Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on Sunday afternoon, Hurricane Dennis made landfall on Florida's Gulf Coast, causing billions of dollars in damage, taking four lives and bringing back terrible memories of last summer's four hurricanes. Some people in north Florida were still recovering from Hurricane Ivan when Dennis struck. I was down in Pensacola on Monday and saw the damage wrought by Dennis. People are still without power in the summer heat. Food, clean water and ice are absolutely vital right now. Many coastal areas, like the small village of St. Mark's, were deluged by water from the ten foot storm surge. Mitigation helps us to better prepare for future storms, lessens their impact and saves lives. Last summer, when the Internal Revenue Service ruled that FEMA mitigation grants must be reported as taxable income, I worked to advance a bill ensuring they were exempt from Federal taxes. This bill was signed into law by the President on April 15. Each year, hundreds of Floridians use mitigation grants to protect their lives and property from future natural disasters. Now they know for sure that accepting a mitigation grant to flood proof their home won't result in higher taxes. Yet even with this relief, another IRS ruling is causing problems with the flood insurance program. That's because according to the IRS, a National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, grant must be included as income. This could make some recipients ineligible for crucial Federal assistance programs like Food Stamps, aid to dependent children and Medicaid. No one should have to choose between making their home safe from flooding and food or medicine. No other kind of emergency assistance granted by FEMA counts toward income and neither should flood mitigation grants. I'm pleased to sign onto legislation introduced by my colleague from Florida which would prevent Federal agencies administering means-tested benefits from counting NFIP grants as income. I hope the Senate will consider this legislation quickly and provide peace of mind to Floridians and other Americans living in disaster prone areas of the country.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, to introduce the Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde Act. This bill will provide grants for State and local governments to purchase the technology they need to enhance monitoring of sexual predators. This bill and the grants it provides are named after two young girls from Florida, Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde, who were both murdered by convicted sex offenders. As the Lunsford and Lunde families mourned these two beautiful girls, the Nation grieved with them. We are all united in our desire to make sure that everything can be done to prevent this from ever happening again. I hope this bill will serve as a living memorial to Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde, and serve as some comfort to their families, as the grants in their names provided in this bill will allow law enforcement to help prevent other families from suffering similar tragedies. Jessica Lunsford of Homosassa, FL, was a nine-year-old girl abducted from her home, raped, and then buried alive by a convicted sex offender who lived 150 feet from her home. Law enforcement had lost track of her confessed murderer and did not know that he worked at the nearby school that Jessica attended, despite his being a registered sex offender. A few weeks following the news of this tragedy, 13-year-old Sarah Lunde of Ruskin, FL, was murdered by her mother's ex-boyfriend. He is also a convicted sex offender. The Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde grants provided for in this bill will allow States and local government to purchase electronic monitoring systems, like global positioning systems, that will provide law enforcement with real time information on the whereabouts of sex offenders released from prison to within 10 feet of their location. Law enforcement will be able to restrict the movements of sex offenders by programming these systems to alert authorities if a sex offender goes to a park, amusement park, elementary school or other areas determined to be off-limits. The ankle-bracelets used to monitor their movement are tamper proof and will alert law enforcement in the event that an offender has removed it so law enforcement can immediately act to apprehend the offender. In the United States there are an estimated 380,000 registered sex offenders, although thousands have disappeared, according to authorities. We have over 30,000 of these sex offenders in the State of Florida. In response to the recent tragedies in Florida, Idaho, and North Dakota, several States have enacted stronger laws to protect our children from sex predators. In Florida, for example, the legislature passed a law that will provide tougher sentences for child sex offenders, and aid law enforcement in effectively monitoring those sex offenders. This law will require sex offenders, released back into our communities, to wear a bracelet that will have a global positioning system track them. I applaud the initiative by Florida, and other States seeking to pass similar laws, and I believe that it is important that there is an appropriate Federal response that will be supportive of the States and local governments that are addressing this problem. To be effective, tough laws on these sexual predators of children must be properly funded, and I believe these tough laws being passed by state legislatures are worth properly funding when they will protect our children. The Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde Act will support State and local governments that, like Florida, are attempting to protect their children by providing greater monitoring tools for law enforcement. This bill will provide a total of $30 million in grants to States to help implement State laws to get tougher on sex offenders released back into their communities with electronic monitoring technology. The bill will provide for $10 million in grants for fiscal years 2006 through 2008. The bill then directs the Attorney General to provide a report to Congress assessing the effectiveness of the program and making recommendations as to future funding levels. There are no silver bullets to stop sexual predators from preying on our children, but I believe that tough laws, such as the new Florida statute, are going to go a long way in preventing sex offenders from re-offending. 