Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a critically important bill for our national security and our immigration system. My bill is called the Border Operations Reform and Development of Electronic Remote Surveillance Act of 2006--otherwise known as the BORDERS Act. Getting control over our Nation's borders is an indispensable part of comprehensive immigration reform. The Government of the United States has the obligation to protect its citizens and to provide for homeland security by having control of its international borders. Yet, as we all know, our borders with Mexico and Canada are broken. Recognizing the dangerous situation that this presents, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission strongly recommended that the United States get operational control of its borders. Because our Government has not succeeded in adequately securing our borders, millions of undocumented aliens have crossed into our country without our Government's permission. Despite our best efforts to have an orderly system of immigration and to control who enters the United States, it's simply not working. Comprehensive immigration reform demands that we find aggressive, practical, and cost-effective methods to quickly secure our borders. The BORDERS Act of 2006 does exactly that, building on recent reports by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the Government Accountability Office. Let me briefly summarize the BORDERS Act of 2006 and explain why this bill is so important to our national security. First, and most importantly, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to implement state-of-the-art surveillance technology programs to build an integrated ``virtual fence'' at our borders. These programs would use unmanned aerial vehicles--like the type already used by our military in combat zones--to monitor remote border locations. These surveillance programs also would use a host of other technologies--like cameras, sensors, satellites, and radar--to patrol every inch of our United States borders. Right now, our Government has the capability to use these technologies and has tried to build a virtual fence. But the one major problem is that the current surveillance program uses components that are not fully integrated and automated. For example, as the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security recently recommended, a virtual fence must use sensors that automatically activate a corresponding camera to focus itself on the direction of the triggered sensor. If someone if sneaking across our border and trips a sensor, I want the closest camera to automatically focus on the person sneaking in. And then I want the camera to send images to multiple border personnel at different locations, who can immediately dispatch the closest Border Patrol agents to capture the person. That's what my bill does: provides for an integrated, automated virtual fence that will allow our Border Patrol agents to apprehend anyone trying to sneak into the United States. The BORDERS Act also requires the Department of Homeland Security to greatly increase its detention facilities. Right now, the border patrol is sometimes able to capture illegal aliens sneaking into the country, but we simply lack enough facilities to detain them. In some border areas, up to 90 percent of captured aliens are released, and only 10 percent of them show up for their immigration court hearing. Does that make sense? If our Government cannot detain illegal aliens who are caught, we lose our ability to make them report to their immigration proceedings. We never hear from them again. Thus, this bill instructs the Department of Homeland Security to increase its detention space by 20,000 beds for the next 5 years. The bill also instructs the Department to devise other ways to monitor illegal aliens who are captured, such as using ankle bracelets that can remotely track aliens. Moreover, the BORDERS Act recognizes that our Government simply lacks the personnel manpower to effectively enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders. Therefore, the bill authorizes the addition of thousands of critical Federal jobs, ranging from Border Patrol agents to investigators to detention officers. And the bill requires that these personnel receive crucial training in matters like detecting fraudulent documents. Another important section of this bill recognizes that in order for our detention mechanisms to function effectively, we need uniform detention standards. The BORDERS Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to implement standard operating rules so that costs are minimized and all detained aliens are treated fairly and humanely. I want to note that this bill contains a section specifically designed to ensure that detained alien children are treated properly while in U.S. custody. Children are the most vulnerable of illegal aliens, and especially when they are separated from their parents, we must ensure their safety. Finally, the BORDERS Act of 2006 authorizes the Federal Government to reimburse States that incur the financial burden of detaining illegal aliens. It is unfair of us to expect the States to shoulder this huge cost by themselves. Again, let me stress that border security is just one aspect of comprehensive immigration reform. I also will support legislation to address the status of undocumented aliens currently in the United States, if--and only if--such legislation is fair, humane, and recognizes the role that undocumented workers currently play in our nation's economy. But border security is a policy area that should find wide agreement--across both parties. By setting up a cutting-edge, integrated ``virtual fence,'' and by building more detention centers, I believe that the United States can take a giant step forward in its quest to get control of our borders. In this post-9/11 world, our national security simply demands it. 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 introduce a critically important bill for our national security and our immigration system. My bill is called the Border Operations Reform and Development of Electronic Remote Surveillance Act of 2006--otherwise known as the BORDERS Act. Getting control over our Nation's borders is an indispensable part of comprehensive immigration reform. The Government of the United States has the obligation to protect its citizens and to provide for homeland security by having control of its international borders. Yet, as we all know, our borders with Mexico and Canada are broken. Recognizing the dangerous situation that this presents, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission strongly recommended that the United States get operational control of its borders. Because our Government has not succeeded in adequately securing our borders, millions of undocumented aliens have crossed into our country without our Government's permission. Despite our best efforts to have an orderly system of immigration and to control who enters the United States, it's simply not working. Comprehensive immigration reform demands that we find aggressive, practical, and cost-effective methods to quickly secure our borders. The BORDERS Act of 2006 does exactly that, building on recent reports by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the