Bill Nelson

I hope more members of this committee will join my fight for open inquiry.

When we start talking about muzzling of scientists, I think we better watch out how we are talking about which side is trying to do the muzzling.

I find it somewhat ironic that we are talking about censorship against those that speak against climate change when, in fact, it has been exactly the opposite over and over.

Sea level rise is a threat to an area such as Bangladesh. It would cause a huge--it will cause a huge displacement of population, which will cause turmoil, which is the conditions that are ripe for extremists to exploit.

The Department of Defense is quite concerned about the heating up of the Earth because of the implications for our national security.

To most people, a vote against scientific censorship is common sense.

Observation--not models, not projections, not dogma, but the data--tells us that the average global sea level is rising at about the rate of 3.2 millimeters a year since 1993.

That was actually a courageous vote.

But even with a majority of the Senate's support, the amendment failed because of politics.

I would like the record to reflect that such an invitation by Senator Thune, our Chairman, was not extended.

A majority of Senators--51 to be exact--agreed with me.

In Florida, you can see and touch sea level rise.

The Senator is certainly entitled to the information in order to make a reasonable judgment. This Senator is advocating fairness in the system. There was a time that Puerto Rico was, in fact, included under the bankruptcy laws. For…

I will. Let me make this statement. There is another part of unfairness, and that is that Puerto Ricans are not being treated the same way under the Medicare and Medicaid laws as well. To this Senator from Florida, who is close to the…

This Senator from Florida doesn't think it is true that Puerto Rico is having such economic chaos that the net result is that Puerto Ricans--who are American citizens--move to Florida. The fact is that some are moving to Florida, I would…

At the end of the day, I think what we want is the access to the courts for whoever is the aggrieved party, the consumer or the business.

Well, that is a good-news story.

So companies want to muzzle consumers, and these companies are using their size and unequal bargaining power to force consumers to sign these take-it-or-leave-it agreements or contracts.

In a state like mine, Florida that is so dependent on tourism, we want visitors to share their experiences.

You would really lose a lot of your ability if we cut off the access for either the aggrieved or the aggrievor into the courts.

Ms. Palmer, I am so sorry that you had to go through this experience.

Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee.

This type of provision is obviously outrageous.

And the idea that some companies are suing or threatening to sue their customers for truthfully reviewing their consumer experiences because of these so-called non-disparagement clauses in contracts in the fine print, I think it is…

This committee has seen a proliferation of these things just recently.