions, historic dockings with the Russian Mir Space Station and assembly of the International Space Station. Since the STS-1 launch in 1981, this Nation has launched more than 100 flights. Sadly, the Challenger and Columbia were lost in 1986 and 2003, respectively. What we learned about safety in spaceflight, brought by the sacrifices of the Challenger and Columbia crews, has made our space program stronger. Today the great challenge facing our space program is one of transition. We must complete the construction of the station and retire the shuttle fleet with dignity. And equally important, we must work together to preserve the workforce that will soon become the backbone of the new Crew Exploration Vehicle and the next human space project. With the 25th anniversary of STS-1, let us all rededicate ourselves to the unfinished mission of exploration and discovery. Let us pledge to complete the journey that Commander Young and Pilot Crippen began by returning safely to flight with STS-121 later this summer, and move forward in leading the world in space exploration.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3220.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the sole intent of this amendment is to take what the committee bill provides in enhancing border security by utilizing technology and enhancing and integrating and coordinating that technology, the use of electronic surveillance on the border to augment our border patrol, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, which are a much cheaper version than the military version, but you can see at night and can also see during all weather--to take that technology and integrate it and coordinate it is the intent of the amendment. The amendment was born out of an inspector general's report of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the GAO report on how we can use additional coordination of our technology to enhance our border security. It is as simple as that. I am assuming that the chairman of the committee will accept this amendment because it is just a commonsense amendment. We want to secure our borders. There are so many people we can hire; therefore, we ought to augment those Border Patrol personnel to secure the borders. Here are a couple of examples. Right now, under electronic surveillance, the signal will go off that somebody has penetrated the barrier. That signal will go to a DHS employee, who then has to activate a camera and search as to where that particular electronic sensor has gone off. That is inefficient use of personnel. We have the technology. We can integrate it so that when the electronic sensor goes off--someone has crossed the border--the cameras in that particular location can automatically go off and record the event, that event can be sent out to multiple DHS substations, and it can also be sent out into a permanent databank so that we have a permanent record of that event. That is one example. Another example is that you have an unmanned aerial vehicle, a drone, that is flying overhead and--same thing--an event is spotted. It is a crossing of the border illegally. Right now, that event is sent back to personnel in DHS. Both the GAO report and the inspector general's report say you ought to integrate all that. It ought to likewise--that event--be sent back to multiple DHS substations for their immediate response, and it ought to go to a permanent databank where it is recorded so that we have this vast amount of data. That is the sum and substance of the amendment. I inquire of the Chair, is there a previous order that I was allowed to offer just this one amendment, which is No. 3220? I have a second amendment that is parallel, No. 3221. What did the previous order require?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I see. Well, then, at some point, I will then likewise be offering a second amendment, which is quite similar. I explained a bit about it yesterday. I will simply take this opportunity, while I have the floor, to point out what that amendment does, and the committee bill has moved in the right direction. The committee bill is providing 20,000 detention beds for people who are picked up for having been illegally in the country. What happens now is that somebody comes across into America, they are here illegally, and what do you know--we don't have the detention space in which to process them. They are released. There is one part of the border where up to 90 percent of the captured illegal aliens are released after being caught by DHS. Guess what happens. They completely disappear. Only 10 percent, approximately, appear for their subsequent immigration court hearings. DHS says we don't have any space. Presently, DHS has in the range of about 10,000 detention bed facilities. So 90 percent of captured aliens are released. The committee bill clearly is a step in the right direction. What they have done is doubled that to 20,000 beds. What my amendment would do is say let's be realistic: 20,000 beds is not going to cut it, and you are going to continue on this practice of finding an illegal alien and DHS is going to be required then to release them into American society, and they are not going to turn up again. We simply have to stop this. My amendment is going to provide an additional 20,000 beds a year for 5 years or, in other words, to get us to the point after 5 years that instead of having 20,000 detention beds, we will have 100,000 detention beds and be able to meet this problem and stop releasing illegal aliens right back into society. At the appropriate point, I will be offering amendment No. 3221. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. At some point I will be offering amendment No. 3220 and amendment No. 3221. I want to take this opportunity to explain those amendments as we are coming down to the moment of truth and what we are going to do on an immigration bill. It has been the position of this Senator that we have two goals to achieve. It is essential in immigration reform that we achieve both of these goals. One is the protection of our borders, not only for the purpose of immigration but also for the purpose of protection from terrorists infiltrating the country. The other goal is the protection of our economy. Where we have in effect American amnesty, as my colleague from Florida has already described, under the existing situation with 11 million illegal aliens or undocumented workers in this country and nothing has been done about it--in effect, amnesty is the de facto situation. How do you accommodate the economic needs of major industries in this country with the workforce that they need and have 11 million undocumented workers come out of the shadows so that they can have a legal status? That is the balance that we are trying to achieve. On the one hand, border security, on the other hand, the provision of an economic workforce that will keep the economic engine of this country humming. I might say that three of the major industries that employ undocumented workers are three big industries in the Presiding Officer's State and in my State of Florida; that is, agriculture, the construction industry, and the service industry, particularly the travel and tourism industry which is very apparent in our States. Finding that right balance is what this is all about. What I want to do is offer a couple of amendments that will help us enhance our border security provisions more so than the existing committee bill that has come out of the judiciary. Specifically, what I would like to see based on the GAO report and also the inspector general's report, which both recommended that with the enhanced electronic surveillance and new kinds of technological devices such as unmanned aerial