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 on behalf of myself and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, to introduce the Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde Act. This bill will provide grants for State and local governments to purchase the technology they need to enhance monitoring of sexual predators. This bill and the grants it provides are named after two young girls from Florida, Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde, who were both murdered by convicted sex offenders. As the Lunsford and Lunde families mourned these two beautiful girls, the Nation grieved with them. We are all united in our desire to make sure that everything can be done to prevent this from ever happening again. I hope this bill will serve as a living memorial to Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde, and serve as some comfort to their families, as the grants in their names provided in this bill will allow law enforcement to help prevent other families from suffering similar tragedies. Jessica Lunsford of Homosassa, FL, was a nine-year-old girl abducted from her home, raped, and then buried alive by a convicted sex offender who lived 150 feet from her home. Law enforcement had lost track of her confessed murderer and did not know that he worked at the nearby school that Jessica attended, despite his being a registered sex offender. A few weeks following the news of this tragedy, 13-year-old Sarah Lunde of Ruskin, FL, was murdered by her mother's ex-boyfriend. He is also a convicted sex offender. The Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde grants provided for in this bill will allow States and local government to purchase electronic monitoring systems, like global positioning systems, that will provide law enforcement with real time information on the whereabouts of sex offenders released from prison to within 10 feet of their location. Law enforcement will be able to restrict the movements of sex offenders by programming these systems to alert authorities if a sex offender goes to a park, amusement park, elementary school or other areas determined to be off-limits. The ankle-bracelets used to monitor their movement are tamper proof and will alert law enforcement in the event that an offender has removed it so law enforcement can immediately act to apprehend the offender. In the United States there are an estimated 380,000 registered sex offenders, although thousands have disappeared, according to authorities. We have over 30,000 of these sex offenders in the State of Florida. In response to the recent tragedies in Florida, Idaho, and North Dakota, several States have enacted stronger laws to protect our children from sex predators. In Florida, for example, the legislature passed a law that will provide tougher sentences for child sex offenders, and aid law enforcement in effectively monitoring those sex offenders. This law will require sex offenders, released back into our communities, to wear a bracelet that will have a global positioning system track them. I applaud the initiative by Florida, and other States seeking to pass similar laws, and I believe that it is important that there is an appropriate Federal response that will be supportive of the States and local governments that are addressing this problem. To be effective, tough laws on these sexual predators of children must be properly funded, and I believe these tough laws being passed by state legislatures are worth properly funding when they will protect our children. The Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde Act will support State and local governments that, like Florida, are attempting to protect their children by providing greater monitoring tools for law enforcement. This bill will provide a total of $30 million in grants to States to help implement State laws to get tougher on sex offenders released back into their communities with electronic monitoring technology. The bill will provide for $10 million in grants for fiscal years 2006 through 2008. The bill then directs the Attorney General to provide a report to Congress assessing the effectiveness of the program and making recommendations as to future funding levels. There are no silver bullets to stop sexual predators from preying on our children, but I believe that tough laws, such as the new Florida statute, are going to go a long way in preventing sex offenders from re-offending. 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 would like to take this opportunity to explain to the Senate my absence during yesterday's vote on S. Res. 193, expressing sympathy for the people of the United Kingdom. On Sunday, the Florida panhandle was struck by Hurricane Dennis, a category 3 storm. Last September, Hurricane Ivan also hit the same area causing extensive damage from which many had not yet fully recovered. I went to the area yesterday to survey the damage and meet with constituents affected by the disaster. I was able to visit the emergency operations center in three of the counties affected by Dennis. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on the resolution. Because I was unable to vote my strong support for the resolution, I would like to express my thoughts at this time. We as Americans have close ties to Great Britain; and, extend to the British people our deepest sympathies as they cope with their losses. In response to these barbaric attacks, the United States and the community of free nations must unite with an even greater resolve to defeat those who seek to destroy liberty by slaughtering innocent civilians.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this letter is from the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, who has promised to commence a feasibility study on converting sugar into ethanol and to start it immediately, with an initial meeting of the agricultural economists next week, the July Fourth week. I believe at that point they will and should lay out a baseline of the knowledge we have on this issue. I expect that will occur, and I expect that quite a lot of research on converting sugar into ethanol has already been carried out and that this study should acknowledge this research and build upon it. In other words, don't start the feasibility study from scratch. The Deputy Secretary has also promised me that the Department of Agriculture will issue an interim report in addition to what they had earlier promised, a report that would be concluded by July of next year, 2006. In this letter, the Deputy Secretary says they will issue an interim report by December 15, 2005. The feasibility study is a start, but we can do much more. In every other ethanol program around the world, sugar is included. I urge the conferees on the Energy bill and the administration to make sugar a part of the ethanol program established in that bill. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the conferees be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I worked on this trade agreement pretty hard. Now that this agreement is in front of us, despite some lingering concerns I have, I will support it. This agreement affects my State of Florida more than any other State in the Union. For example, in 2004, the State of Florida exported $3.2 billion worth of merchandise to the DR-CAFTA region. Florida has the highest total among any State. The next nearest State, Texas, exported $1.8 billion. And the DR-CAFTA region accounts for 11 percent of Florida's total exports. Florida does stand to gain a great deal from this agreement. Miami, which is really the capital of the Americas, is the national gateway to Central America and the Dominican Republic. Throughout the rest of Florida, we have other industries that will also increase their business and explore new opportunities in the region. These Florida industries stand to grow enormously. Because of our unique relationship, we have been talking about thousands of jobs created in the first year and tens of thousands of jobs in the coming years as a result of DR-CAFTA's enactment. I have been to the Dominican Republic. I have spoken with the President, Leonel Fernandez. I recently went to Honduras at the invitation of the President Maduro and spent a couple of days there and spoke at length with not only our U.S. embassy personnel but members of the Government of Honduras. I believe that dramatically lower tariff barriers also will lead to increased exports to the region from Florida and through Florida's ports. This increase in business and industry for my State is a good deal and will increase our connections with these countries and all of Latin America. This agreement is also, I believe, in our national interest. Free and fair trade creates new economic opportunities for Americans, and it creates economic uplift in these other countries. This economic uplift is critical to ensuring that these countries remain stable and people are not forced to emigrate in search of employment. As we try to stabilize countries in the region, promote democracy, clearly their economic enhancement is in the interest of the United States, in order to see those struggling democracies flourish. And that is the clear message I heard as I traveled extensively throughout Latin America. Unfortunately, as we know, free-trade agreements do not affect all industries equally, and Florida has vulnerable industries that we must protect from unfair trade practices. My colleagues have heard me speak many times about the Florida citrus industry and the threat that it faces from Brazil. Today, I raise my concerns about another important Florida industry, and that is the sugar industry. DR-CAFTA, as negotiated, asks our sugar industry to sacrifice more than other commodities. American sugar producers face an international market where sugar is sold at artificially low prices because of unfair labor practices and habitual dumping. In the last FTA, the Australia agreement, interestingly, sugar was excluded, but the administration changed course on CAFTA negotiating extra sugar access and, at the same time, establishing a new precedent. I worked with numerous Senators, especially over the last 3 weeks. I have raised sand with the administration about these provisions. I have let them know that there was more that could be done to protect the American sugar industry. In response, the administration has made some commitments that I believe will help mitigate the impact on our domestic sugar producers through the life of the 2002 farm bill, which will go for another 2 or 3 years. Sugar levels available on the U.S. market will not go above the level established in the farm bill. Ambassador Portman, the U.S. Trade Representative, and I had a personal eyeball-to-eyeball meeting this afternoon. He made it clear to me that there is no prospect of any