Government Accountability Office. Let me briefly summarize the BORDERS Act of 2006 and explain why this bill is so important to our national security. First, and most importantly, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to implement state-of-the-art surveillance technology programs to build an integrated ``virtual fence'' at our borders. These programs would use unmanned aerial vehicles--like the type already used by our military in combat zones--to monitor remote border locations. These surveillance programs also would use a host of other technologies--like cameras, sensors, satellites, and radar--to patrol every inch of our United States borders. Right now, our Government has the capability to use these technologies and has tried to build a virtual fence. But the one major problem is that the current surveillance program uses components that are not fully integrated and automated. For example, as the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security recently recommended, a virtual fence must use sensors that automatically activate a corresponding camera to focus itself on the direction of the triggered sensor. If someone if sneaking across our border and trips a sensor, I want the closest camera to automatically focus on the person sneaking in. And then I want the camera to send images to multiple border personnel at different locations, who can immediately dispatch the closest Border Patrol agents to capture the person. That's what my bill does: provides for an integrated, automated virtual fence that will allow our Border Patrol agents to apprehend anyone trying to sneak into the United States. The BORDERS Act also requires the Department of Homeland Security to greatly increase its detention facilities. Right now, the border patrol is sometimes able to capture illegal aliens sneaking into the country, but we simply lack enough facilities to detain them. In some border areas, up to 90 percent of captured aliens are released, and only 10 percent of them show up for their immigration court hearing. Does that make sense? If our Government cannot detain illegal aliens who are caught, we lose our ability to make them report to their immigration proceedings. We never hear from them again. Thus, this bill instructs the Department of Homeland Security to increase its detention space by 20,000 beds for the next 5 years. The bill also instructs the Department to devise other ways to monitor illegal aliens who are captured, such as using ankle bracelets that can remotely track aliens. Moreover, the BORDERS Act recognizes that our Government simply lacks the personnel manpower to effectively enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders. Therefore, the bill authorizes the addition of thousands of critical Federal jobs, ranging from Border Patrol agents to investigators to detention officers. And the bill requires that these personnel receive crucial training in matters like detecting fraudulent documents. Another important section of this bill recognizes that in order for our detention mechanisms to function effectively, we need uniform detention standards. The BORDERS Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to implement standard operating rules so that costs are minimized and all detained aliens are treated fairly and humanely. I want to note that this bill contains a section specifically designed to ensure that detained alien children are treated properly while in U.S. custody. Children are the most vulnerable of illegal aliens, and especially when they are separated from their parents, we must ensure their safety. Finally, the BORDERS Act of 2006 authorizes the Federal Government to reimburse States that incur the financial burden of detaining illegal aliens. It is unfair of us to expect the States to shoulder this huge cost by themselves. Again, let me stress that border security is just one aspect of comprehensive immigration reform. I also will support legislation to address the status of undocumented aliens currently in the United States, if--and only if--such legislation is fair, humane, and recognizes the role that undocumented workers currently play in our nation's economy. But border security is a policy area that should find wide agreement--across both parties. By setting up a cutting-edge, integrated ``virtual fence,'' and by building more detention centers, I believe that the United States can take a giant step forward in its quest to get control of our borders. In this post-9/11 world, our national security simply demands it. 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 am pleased to be joined by my colleague and cosponsor Senator Susan Collins as we introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006. For years now, I have advocated for providing seniors with meaningful prescription drug coverage. Seniors in this country should never have to choose between their meals and their medications. Unfortunately, Congress created a Medicare prescription drug plan that is confusing and contains a huge coverage gap. These are some of the reasons that I did not support the legislation that created this program. But this flawed plan is what passed. Our job now is to help seniors by fixing the underlying law. I have spoken with Medicare beneficiaries across Florida and they are understandably concerned about the new prescription drug benefit. One issue of great concern to Floridians is the large gap in coverage called the ``doughnut hole.'' The Medicare drug benefit contains a large coverage gap during which beneficiaries continue to pay premiums but get no drug coverage at all. For most plans, Medicare will pay 75 percent of initial drug costs up to $2,250 after a $250 deductible. But then the program pays nothing until drug expenses reach $5,100. This lack of coverage for drug spending is often called Medicare's doughnut hole. More than one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries are projected to have drug spending that falls in the doughnut hole's range, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Millions of beneficiaries will pay premiums yet receive no coverage during this time. This is simply unacceptable. In response, we are introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006 which will reduce the impact of the doughnut hole on Medicare beneficiaries. Our bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for lower drug prices. Unfortunately, the law that created the new Medicare drug program actually prohibits the Secretary from using the purchasing power of over 40 million seniors to negotiate for lowers prescription drug prices. The savings generated from allowing negotiations would then be applied towards reducing the doughnut hole, providing more drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. A recent analysis was conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Hospital Finance and Management on the Medicare doughnut hole. They concluded that ``the gap in coverage could be completely eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Veterans' Administration, or Department of Defense and 75 percent of the gap could be eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Federal Ceiling Price.'' Our bill gives the Secretary authority similar to entities like the Veterans' Administration and the Department of Defense, to negotiate contracts and obtain the lowest possible prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. Allowing the Federal Government to utilize market forces to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices and using these savings to alleviate the impact of the doughnut hole is a common-sense approach to providing Medicare beneficiaries with affordable prescription drugs. This issue boils down to just one goal--helping seniors. We urge all of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join us in this effort to help lower prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries. 