Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Or simple. And as a result I thank him for his elucidation of what is a place that we could start. It is not right or left; it is not R or D; it is common sense. One other thing I would add to the excellent presentation of the Senator, and that is that as the cost of gas creeps higher and higher-- and in parts of Florida it is now $4 a gallon, and oil is being sold on the international marketplace at something like $120 a barrel--how much of that is from speculation of people who buy and sell oil contracts for future delivery? How much is from people who are not users of the oil, such as an airline that would clearly have reason to want to lock in a fixed price for oil in the future as a hedge against that price of oil going up because they are going to use that oil as fuel in their airline? No, these are the ones who are merely flipping like hamburgers the contracts, over and over, which has a tendency to raise the price of oil. The price of a barrel of oil as it rises then clearly is going to affect the price we pay when we go into the gas station and put gas in our gas tank. If we would start using some common sense in our approach to these things and do it in a fair way, I think we could get along so much better and the American people would feel so much better about their Tax Code. I thank the Senator for his presentation.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I came to the floor to talk about an outstanding citizen in our State. But before I do, while my colleague is here, I just want to thank him for a very well-reasoned statement. What we need is overall income tax code reform. My colleague from Delaware and I have the privilege of sitting on the Finance Committee. Even though the prospects for Tax Code reform are very slim between now and the election, perhaps shortly thereafter we can get about the seriousness of the Tax Code, making it more fair, more simple, taking revenue that otherwise escapes the Treasury because it goes into all these tax preferences called tax expenditures, tax loopholes, and use that revenue to lower everybody's rates, including the individual rates and the corporate rates. That is eminently common sense. The reason I want to point this out is because our friend from Delaware has just pointed out one of those loopholes in an industry that is certainly not hurting because the five top oil companies in the last quarter--that is 90 days--had profits, not revenue--the five top--north of $25 billion for five companies for 90 days--not revenue, profit. We do not begrudge them the profit. But should there be these tax preferences that have been etched into the Tax Code over a century that, in fact, allow this industry to have tax preferences--in other words, deductions--of $4 billion a year? I think that would be a place we could start on tax preferences. You are obviously not going to get it in the context of the politics of an election. And you are not going to get it in isolation. We are going to have to look at the overall Tax Code and start making it more fair for the American taxpayer. I daresay there are not very many American taxpayers who think that the IRS Tax Code is a fair code.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Six million.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Six. So 26 million acres are under lease in the Gulf of Mexico and are not being produced.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for pulling up the chart that showed the amount of acres that are under lease and the minuscule portion of those acres--this is domestic production. We all know that domestic production has shot up in the last 3 years, considerably. Yet, of that domestic production, there still is so much capacity that is already leased out there. I use the example of the Gulf of Mexico. In the central and the western gulf, there are 32 million acres under lease and only 6 million acres of that 32 million are actually drilled and produced. There is ample opportunity for additional domestic energy production on top of the substantial increase of production that has occurred over the course of the last several years if we would stop fighting about this, if we would stop beating each other over the head politically with this and get serious. Senator Carper remembers when he and I were young Congressmen, we had a good example of leadership. We had Tip O'Neill, the Speaker in the House, and we had Bob Michel, the Republican leader. The two of them would get into their fights but they were personal friends, so at the end of the day when it was time to stop talking and get together and build consensus to get a workable solution, they could do it. We need that kind of model operating in Washington, DC, and State capitals around the country.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Wouldn't it suggest that they ought to use it or lose it?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Just in the gulf, 32 million acres. Guess how many acres are actually drilled and producing?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I came to the floor today because I want to congratulate a Floridian, Rosemary Armstrong, along with her husband Sandy Weinberg. I want to congratulate Rosemary because she has been such a long-time advocate of pro bono legal work in our State. She is a marvelous lawyer, a graduate of Columbia, and why she is to be congratulated at this point is that she has received the 2012 Tobias Simon Pro Bono Service Award. It is the highest honor in the State of Florida bar for pro bono legal work in our State. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tobias Simon award, and it was named after the well-known civil rights attorney in Florida. The award honors the work of private lawyers for 30 years now, who provide free voluntary legal services to the poor. Over the past 25 years, Rosemary has used her time and she has used her talent to provide those pro bono legal services. She has volunteered with the Tampa Bay Area Legal Services Volunteer Lawyers Program since 1986. She has donated 1,200 pro bono hours directly to serve those in need. She was elected to the Bay Area Legal Services Board and she served as a board member for 22 years. She has served as president of that board for 3 years. Rosemary has handled so many cases in so many areas of the law, including elder law, housing, and juvenile dependency cases. Of particular note is the significance of her work with victims of domestic violence. Rosemary was recognized last year for her work with the Florida Bar President's Pro Bono Service Award. This award is further recognition of her commitment and dedication to making sure everyone is well represented when they have to go through the legal process. She is supported by her family. She is supported by her husband, a fellow lawyer, Sandy Weinberg. Again, congratulations, Rosemary Armstrong, for receiving the Tobias Simon Pro Bono Service Award. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a great Floridian, Dr. John Hitt, who earlier this month celebrated his 20th anniversary as the president of the University of Central Florida. First and foremost, I would like to congratulate him on reaching this milestone, and thank him and his wife Martha for everything they have done for Central Florida over the past 20 years. When they arrived at UCF in 1992, Dr. Hitt outlined five goals for UCF that have held steadfast for two decades. He wanted the school to offer the best undergraduate education available in Florida and achieve international prominence in key programs of graduate study and research. He wanted the school to provide international focus to UCF's curricula and research programs, become more inclusive and diverse, and to be America's leading partnership university. This innovative vision and entrepreneurial spirit have led to UCF becoming our nation's 2nd largest university and a place among America's premier metropolitan research universities. When Dr. Hitt arrived in Orlando, he knew that the key to making UCF a world-class university and a vital force in Central Florida was going to be through the power of partnerships. It would be through partnerships with our community and State colleges where UCF accepts 29 percent of all Florida community and State college transfer students, making it the No. 1 destination for transfer students in the State university system and among the top universities in the United States for community college transfer students. It would be through partnerships with industry and government that led to the growth of the Central Florida Research Park--one of the top five research parks in the country--and to the founding of the Florida High Tech Corridor Council, which links the resources and talent of UCF, the University of South Florida, and the University of Florida with high-tech companies. And, it would be through partnerships that are profoundly transforming Central Florida, such as those that led to the creation of the UCF College of Medicine which has become the cornerstone for a growing medical sciences cluster of facilities known as the ``Medical City at Lake Nona.'' A few weeks ago, Dr. Hitt told the UCF community that if he had learned anything in 20 years, it was that our greatest danger is not to dream too large, but to dream too small. In the years that he has led UCF--and in the 50 years that he has had Martha at his side--John Hitt has stayed true to his ideals, his vision, and his heart. Mr. President, Dr. Hitt is fond of saying that UCF ``stands for opportunity.'' That is in no small part because of his strength of character, bold vision and steady leadership. As UCF celebrates its 50th anniversary next year, Dr. Hitt's unique approach to tackling challenges and creating opportunities has taken UCF from promise to prominence. On this special anniversary, I thank Dr. Hitt for not straying from the five visionary goals that he outlined in his inaugural address two decades ago--and for showing us what is possible through passion and partnership. Thank you, Dr. Hitt.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, with all of the very well deserved statements that have been made about our colleague Senator Barbara Mikulski, I wanted to raise my voice in support of the milestone she recently achieved as the longest-serving woman in congressional history. A personal word I want to add about Senator Mikulski is that she has been so supportive and such a leader of our Nation's space program. As the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, she has to be intimately familiar with the details and the appropriate way to allocate funds that are vital for our civilian program to go forward in the visionary and frontier breaking manner that it always has and I am grateful for her leadership. I wanted to add this to the accolades that she so well deserves and has already heard from so many of our colleagues. Senator Mikulski began her tenure in Congress in 1977 as a member of the House of Representatives. She represented Maryland's Third District for ten years before moving to the Senate in 1986. During her time in the Senate, Senator Mikulski has been a champion for many of the issues that are particularly important to my fellow Floridians and me. She is a strong supporter of veterans' and seniors' issues. Senator Mikulski has also worked to protect our oceans by supporting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, especially during one of the worst environmental disasters we've seen. In 2010 she conducted a subcommittee hearing to explore the use of dispersants in response to the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf, helping us to better understand the long-term consequences of that environmental tragedy. Senator Mikulski also serves as Chairman for the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Children and Families. In December, she chaired a hearing on child abuse, casting light on this issue and urging her colleagues to take greater steps to combat it. I am honored to have served with Senator Mikulski for the past decade, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on matters of great importance to Maryland, Florida, and the rest of the country.