substantial sugar concessions being included in any other trade agreements through the life of the farm bill. This was an individual conversation, and he is not going to take that position officially because he does not want to tie his hands, but that is the bottom line of our conversation. The administration has also committed to study the feasibility of converting sugar into ethanol. At my urging, the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture--and this was arranged by Ambassador Portman who directly gave me his word--said: Do you want it in writing? I said: I accept your word, that is good enough for me, but others may like to see it memorialized. He said: I will get you a letter. I have this letter, and I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Expansion of alternative fuel programs is an urgent national priority. If we are concerned about importing 60 percent of our daily oil consumption from foreign lands, we best develop a substitute, and ethanol works in our existing gasoline engines. In conclusion, frankly I believe the administration could have done better. They could have started discussions with the industry sooner by allowing all parties to explore the available options. I believe more time could have led to further agreements and compromise, but I must look not to the interests of one very important industry in my State but also to the greater interests of Florida and especially the Nation as a whole. I will vote for CAFTA today. It is important to my State and it is important to the Nation.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President we realize that for the first time the administration's budget included funding for the Modified Waters Delivery Project in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Prior to this year, it had been funded solely through the Interior Appropriations bill. The House Energy and Water Subcommittee included funding for the Modified Waters Delivery Project. No matter which bill it receives funding through, it is imperative that it receive the funding needed to complete it.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President I wholeheartedly thank Senator Reid for his work on behalf of the Everglades and look forward to working with him and Chairman Domenici on Everglades restoration in the future.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, even before the Congress passed the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, CERP, in 2000, the country had begun some important projects that set the stage for CERP. One of those projects is the Modified Waters Delivery Project. The goal of the Modified Waters Delivery Project, authorized by the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, is to increase water deliveries to Everglades National Park, to improve the natural habitat and, to the extent possible, restore the natural hydrological conditions within the park. To do this, however, we must undo the work of the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1940s and 1950s which resulted in the Central and Southern Florida Project, C&SF Project. The C&SF Project created 1,000 miles of canals, 720 miles of levees, and more than 200 water control structures to alter water flow in the Everglades, control flooding, open land for agriculture and provide water supplies to urban areas.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague from Florida, Senator Mel Martinez, to talk about the biggest ecosystem restoration project in our country's history, the restoration of America's Everglades. The chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee have supported the Everglades, and I appreciate their dedication to this worthwhile endeavor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I certainly will.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to oppose suspending the rules to take up the Dorgan amendment to revise rules on family travel to Cuba. I have always supported a strong economic embargo against Cuba, as well as a ban on tourist travel to the island. I believe it is in our national interest to keep the pressure on the Cuban dictatorship, and not give Fidel Castro access to resources that make it easier for him to oppress the Cuban people. At the same time, how we treat Cuban-Americans during their moments of family tragedy reflects on our character as a Nation. We should ensure that our policy demonstrates compassion for these fellow citizens in their moments of grief. I have many constituents who have faced such wrenching circumstances in their lives. Unfortunately, my colleague from North Dakota is proposing a fairly significant change in U.S. foreign policy as part of an unrelated appropriations bill. In order for us to take up the amendment, the Senate would have to vote to suspend its own rules that ban legislating on an appropriations bill. I am not opposed to a debate about whether our current policies on Cuban-Americans' ability to travel to see their relatives may be too restrictive and whether they are in need of adjustments. But if we are to have such a debate, my colleagues in the Senate deserve enough time to consider fully such a major change in U.S. foreign policy. I would be willing to work with my colleagues to try to fashion a proposal that could gain broad support and would go through the proper legislative process. But for now, for the reasons I have stated, I must vote not to suspend the rules.