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 am pleased to be joined by my colleague and cosponsor Senator Susan Collins as we introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006. For years now, I have advocated for providing seniors with meaningful prescription drug coverage. Seniors in this country should never have to choose between their meals and their medications. Unfortunately, Congress created a Medicare prescription drug plan that is confusing and contains a huge coverage gap. These are some of the reasons that I did not support the legislation that created this program. But this flawed plan is what passed. Our job now is to help seniors by fixing the underlying law. I have spoken with Medicare beneficiaries across Florida and they are understandably concerned about the new prescription drug benefit. One issue of great concern to Floridians is the large gap in coverage called the ``doughnut hole.'' The Medicare drug benefit contains a large coverage gap during which beneficiaries continue to pay premiums but get no drug coverage at all. For most plans, Medicare will pay 75 percent of initial drug costs up to $2,250 after a $250 deductible. But then the program pays nothing until drug expenses reach $5,100. This lack of coverage for drug spending is often called Medicare's doughnut hole. More than one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries are projected to have drug spending that falls in the doughnut hole's range, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Millions of beneficiaries will pay premiums yet receive no coverage during this time. This is simply unacceptable. In response, we are introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006 which will reduce the impact of the doughnut hole on Medicare beneficiaries. Our bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for lower drug prices. Unfortunately, the law that created the new Medicare drug program actually prohibits the Secretary from using the purchasing power of over 40 million seniors to negotiate for lowers prescription drug prices. The savings generated from allowing negotiations would then be applied towards reducing the doughnut hole, providing more drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. A recent analysis was conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Hospital Finance and Management on the Medicare doughnut hole. They concluded that ``the gap in coverage could be completely eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Veterans' Administration, or Department of Defense and 75 percent of the gap could be eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Federal Ceiling Price.'' Our bill gives the Secretary authority similar to entities like the Veterans' Administration and the Department of Defense, to negotiate contracts and obtain the lowest possible prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. Allowing the Federal Government to utilize market forces to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices and using these savings to alleviate the impact of the doughnut hole is a common-sense approach to providing Medicare beneficiaries with affordable prescription drugs. This issue boils down to just one goal--helping seniors. We urge all of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join us in this effort to help lower prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries. 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 share with the Senate that there have been a couple of occurrences in Florida over the course of this recess that might be worth noting. The first is, seniors were assured by the Food and Drug Administration 2 years ago that our senior citizens would not be harassed by the confiscation of their prescription drugs when they order those prescriptions by the Internet or by mail from Canada for a limited supply. The Food and Drug Administration assured me that the overall intent of the law was to stop the massive purchases of drugs out of State in which they would go on the black market, but that for senior citizens seeking a 90-day supply, since the prescriptions are so much cheaper ordering them through Canada, there was not going to be the harassment of the confiscations. That has dramatically changed. Over the course of the last week and a half, I have received over 100 complaints of senior citizens from all over Florida having their prescriptions, when ordered by mail or Internet from Canada, confiscated. This is serious business. This could be a matter of life and death for senior citizens who cannot afford to pay the retail price and are depending on that medicine in order to help them with whatever their ailments are--in some cases, life- threatening situations. Fortunately, we have not had any one of those reported to me, but the harassment has started. I certainly hope there is no connection between this spike in the number of instances with Customs taking senior citizens' prescriptions. I hope there is no connection between that and trying to force senior citizens into the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the Medicare Part D. Naturally, seniors are quite resistant to the new plan. We have talked in the Senate over and over, and I have offered amendments, all of which have had a majority vote, but under the parliamentary procedure of having to waive the Budget Act, I had to get 60 votes. I have gotten over 50 but not the 60 votes needed in order to delay the implementation of the prescription drug benefit, the deadline for signing up, which is May 15. Naturally, seniors are resistant because they do not understand it. They are confused and in some cases bewildered. They have 40 to 50 plans to pick from. They are confused and they are frightened because if they do not pick a plan by the May deadline, they will be penalized 1 percent a month or 12 percent a year, or if they pick the wrong plan, they are stuck with that plan for a year and they have the fear that suddenly the need to change their prescription by their doctor may occur and the formulary they pick may not cover the new prescription. This resistance is a fact. I hope we do not see any of this harassment connected with trying to force seniors into the prescription drug bill. I call on the Department of Homeland Security, Customs, to stop harassing our senior citizens by confiscating their prescriptions for purchase of a short supply, which is bought at so much of a reduced cost. That is not the total answer, just getting the drugs from Canada. That is bandaiding the problem. The problem is having a Medicare prescription drug benefit offered to senior citizens where Medicare can use its huge buying power of bulk purchases in order to bring down the price of the drugs, as the Veterans' Administration has been doing for the last two decades. But until we can get to that point, until we can change the law, until we can get the votes to change the law, in the meantime, some of our senior citizens who have trouble making financial ends meet have to buy their drugs through Canada at a much reduced price. I bring this to the attention of the Senate. I bring it to the attention of Customs, as I have through correspondence. It is time to stop harassing our senior citizens. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wanted to call to the attention of the Senate that over the past couple of days the question of drilling for oil off the coast of Florida has been joined. Indeed, the question and the debate has accelerated. Yesterday, the Department of the Interior offered their proposed new alignment of the Gulf of Mexico and the central planning area where drilling for oil will occur and the eastern planning area where oil drilling will not occur. As we have speculated for some period of time, when the Department of the Interior published in the Federal Register that State boundaries were going to be redrawn so that the boundaries of the State of Louisiana, indeed, went into the waters off of the State of Florida, we could well speculate, with some justification, that indeed that was going to be the plan. That, in fact, was the plan offered yesterday by the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, for the next 5 years in the Outer Continental Shelf. The Secretary's plan increases the drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off the State of Florida by 2 million acres. That was simultaneously followed by the filing of a bill by the chairman of the Energy Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, which would encompass almost the entirety of an area not included in the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf, known as lease sale 181. The essence of the proposal by the Senator from New Mexico is to drill for oil and gas in an area of 4 million acres, in a bulge which bulges out from the imaginary Florida-Alabama line into the waters off the State of Florida. This senior Senator from Florida, joined by my colleague, Senator Martinez, recognizing this was coming, laid out a plan last week--a plan that would allow some drilling in a part of lease sale 181 but far from the Florida coast--indeed, 260 miles west of Tampa Bay and Clearwater Beach, that from Pensacola, FL, in the panhandle, would be 150 miles to the south but then would honor the so- called ``military mission line,'' about which Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld stated in a letter before Christmas that oil and gas drilling in that area, which has been restricted space because we train and test our military weapons, would not be compatible; to use his words: It would be incompatible with military objectives, with military preparedness through our training and testing in the waters, off the waters, and around the waters of the Gulf of Mexico off Florida. Therefore, Senator Martinez and I proposed a line that would honor the request of the Department of Defense. That request was corroborated the day before yesterday in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, when this Senator put the question to Secretary Rumsfeld, again in the form of thanking him for his clear statement, and he acknowledged that statement again. Where does this leave us? We must continue to have this fight. We have the prodrilling forces, as evidenced by Senator Domenici and his proposal wanting additional drilling off the coast of Florida. We have a more modest proposal by the Secretary of the Interior, who consulted with a couple of dozen oil companies and their proposal, and we have the proposal of the two Senators from Florida, recognizing there is much at stake beyond drilling. The stakes are very high, not even to speak of Florida's economy, which is certainly evidenced by a $50 billion a year tourism industry which depends on pristine beaches, without oilspills the likes of which occurred last week in Alaska. When people say: Oh, it is gas that we want to drill, not oil, ignoring the fact that one of the largest and most costly oil spills occurred when a gas rig blew off the coast of California in 1968, causing this massive oilspill, which led to the enactment of a moratorium of all drilling off the Continental Shelf of the United States. Certainly, economic interests of our State are clearly one component. But there is another component; that is, we have bays and estuaries where so much of our marine life is spawned where the delicate environment would be savaged with an oilspill. People said it would be far from Florida shores, but winds and currents do not understand mileage. Indeed, there is that current that comes up into the Gulf of Mexico in a northward arc off of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and then turns southward and comes around the Florida Keys, then northward it is the current known as the Gulf Stream. The idea that long distances are going to protect the delicate environment, I hope that can be recognized as a false argument. Another component of the argument is simply that there is very little oil out there. They have had several dry holes. The geology shows there is not very much oil. The oil, in fact, in the Gulf of Mexico, is where the 4,000-plus oil rigs are, which is the central gulf and the western gulf off of, primarily, Louisiana and Texas. But then, of course, there is the fourth component of why we should not drill in the eastern gulf. That is our military preparedness. If you fly commercially from Tampa to New Orleans, you do not fly across the gulf. You hug the coast of Florida. Why? It is restricted space. It is the largest testing and training area for our U.S. military. It is what Secretary Rumsfeld memorialized in the letter to the Senate Committee on Armed Services in December saying: Do not drill east of that military mission line. We are testing weapons systems such as the F/A-22. All pilot training is being done at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City. Why? Because the Gulf of Mexico is restricted space. In a dog fight with the F/A-22, compared to the F-15, the F/A-22 is engaging in air-to-air combat at a speed of 1.5 mach, not like the F-15 and the F-16 at .75 mach, three- quarters of the speed of sound. In other words, the new stealth fighter is engaging in air-to-air combat at twice the speed of our present fleet of aircraft. Therefore, the training area has to be so much larger. We are testing right now a laser weapon shot from a ship, which goes several hundred miles. We have to have restricted space. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said oil and gas rigs are incompatible with the military uses of that space. That is four components. Senator Martinez and I took all those components into consideration in suggesting our plan. And we added a 20-mile cushion since that military mission line that Secretary Rumsfeld referred to was established in 1981, and the weapons have gotten more sophisticated and, as I stated, require much more space in which to test and to train our military. That is the line we have drawn which is in effect from Clearwater Beach, right there at Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg Beach, 260 miles to the west from a position further south of Florida, like Fort Myers or Naples. It is in excess of 300 miles from the coast of Florida. To my knowledge, as of today every newspaper editorial page in the State of Florida, save for one newspaper, has editorialized in favor of Senator Martinez and my proposal from last week. I don't have the exact count, but that is something upwards of 20 editorial pages. As we come here for the fights that are going to occur, Senator Martinez and I are looking for a practical line that will accommodate the interests of everyone, including our military preparedness. That is why we cannot have a bill that was offered in the House of Representatives last fall that says leave it up to the States. We can't leave it up to a State to set military policy. We cannot leave it up to an individual State legislature to determine whether the U.S. military is going to be prepared in this long war on terror. That is why Senator Martinez and I have said these boundaries ought to be permanent, not in some 5-year plan that is now being offered but permanent. We are going to continue the fight. I can tell the Senate there is no daylight between Senator Martinez, who sits on that side of the aisle, and this senior Senator of Florida, who sits on this side of the aisle. We will employ every opportunity we have under the rules of the Senate to try to get others who disagree to understand the practicality and the wisdom of the proposal we have laid out to accommodate all of the interests, including the military interests of this country. I share that with the Senate. This is not going to be the last time we will discuss that, but I make this Senator's position unalterably clear. I thank the Senate for this opportunity to share these thoughts. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, although I voted to proceed to the bill I have strong concerns with this legislation. I am concerned that this bill will take away the rights of asbestos victims to have their day in court while providing no guarantees that they will receive fair and prompt compensation. This bill and its payment structure could bankrupt small businesses, with many of them shouldering a larger financial burden under the bill then they currently do in the court system. Many of these small businesses are not the evildoers here, but due to the payment structure of the bill, they will find themselves shouldering a large portion of the liability. I support the concept of a nonadversarial process to provide compensation to victims but a process that is fair to all the parties involved. I believe that this bill falls short, and while I voted for cloture I intend to vote against final passage of this bill unless significant changes are made.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. On the vote Members just rejected, the thought was that extending the 6-month enrollment period was not warranted because, in fact, you have been hearing from your senior citizens. So we will give you an opportunity now. This amendment expands the 6-month enrollment period for the entire year of 2006 and allows beneficiaries, one time, to change plans in that year when they make a mistake. We are also going to make all those folks, those seniors who are out of pocket, the pharmacies that are out of pocket, the States that are out of pocket because of the Federal bungling, we will reimburse them in the implementation where individual senior citizens have had to eat the cost when they find their drugs that are essential to their health, that they cannot get them because they are not eligible under the new plan under Medicare.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Pursuant to 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for consideration of this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2730.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Senators had better look at this sense-of-the-Senate amendment because it indicates that ``extending the 6-month enrollment period is not warranted.'' That is a direct quote. You know what you have been hearing from your senior citizens and how confused they are. This sense of the Senate says it shouldn't be extended.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my fellow Senator from Florida, Mel Martinez, legislation we believe will enhance our Nation's military preparedness, while also protecting the State of Florida's economy from harm by oil drilling. It could be said that debate on this issue began 37 years ago last month. It was in January 1969 when an explosion at an offshore drilling site caused a 200,000-gallon crude oil spill off California's 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. Unfortunately, this past year has seen a number of legislative and administrative attempts to undo this longstanding ban--without a cause that is worth the risk. In fact, Senator Martinez and I have been fighting an almost daily battle to protect our State's tourism economy, which is heavily dependent on our beautiful beaches and abundant fisheries. At the same time, we have been fighting to preserve our military's vital testing and training sites there in the eastern gulf. The Martinez-Nelson Permanent Protection for Florida Act will forever safeguard the State's tourism-dependent economy from offshore drilling, while also removing active drilling leases in the eastern gulf. It creates the Florida Exclusion Zone, which will extend out at least 260 miles off much of the State's west coast, and at least 150 miles off the Florida Straits and all the way around the entire east coast. In short, our proposal will protect Florida's economy and its environment; and, at the same time, enhance our Nation's military preparedness. We, therefore, expect to receive strong support from the Florida Congressional Delegation. We also expect to receive support from our fellow Senators representing other coastal States. That is because we are fighting not only to protect Florida, but many other environmentally fragile areas along our Nation's coastline. In fact, a key provision of our bill extends the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium from 2012 to 2020. Senator Martinez and I speak as one on this issue, and, together, we believe we can accomplish great things for Florida and the country. We ask our colleagues to recall with us the words of former President Teddy Roosevelt, who, in essence, said, ``A nation that destroys its environment destroys itself.'' We look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy Committee, and the rest of our colleagues, to enact this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I intend to bring forward an amendment that will provide additional protections for Medicare beneficiaries during the first year of the implementation of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. And that first year is right now, since it just started. The amendment expands the existing 6-month open enrollment period from the May 15 deadline to 6 months later, into December. It is going