vehicles, that we integrate all of this in more of a comprehensive system that can talk to each other. For example, if we are talking about electronic sensors on a fence, the electronic signal goes off. Instead of that just coming, as the committee bill would provide, to a Department of Homeland Security employee who then would have to notify someone, that electronic signal would automatically be integrated to activate cameras in that particular area. And you would have this integrated technological system. That is one of the amendments I will be offering to automatically activate, in this particular example, a camera to focus itself on the direction of the triggered sensor rather than relying on a DHS employee wasting time trying to find the right spot and focus the camera. Another example would be to require the sensing equipment on an unmanned aerial vehicle be fully integrated with the systems used by DHS personnel on the ground so the images and the data are sent automatically to multiple ground stations. We have seen in the past where DHS has unsuccessfully exercised its discretion to implement and integrate an automated program as evidenced by the report from GAO and also the inspector general's report. That is why this amendment is going to be necessary to enhance what the Judiciary Committee has already done. Later on I will offer amendment 3221. This amendment is going to address the problem we have now, which is absolutely inexplicable and inexcusable at what our border people are forced to do. They arrest someone who has illegally come into this country. They arrest them and then release them. Not back in their country of origin; they release them in America. And then guess who doesn't show up when their immigration hearing is called. It defies common sense. This catch-and- release program we have now is not effective or efficient. It is bewildering. In some areas of the border, up to 90 percent of the captured aliens are released after being caught by DHS. Of course, of those 90 percent who are released, only 10 percent appear for their subsequent immigration court hearings. That is simply not acceptable. How are we going to remedy this? The Judiciary Committee bill started the process. What they are offering is to build some new facilities or detention facilities. The committee does not build enough. What I am suggesting is we build facilities with an additional 20,000 detention beds over and above what the committee is recommending so we can begin to get control, get our arms around this immigration system. If it is not possible for DHS to secure further detention space quickly enough, this amendment, which I will offer, will require DHS to examine other secure alternatives to detention. This amendment will also ensure that there are no questions on whether detention facilities are safe, if they are clean, if they are secure, and if they are consistent with DHS policies and consistent with America's tradition of providing secure, safe, clean facilities to people fleeing persecution from other countries. I will offer two commonsense amendments that my colleagues will accept. Clearly, it is intended as an enhancement to improve the committee bill. Hopefully then we can come out with a good work product and address this immigration chaos we have in this country at this moment. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is it my understanding that I will not offer the amendment but will speak on it?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like the Record to reflect that I was necessarily absent for the votes on Senator Bingaman's amendment, No. 3210, vote No. 84, and Senator Alexander's amendment, No. 3193, vote No. 85, on Monday, April 3, 2006. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted in favor of both amendments.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, for anyone who watched on national TV or was privileged to be there in Indianapolis to see the game, there is a profound respect that is now accorded to the University of Florida Gators basketball achievement of being the national champions. What teamwork. What individual accomplishment. But in that individual accomplishment, what teamwork. For all of that, certainly, a great deal of credit has to be given to the coach. Florida has long been known as a football powerhouse. But the basketball coach of the University of Florida has now made it, in athletic history, a basketball powerhouse. Floridians are celebrating this morning, as they have celebrated throughout the night, and with just occasion. The Florida Gators, coming in, were not at the top seed. Indeed, at the beginning of the season the Florida Gators were not even ranked. Yet this incredible talent, all melded together in extraordinary teamwork, has produced a national champion. This Senator joins with my colleague from Florida and we offer our heartiest congratulations. Later in the day we will be jointly offering a resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Haiti's recent election has refocused the eyes of the international community on that country, its remarkable successes, and its continuing challenges. We must remind ourselves that although less than two months ago the Haitian people elected Rene Preval as their next President. Haiti's GDP per capita is $361, with over 65 percent of the population below the poverty line. Half of all Haitians have no access to clean water, and nearly half cannot read or write. In this context the Haitian achievement of an election is even more extraordinary. The international community took notice of Haiti's difficulties and its achievements, pledging over a billion dollars in support of Haiti's Interim Cooperation Framework in July 2004 at the International Donors Conference. Some of this money has arrived in Haiti and is benefiting the Haitian people while other pledges remain unfulfilled. We are in a critical time in Haiti; we need to ensure that the promised money arrives and is used in a way that will improve the lives of all Haitians. That's why today I am submitting a Senate resolution along with my colleague, Senator DeWine that highlights Haiti's successes and reminds our international partners of their commitments to Haiti and of the importance of promoting stability there. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) is authorized through August of this year, and it is critical that this important stability operation be continued. Over 40 countries have sent personnel to MINUSTAH, including Brazil, whose President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva recently announced that Brazil's peacekeepers will remain in Haiti for as long as the new government there needs them. I have just today met with the President-elect of Haiti, Rene Preval. In our meeting I stressed to him the important role he must now play to ensure that his government respects the rights of all political parties and maintains its legitimacy with the Haitian people and the international community. Mr. Preval has a unique opportunity at this historical juncture to move Haiti in the right direction. Doing so will ensure that Haiti attains its proper place within the community of free and democratic nations. Only by constantly striving to enhance the liberties and opportunities of the average Haitian can Mr. Preval be an effective steward of Haiti's dreams.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3001.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is acceptable to me.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator will agree to a voice vote as long as it passes favorably. I expect the Senator is being advised that since the Senate is on record with a 92-to-6 vote, there will be a voice vote.