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague from California. We have fought these battles before. We fought one of these battles when unbelievably the EPA wanted to conduct an experiment. They called it a study. It was a 2-year study they were going to perform on infants in my State in Jacksonville, FL. This 2- year study was going to expose those infants to pesticides. It was going to be done with the inducement by getting the parents of the infants to sign a contract of which over a 2-year period they were going to be paid $970, were going to be given a T-shirt, were going to be given other kinds of trinkets, and a certificate of appreciation in return for children over that 2-year period being exposed to pesticides that were going to be placed in the home. Oh, by the way, guess which part of town this was going to occur in. You guessed it. It was going to occur in the lower income and minority sections of Jacksonville. Senator Boxer and I got wind of it. Well, she got wind of it because she was sitting on the committee having to do with the confirmation of the head of EPA and she announced that, in fact, she was not going to let the EPA nominee go through. Then she came to me and pointed out that, in fact, this was occurring in Florida. This was one of the brochures, if my colleagues can believe it, that EPA was going to send out. As a matter of fact, they had already sent it out in Jacksonville. They had gotten some 30 parents to already sign up for this program. It states: You're a parent. Learn more about your child's potential pesticide exposure. Am I eligible to participate? Only 60 participants will be selected. To be selected, you must be a parent of a child less than 3 months old or one between the ages of 9 and 12 months old. Get this, in order to be eligible, one has to spray or have pesticides sprayed inside their home routinely. The ad states: Will I be compensated? Oh, of course. You will receive up to $970 over the 2-year period. Your family will receive an official framed certificate of appreciation, a CHEERS bib for your baby, a T- shirt, a calendar, and a study newsletter. You will be allowed to keep the video camcorder they are going to give to you to record this study over the 2 years. You will be allowed to keep the video camcorder at the end of the study provided you have completed all of the study activities. Can anyone believe this is going on in the United States of America in the year 2005? Well, we put a stop to it because Senator Boxer put a hold on the nominee. I put a hold on the nominee. I had a conversation with the nominee and I told the nominee I had no objection to the nominee. As a matter of fact, I had heard awfully good things about the nominee. But as a Senator from Florida, I certainly was not going to let that sort of thing go on in my State and it should not be going on in any State. All I wanted the nominee to do was to cancel that study. What they did not tell the local Jacksonville Health Department was that of the $9 million the study was going to cost, $2 million of the $9 million was being supplied by the pesticide industry. Needless to say, the Duval County Health Department did not like it when they found that out. This is the kind of stuff we have had to go through with regard to human testing and it just should not be. So it is time to put it in this bill. This is unlike pharmaceutical studies on humans that offer the possibility that a human subject may benefit from the experiment. The human testing of pesticides offers no therapeutic benefit, and under this proposed rule EPA would be allowed to test on humans, children, pregnant women, newborns, and infants. This senior Senator from Florida has had a bellyful of this kind of stuff to come in on the citizens of the State of Florida, and I want it stopped. Any exposure of an infant child or a pregnant woman to a toxin basically should be prohibited, even in doses that are not expected to do any harm. With the experience I have had in Jacksonville, it was simply irresponsible for the EPA, whose very mission is to protect human health and the environment, to have proposed such a study. The last time I checked, I thought EPA stood for Environmental Protection Agency. Well, then it needs to fulfill its challenge. It needs to fulfill the goal of its name. The happy ending to the story in Jacksonville was that we stopped it because the nominee for the head of the EPA cancelled the study. Senator Boxer and I lifted our hold and we send our great wishes to the new administrator of the EPA for a successful administration. We need to help the administrator of EPA have a successful administration and we can do this with the Boxer-Nelson amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would it not be something if we could start to have all new vehicles be required, in some way, to be hybrid and/or higher miles per gallon standard, if that were combined with an additional thing like ethanol into gasoline, ethanol that could be made more cheaply, perhaps from prairie grass--that is on 31 million acres; all it needs to be is cut--instead of a more expensive process of corn, although that certainly is a good source of ethanol. Would we not start to see exponentially our ability to wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Indeed it is. But we feel so passionately about this for the reasons that I have articulated much earlier. When somebody then wants to claim the patina of legality suddenly for their State's waters and, in fact, allow the drilling off the coast of another State, then it is starting to get absurd. That is when we have to put our foot down. As the Senator from New Jersey was talking, it occurred to me that I want to show, once again, these charts. This is from the Exxon Valdez, which is many years ago. But that was last week. That is last week off the coast of Louisiana. That is what we want to prevent. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. This Senator thought the agreement to support the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana is that the Senator from Louisiana would forever and always support the Senator from Florida to keep drilling off of the coast of Florida. Senator Landrieu has been such a tremendous advocate for the interests of her State. She has a need that is in front of the Senator. This Senator intends to help her, even though this Senator would certainly appreciate a little more help in the future from the Senator from Louisiana. I want to point out again why the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and I have been so exercised about now that this amendment is out there, filed, and it is germane to the bill, an amendment offered by Senator Alexander, why it is such anathema to us. I will simply give you the explanation. When they say: Oh, we are just going to let States decide if they want to have the drilling off their coasts, there is something known as seaward lateral boundaries that are drawn as to what is the waters off of a State according to a Law of the Sea Treaty which, by the way, was never ratified by the United States, so it is not the law of this country. Let me show you what the line would be off the State of Florida for the State of Louisiana under that Law of the Sea Treaty. This is Louisiana. This is Mississippi. This is Alabama. And this is the line on the latitudes of Alabama and Florida. Guess what would be considered under the drawing of these lines called seaward lateral boundaries for Louisiana. It is a faint line, but I will point it out with my finger. This is the line for Louisiana. All that off the coast of Florida would be Louisiana. I suspect that in the case of Senator Corzine off New Jersey, he would have to worry about something that is not the law of this land but those boundaries being drawn that an adjacent State would say: We want to drill. And lo and behold, it would end up off the coast of New Jersey. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. As the Senator well knows, her original amendment had the provisions for drilling off the coast of Florida, which this Senator vigorously fought. But when I sought the advice and counsel of the Senator from Louisiana, she had explained to this Senator that what she wanted was revenuesharing so that she could help with the bays and estuaries and coastal waters of her State. This Senator from Florida did not find that at all to be contrary to any interest in Florida. Therefore, it was the expectation of this Senator that if the Senator from Louisiana backed off of her attempts to want to drill off the coast of Florida, then certainly this Senator would try to help her with regard to the Senator from Louisiana protecting the interests of her State. That is part of the wonderful process of the give and take and the consensus building that we have around here where each State is represented by two Senators. We can look out for our interests, and you can look out for your interests, and then we can look out for our mutual interests. As the Good Book says: Come and reason together. That is what we have attempted to do. I suspect that although several of us coastal Senators have had to scratch and claw and stand on the floor and make objections and stand up and filibuster and do all of those kinds of things to get our point across, it looks as though the Senator from Louisiana is going to be flying on cloud nine passing her amendment. But she has a higher threshold to get to. She has a threshold of 60 votes in order to pass a budgetary waiver in order to get it through. It is my hope the Senator from Louisiana will get her 60 votes. Would the Senator like me to yield for purposes of a question and retaining the floor?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have new pictures. Before I show the pictures, I will state the situation in the Senate. The Senator from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, and this Senator from Florida, are insisting the debate remain on the Landrieu amendment as a means, as the clock is ticking, and with most of the Senate having an interest to recess tonight for the purpose of many schedules that need to be met for tomorrow, including a number of BRAC Commission hearings, especially in the State of New Mexico, that are being held tomorrow, very important pieces of business that Senators need to attend. What the managers of the bill are presently doing, because the Senator from New Jersey and this Senator from Florida are insisting, since, lo and behold, we discovered what we thought we had taken care of yesterday, which was amendments would not be offered for further attempts at drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf--lo and behold, those amendments have been filed and they were declared germane by the Parliamentarian. Therefore, regardless of all of the agreements that have been made, they can be brought up at any time. So the Senator from New Jersey and this Senator from Florida, simply recognizing the clock is ticking, in order that those amendments will not be brought up, are continuing to keep the debate on the Landrieu amendment. At such time as we expect the normal process would be done, which is the winnowing down of the remaining amendments, we then would ask for unanimous consent from the Senate to take up only those remaining amendments and that those amendments will not include the amendments further causing the drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. So that is the parliamentary procedure we find ourselves in. Now, I have heard a number of statements on this floor over the last several days. I wish to clarify. I also wish to bring an update to the Senate. As shown in this picture, this is what we have at stake in Florida. It is the pristine beaches. That is not the only reason for not wanting to drill off the coast of Florida, but that is one of the reasons, and it is