to give people additional time to do the research to make the best decisions. Secondly, the amendment is going to give to every beneficiary the opportunity to make a one-time change in the plan enrollment at any point during this calendar year, 2006. Now, why is this important? Well, if every Senator here has been hearing from their senior citizens like the Senators in Florida have been hearing from our senior citizens, you can certainly understand that the senior citizens are very concerned. In many cases, they are confused because of the multiplicity of plans. As a matter of fact, in Florida, there are 18 companies offering a total of 43 stand-alone prescription drug plans. Now, each of those plans differs in terms of premiums, cost-sharing requirements, drugs covered, and pharmacy access, and some of these plans are very time- consuming and very confusing. So when senior citizens are telling us Senators they are confused and bewildered, we ought to be paying attention. Now, in some cases, the senior citizens are frightened, as well. This is because they know that come the deadline of May 15, if they have not selected a plan, they could be penalized 1 percent a month or 12 percent a year. That frightens them. What also frightens them is if they pick a plan by the deadline and then realize they made a mistake, they cannot rectify that mistake for a year. That is the source of great consternation and some fright to senior citizens. Now, we can easily fix this. Back in November, when we had this bill before us then, I offered this amendment. It got 51 votes. It got a majority of the Senate. But there was a point of order on the budget because there is a minor financial consequence to this. So under the rules of the Budget Act, there has to be a 60-vote majority to pass such an amendment. We got 51 votes. I think we have a good chance to get 60 votes now because of Senators having heard all of the confusion and the bewilderment and the fright our senior citizens are experiencing. So I will be offering this amendment at the appropriate time. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my fellow Senator from Florida, Mel Martinez, legislation we believe will enhance our Nation's military preparedness, while also protecting the State of Florida's economy from harm by oil drilling. It could be said that debate on this issue began 37 years ago last month. It was in January 1969 when an explosion at an offshore drilling site caused a 200,000-gallon crude oil spill off California's 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. Unfortunately, this past year has seen a number of legislative and administrative attempts to undo this longstanding ban--without a cause that is worth the risk. In fact, Senator Martinez and I have been fighting an almost daily battle to protect our State's tourism economy, which is heavily dependent on our beautiful beaches and abundant fisheries. At the same time, we have been fighting to preserve our military's vital testing and training sites there in the eastern gulf. The Martinez-Nelson Permanent Protection for Florida Act will forever safeguard the State's tourism-dependent economy from offshore drilling, while also removing active drilling leases in the eastern gulf. It creates the Florida Exclusion Zone, which will extend out at least 260 miles off much of the State's west coast, and at least 150 miles off the Florida Straits and all the way around the entire east coast. In short, our proposal will protect Florida's economy and its environment; and, at the same time, enhance our Nation's military preparedness. We, therefore, expect to receive strong support from the Florida Congressional Delegation. We also expect to receive support from our fellow Senators representing other coastal States. That is because we are fighting not only to protect Florida, but many other environmentally fragile areas along our Nation's coastline. In fact, a key provision of our bill extends the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium from 2012 to 2020. Senator Martinez and I speak as one on this issue, and, together, we believe we can accomplish great things for Florida and the country. We ask our colleagues to recall with us the words of former President Teddy Roosevelt, who, in essence, said, ``A nation that destroys its environment destroys itself.'' We look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy Committee, and the rest of our colleagues, to enact this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to share my thoughts on the passing of Coretta Scott King. I once had the privilege of hosting Mrs. King at my home. She was an extraordinary woman who was deeply involved in a movement that led our nation closer to a more equal and just society. Although Mrs. King is often referred to as the wife of the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, she was a civil rights activist in her own right. Following Dr. King's death in 1968, she devoted her energies to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change. Her leadership helped spread Dr. King's message of positive social change through nonviolent means. She often said, ``The center enables us to go out and struggle against the evils in our society.'' Mrs. King, like her husband, was a uniter. She brought together diverse groups for common causes. In 1974, Mrs. King formed the Full Employment Action Council, consisting of civil rights, religious, labor, and business groups promoting equal economic opportunity and full employment for all Americans. Nine years later, she helped form the Coalition of Conscience, consisting of over 800 human rights groups, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the March on Washington. Globally, she was a goodwill ambassador to countries around the world and an adviser to world leaders such as Nelson Mandela. Later this year, Mrs. King and her late husband were to receive the Congressional Gold Medal for their contributions to the Nation. Mrs. King has left us, but her legacy lives on as we remember and honor her historical impact. We should strive to follow in her footsteps. Today, my thoughts and prayer are with Mrs. King and her family and friends.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, some things can get hot here, particularly when we get into personalities. Well, the senior Senator from Florida came here not to speak about personalities but to talk about the substance of the issue in front of us. In the Good Book, the Gospel promises all of us impartiality at judgment. And I would suggest impartiality--or justice for all--is a principle embedded deep in our constitutional democracy. I believe in an America where courts address injustice and correct it. I believe in an America where our judges serve the people by interpreting the Constitution, without agenda. I may have no greater responsibility in the Senate than to be charged by our Constitution with advising the President on his picks for the U.S. Supreme Court. And in assuming this awesome responsibility, I rise to oppose Judge Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Soon, the Supreme Court likely will hear cases about protecting our personal privacy from Government and corporate intrusion and about the sharing of power between Congress and the President. These decisions will have an important effect on each of our lives and on the future of our Nation. In the break we had over the holidays, I had numerous townhall meetings all over my State of Florida. The residents shared with me their thoughts about Judge Alito. So I took all of that information, and that is why, then, I carefully studied his record over the past 15 years as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. During his time on the bench, Judge Alito ruled on cases ranging from the rights of individuals to the stewardship of the environment. After his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, and after studying his judicial record, I am concerned that he, more often than not, ruled in favor of big Government and big corporations over the ordinary American, putting trust in an authoritarian type of institution. That is a concern. Following the hearings, I had the pleasure of personally meeting with Judge Alito to discuss my concerns. It was a very amiable and friendly conversation. He seems to be a very nice gentleman. But I explained to him some of my concerns. I explained how a recent Supreme Court decision has frightened many of our constituents who fear their homes can now be seized by the Government to make way for a private developer's project. While he expressed sympathy for the parties whose homes had been seized, in this personal meeting with him, he offered no misgivings about the legal reasoning that led to that outcome. I am concerned about his rulings in other cases pitting the Government against individuals, in the area of the environment, workers' rights, and racial discrimination. In Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey v. Magnesium Elektron, he, Judge Alito, established high barriers to prevent individuals from being able to sue polluters for violations of the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Supreme Court later rejected this reasoning by a vote of 7 to 2. In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, he ruled that State employees could not sue for damages to enforce their rights under the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act. The Supreme Court later reversed this ruling by a vote of 6 to 3. I might say that both of those acts under consideration by the Court I had the privilege of voting for when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. And then in Riley v. Taylor, he ruled there was no basis for appeal in a death penalty case in which prosecutors had used their preemptory challenges to exclude Black jurors from the jury pool. The full Third Circuit later heard the case and overturned Judge Alito's ruling. These cases highlight the broader concerns I have with Judge Alito's record. During my years in the Senate, I have voted for almost all of President Bush's judicial nominees. All told, I have voted for 216 of the President's 226 judicial picks, including Chief Justice John Roberts. That is 96 percent. I greeted Judge Alito's nomination with an open mind. But his many legal writings, his judicial opinions and evasive answers, both at his hearing and in my private meeting with him, convinced me that he would tilt the scales of justice ever so slightly against the average Joe. I do not want that outcome. And because he is not the voice I believe this Nation needs to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who fiercely defended the rights and liberties of all Americans--because of this--I am going to vote no on his confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, my fellow Senators, I am pleased to join Senators Hutchison, Stevens, Inouye, and Lott today in presenting the 2005 NASA Authorization Act and managers' package that has been agreed to by conferees from the House and Senate. I express my thanks for the work that my fellow conferees, the committees, subcommittees, and our staffs have done on this bill. I am confident that it will help Administrator Griffin to lead NASA to accomplish its many missions. America is a nation of explorers. NASA explores the frontiers of aviation by atmospheric flight, the frontiers of space by going where others have never been; and the frontiers of science by conducting scientific endeavors that broaden our understanding of life, our home planet, and the heavens. NASA has not been authorized by Congress for some time. In fact, the last two times NASA was authorized was 1993 and 2000. Congress needs to authorize NASA more often. When NASA is authorized infrequently, then oversight may become lax. The lack of an authorization bill leaves the authorizing function to the Appropriators--and they don't have time and it's not their job. In fact, the lack of oversight provided by authorizers over the last several years may have contributed to the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 will help the Congress to do a better job of performing oversight of NASA. The act is a 3-year bill, authorizing NASA from 2006 through 2008. It authorizes NASA appropriations for fiscal year 2007 and 2008. Because appropriators have already funded NASA for fiscal year 2006 the authorizing conferees receded to the appropriations bill for that fiscal year. The bill authorizes $17.932 billion for fiscal year 2007 and $18.686 billion for fiscal year 2008, and provides more funding than the President's budget projections. Like many of our colleagues, Senator Hutchison and I believe that recent NASA budget requests have been below the levels required for the agency to perform its various missions effectively. That was made apparent recently when Administrator Griffin testified at a committee hearing before the House of Representatives, that the Space Shuttle program will have a $3 billion plus shortfall over the next 5 years. Dr. Griffin's concerns have been echoed by a letter recently provided by several Members of the House to the White House calling for the space shuttle program to be fully funded. This legislation authorizes NASA to return humans to the Moon, to explore it, and to maintain a human presence on the Moon. Consistent with the President's vision, it also requires using what we learn and develop on the Moon as a stepping-stone to future exploration of Mars. To carry out these missions, this act requires NASA to develop an implementation plan for the transition from shuttle to crew exploration vehicle, CEV. The plan will help NASA to make a smooth transition from retirement of the space shuttle orbiters to the replacement spacecraft systems. The implementation plan will help make sure that we can keep the skills and the focus that are needed to assure that each Space Shuttle flight is safe through retirement of the orbiters, and to retain those personnel needed for the CEV and heavy lift cargo spacecraft. The bill should be helpful for reducing if not eliminating a gap in America's ability to put humans in Earth orbit. The act also directs NASA to plan for and consider a Hubble servicing mission after the second space shuttle return to flight mission has been completed. This NASA authorization bill calls for utilization of the international space station for basic science as well as exploration science. It is important that we reap the benefits of our multibillion dollar investment in the space station. This act ensures