a major reason. We do have a $50 billion-a-year tourism industry that depends on those pristine beaches. Of course, people from all over the world come to enjoy the extraordinary environment we have. That is one of the reasons. I have enumerated over the last several days many other reasons. Those reasons certainly include the delicacy of the balance of nature in some of the estuaries and bays; the brackish waters; the mangrove swamps which you find on the coast of Florida, which is not specifically a beach. Generally you will find a beach on what is known as a barrier island. It is those barrier islands that have these extraordinary opportunities for guests to come and visit. I have enumerated over the last several days also another reason; that is, the major national asset that we have off the gulf coast of Florida and off a good part of the Atlantic coast of Florida. It is called restricted airspace. Is it any wonder why the training of pilots for the new F-22 Stealth Fighter is at Tyndall Air Force Base? Is it any wonder why the training of pilots from all branches of the military for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is at Eglin Air Force Base? It is not any wonder when you realize the place they train is out over the Gulf of Mexico, most of which is restricted airspace, and most of which has had now increased training coming because the Navy Atlantic Fleet training was shut down on the island of Vieques off of Puerto Rico. Most of that training has come to northwest Florida. That training is done out off the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot have surface ships coordinating and training with aircraft, which are practicing with their targets on virtual land masses that have been created by computers on the Gulf of Mexico, if you have oil rigs down there on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. That is another reason. But I want to dwell for a minute on this reason right here as shown on this picture. I said I had a new picture. I do. This picture is a week old. This is an oilspill that just occurred off of Louisiana in the last week. There have been now 600 pelicans threatened, and 200 pelicans have died from this oilspill. This was a relatively minor oilspill: 560 gallons--13 barrels--of oil, a relatively minor spill. You can see the damage it has done. Now, I have shown other pictures out here. Shown on this picture is what we do not want. And shown on this picture is what we want. That is why the Senators from Florida, the Senators from other coastal States such as North Carolina and South Carolina, the Senators from New Jersey--and you could go on up the coast and then go out to the west coast and start in the North with Washington, Oregon, and California-- that is why these Senators are so concerned about the protection of the interests of their particular States. Now, this next picture is of an oilspill from years ago. I think this was actually from the Exxon Valdez, which was a much larger oilspill. That was a whole tanker. But a tanker can do that damage. And the spill from a week ago, which was a relatively minor spill, can also do damage, where 200 pelicans have died and 600 are threatened. Now I want to address what has been stated here. It is as if Florida is not doing its part, as suggested by the list that was shown earlier of those that are net-plus of energy and those that are net-minus of energy. Is this the way we are going to solve our energy crisis? I think we ought to all be doing each thing we can to solve our energy crisis. It is absolutely inexcusable that America today is in a position whereby we are importing almost 60 percent of our daily consumption from foreign shores. That is not only inexcusable, that is unsustainable, when you consider the defense interests of our country, that we would be so dependent on oil coming from the Mideast and the Persian Gulf region. By the way, 15 percent of our daily consumption comes from Venezuela. Guess what. We do not exactly have good relations with the Government of Venezuela these days. And the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, from time to time beats his chest and beats the desk and says he is considering the cutting off of oil. That is another story. We could discuss that at length. But it all is forming a composite picture that we ought to be doing something about our dependence on foreign oil. Well, where do you do the most good the quickest? It is to go where you consume the most energy. Where is most energy in America consumed? It is in transportation. And where in transportation is most energy consumed? It is in our personal vehicles--automobiles, trucks, SUVs. Yet you see we are considering an energy bill, and we cannot even get past an amendment that will raise miles per gallon on SUVs, phased in over a 10-year period. We do not have the votes. Why? Because there are certain interests here that say no. They want those gas guzzlers. Yet it is completely contrary to the interests of the United States. If we really want to do something, we have to do something about miles per gallon. I wish to share with the Senate a recent experience I had talking with the former Director of Central Intelligence, Jim Woolsey, about a proposal he has that I believe makes a great deal of sense. It is quite exciting. This proposal could, according to his statistics, have the equivalent of having vehicles that would run at 500 miles per gallon. This is not science fiction. Let me tell you the three components. The first component has to do with the fact that we already mix ethanol with gasoline, the ethanol being made primarily from corn. That is an expensive process, but we do that. In different places, there are various percentages of that ethanol. The ethanol and the gasoline