that NASA will maintain a focus on the importance of basic science. This legislation directs the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel to monitor and measure NASA's improvements to their safety culture, including employees' fear of reprisals for voicing concerns about safety. The bill encourages NASA to more effectively utilize lessons learned and best practices, and to implement cost controls that are more effective for making better use of our taxpayers' money. This authorization bill addresses NASA aeronautics and America's pre- eminence in aviation, calling for the President of the United States to pursue a national policy for aeronautics. The Europeans have stated their intent to dominate the airplane market by 2020. It is not in our national interest to let that occur. The bill includes a limitation on reprogramming funds from space operations--(includes the space shuttle and international space station)--to exploration systems, and vice versa. This limitation will ensure that no more than 10 percent of shuttle and station funds can be transferred into the exploration systems program to be used for a shortfall in an exploration-related development program. However, it will not limit the exploration systems and space shuttle programs from utilizing the same personnel, equipment, and contract vehicles to continue to safely fly the shuttle while developing the shuttle-derived crew exploration vehicle. This act gives America the opportunity for implementing the Vision for Space Exploration; renewing our commitment to U.S. civil aviation and NASA aeronautics research; conducting important science activities at NASA; and assuring that America has continuous human access to space. By passing this legislation, we will continue to strengthen our economy and inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, and explorers.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while I wholeheartedly support robust funding for our troops, several measures slipped into the Defense appropriations bill were totally extraneous to our military missions. Two such provisions--oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and complete liability protection for drug companies that manufacture vaccines-- were added to this bill behind closed doors and in the dead of the night. If unrelated and unpopular measures can be slipped into our Nation's military spending bill at the last moment, without being included in either the House or Senate, open debate on issues and all control over spending has been lost. Lawmakers behind this move held funding for our troops hostage to achieve the interests of the oil and drug industries. Largely for this reason, dozens of Senators voted for more debate on the Defense appropriations conference report. We hope these unwanted and extraneous provisions will be removed. As I have stated, I voted to oppose closing off debate on the Defense appropriations bill for several reasons--including the bill's insertion of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and liability protection for drug companies that manufacture vaccines. In addition, to my opposition to these specific provisions, I believe the disaster relief provided for in the bill is woefully inadequate for Florida. Florida was hit by four hurricanes again in 2005. Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma wreaked havoc in South Florida, the Panhandle and even parts of central Florida. These storms caused over $2 billion in agricultural losses. That surpasses the losses from the 2004 hurricane season. Florida's Agriculture Commissioner, Charles Bronson, said that he has ``never witnessed such extensive devastation to our state's agriculture sectors as that caused by Hurricane Wilma.'' Despite this devastation, the disaster relief in the Defense appropriations bill fails to provide any financial relief to the citrus, sugar, vegetable, tropical fruit or livestock industry. It is estimated that Florida lost 47 percent of the grapefruit crop and 15 percent of the orange crop--for a total loss of $180 million. The vegetable industry took a $311 million hit because the fall and winter vegetable crops were growing when Wilma hit. The sugar industry suffered more than $370 million in losses. One- hundred mile per hour winds not only flattened the cane, but also caused significant structural damage to critical infrastructure such as storage bins and the mill. Literally, millions of Floridians are still struggling due to these hurricanes; and this bill does little to help them recover. When this bill goes back to the conference committee, I hope this disaster relief package can be reworked to provide relief for all those who suffered damage in this year's hurricanes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my good friend, Senator Jon Corzine, on his election to the governorship of New Jersey. The Senator from New Jersey and I joined this body in the same year, 2001, and in that time, he has worked for New Jersey and the country with skill and determination. He is a man who believes in security, whether it is securing our homeland, securing our financial future or securing our world from genocide. Senator Corzine recognized the deadly risk posed by lackluster protection of our Nation's chemical plants. As we debated this year's Homeland Security appropriations bill, his amendment let everyone know that we must take steps to protect against a terrorist attack on chemical facilities within the United States. He has doggedly fought for retirement security for all Americans, helping to protect Social Security from deep benefit cuts and preventing a substantial increase in the national debt. Senator Corzine knows that we made a promise to our seniors that they can retire with safety and dignity, and he is helping to keep that promise. By introducing the Sudan Accountability Act, Senator Corzine put this body on record that we cannot allow the genocide in Darfur to continue. Hundreds of thousands are already dead, and millions have been displaced by the atrocities in Sudan. He has helped push for sanctions against those committing these crimes and to put money into our efforts to stop them. Over the past 5 years, I have had the pleasure of working closely with Senator Corzine on important issues. We recognized a gaping hole in benefits provided to widows of our servicemembers, and he joined me in introducing the Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act. The bill has attracted bipartisan support based on its fundamental fairness and because it is the right thing to do for America's military retirees and their survivors. Florida and New Jersey both have beautiful shorelines that serve important economic needs for our States, and Senator Corzine has helped me in the fight to protect these shorelines from the devastation of oil drilling. I look forward to continuing this fight with his successor, Congressman Menendez. I expect that as Governor of New Jersey, he will take with him to Trenton the same passion to protect our homeland, to protect our environment, and to protect our future that he had here in the Senate. I thank him for his service in Washington, DC, I congratulate him on his victory, and I wish him well as he continues his service for the people of New Jersey.