burn together, and the ethanol starts replacing the gasoline. What if you could replace that gasoline with more ethanol so that, say, it is 50 percent gasoline and 50 percent ethanol? You may say: Well, it would not be economical because it is very expensive to get that ethanol from corn. Jim Woolsey has said you can make ethanol from prairie grass. We have 31 million acres of prairie grass in the United States. It would have to be harvested each year, cutting the grass. You would have refined processes, just like in making ethanol from corn, but you have a different ingredient, and it would be much cheaper to make the ethanol. So why don't we start replacing oil--in other words, gasoline--with ethanol? What the experts are telling me is you could use the same engines that we have. Perhaps they would have to have a little bit of tweaking to accommodate 50 percent ethanol and 50 percent gasoline, but look how much oil per day we would be saving just with that. But that is just the first component. The second component is, what happens if you start turning all of America's new automobile engines into hybrid engines? A hybrid engine is what the Japanese have already done so successfully that they have these long waiting lists for these cars that have hybrid engines, that have computers that shift to electricity at one point and to gasoline at another point. The Japanese automakers' cars today--and they have been for several years--are getting better than 50 miles per gallon. That is the second component. So what happens if you take fuel which is a mixture of ethanol and gasoline and put it into hybrid cars which are being run off of electricity and the mixture of fuel is that you start to see you are beginning to use less and less oil, and you are allowing technology to start working for us. But there is a third component; that is, taking your hybrid vehicle-- that is in your garage at night when you are not using it--and just plugging it in, so that in the morning, when you are ready to use your vehicle, your battery is fully charged up to its capacity. It would be using electricity that has been coming from a powerplant that is usually a powerplant that is fueled by something other than oil. So now you have a car that leaves the garage. It is fully powered up in its battery, so as it is going to its electric side of the fuel component, it has that extra reserve. The gasoline side does not have to produce all that much for the electrical side of the hybrid. And, by the way, when it is over on the gasoline side, it is using a lot less gasoline because the gasoline is mixed with ethanol. What Jim Woolsey has told a number of Senators is the calculations are that, under present standards, you would actually have a car that would be the equivalent of 500 miles per gallon. Can you imagine what that would do to our dependence on foreign oil, since our personal vehicles are, in fact, the major factor in our daily consumption of oil? We are talking serious changes. We are talking about not having to have a foreign policy--and I want to recognize my colleague because I want to hear what she says--where we, the United States, become the protector for the entire civilized world of the oil supply flowing out of the Persian Gulf region. We are talking about a United States foreign policy that, Lord forbid, if radical Islamists were to cause the Saudi Royal Family to fall and then the other gulf states start falling like dominos and suddenly radical Islamists are in control of a major source of the world's oil supply--you can imagine what that would do to the rest of the free world and the industrialized world. We are talking about major crisis. And how much of a threat is it that there is such a crisis? Look what we are dealing with in Iraq today. Who are the insurgents? Most of the terrorists in the world are now coming there not only to kill our boys and girls but are coming there to train to be terrorists instead of training in the former area of Afghanistan. It is easier for them to come where all the action is in Iraq. Lord help us if ever radical Islamists took over in Iraq.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for his clarification.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Indeed. And this Senator understands where both Senators from New Mexico are trying to get with the legislation. I certainly want you to get there and get there fast. Basically you come up with a list of amendments that would be considered and you would consider under unanimous consent in the Senate, that is the list to be considered for the rest of the debate on the bill before final passage?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is my understanding the Senator wants to get this bill done quickly. I certainly support him in his desire to get that done quickly. It is also my understanding, in order to achieve that goal, the two managers of the bill are presently negotiating down the number of amendments. Is it correct, the understanding that the Senator from Florida has, that the amendments that would be agreed to take up would not include any amendments having to do with the Outer Continental Shelf drilling?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am happy to yield to my distinguished and very persistent colleague from the State of Louisiana.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for being so eloquent in laying out what is a looming crisis. The crisis is going to hit us. We may not suspect it. It may hit us in the way of radical Islamists suddenly taking over major countries where those oilfields are, such as Saudi Arabia. If that occurs, Lord forbid. Then we are going to have a crisis, and we are going to be wishing that we were not so dependent on foreign oil, as we are now.