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I just wish to underscore the statement of the Senator from California with regard to the Outer Continental Shelf and point out that the Vitter amendment would allow drilling in the one place on the Outer Continental Shelf that is off-limits in law; that is, the Gulf of Mexico off Florida. There are several reasons that was passed in a bipartisan way with my colleague Senator Mel Martinez back in 2005. In the first place, there is no oil out there of any appreciable amount. The Senator has already pointed out there are 50 million acres under lease that are not drilled. Well, 30 million of those acres under lease that have not been drilled are in the Gulf of Mexico, where the oil is, in the central and western gulf. There is very little oil and gas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Why? Because Mother Nature had those sediments coming for millions of years down the Mississippi River, and then the Earth's crust compacted for millions of years and made that oil and the oil is where the sediments were. It is not out there and the oil companies know that and that is why they have 37 million acres under lease and only 7 million in the Gulf of Mexico are drilled, are producing of the 37 million acres. That ought to be prima facie evidence of why we don't need to go in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida. But there is more. Didn't we have some lessons from the BP oilspill 2 years ago of what happens to tourism when oil comes up on the beach? It came very little on the Florida beaches, thank the good Lord, but the tourists thought the beaches were covered. So that tourist season on our gulf coast beaches was a bust from the Alabama-Florida line all the way down the west coast of Florida. We get down to Clearwater Beach, St. Petersburg Beach, lo and behold, they had a devastating dropoff of tourists who didn't come to those hotels and those restaurants and all those ancillary businesses. Part of what we have been doing with the BP money is trying to make people whole for all the income they lost. That ought to be reason enough. But there is another reason, and this is where people often are so surprised when I tell them. The Gulf of Mexico off Florida is the largest testing and training area for the U.S. military in the world. This Senator from Florida has two letters from two successive Secretaries of State--by the way, both Republican--Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Gates, that say we can't put oil drilling and oil-related activities in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida in the test and training range, which in effect is the Gulf of Mexico off Florida. I just wanted to bolster the Senator's statements about why we have to vote down this Vitter amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we are going to divide 1 minute; 15 seconds here, 15 seconds there, and 30 seconds for Senator Shelby. I will just say this is the BP fine money to come back and restore the Gulf of Mexico and people who earn their living from the gulf.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if I may be recognized, I want to point out that later on today we are going to have an amendment that is bipartisan. It is an amendment that, of its original filing with 10 Senators, 3 of them are Democrat and seven of them are Republican. It is called the RESTORE Act. What it does is when the fine is determined on BP because of the 5 million barrels of oil they spilled--the fine allocated according to the Water Pollution Act, which says that a fine will be levied upon anyone who spills a barrel of oil in public waters, and, of course, because of the enormous amount of oil that was spilled, this could be a very substantial fine, 5 million barrels of oil--once that fine is determined, then the question is how is it going to be allocated. If nothing is done, only about $1.5 billion would go into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The rest of it is undeclared. Naturally, what the Gulf Coast Senators wanted to do was to have some of that money come back to restore the gulf--the critters, the water, and the people who are the ones who suffered as a result of the BP oilspill. What we have worked out is a formula, that 20 percent of whatever the fine is would go back to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and the remaining 80 percent would be allocated according to a formula devised by the National Gulf Restoration Council, appointed by the States and the Federal Government. It would go to make the environment of the gulf whole. It would go to help the economic development along the gulf that had suffered. And, very critically to this Senator, it would go to help research the long-term health effects on the gulf because there is no telling the effects. With all that oil sloshing around out there, we are already seeing enormous effects and we are going to be seeing that for years and years. For example, there are two professors down at LSU with whom I visited who have been doing research on a little fish that roots around in the marshes to get its food. This little fish, called killifish--it is about the size of a silver dollar--they took that little fish and took slices of its gills, put them under a microscope, and have shown dramatic results in fish that live in the marshes where the oil penetrated, such as Barataria Bay, where it is all mixed up down into the sediment, and then taking samples of the killifish that came from marshes where not much oil hit. The dramatic result shows that these little fish do not reproduce. The ones that are there are stunted in their growth. They have all kinds of aberrations in their actual biological makeup. This spells bad news for the future of the gulf. It is one of the amendments to the transportation bill. It is about five down on the list. Hopefully we will vote on it this afternoon. With seven Republican Senators being the sponsors of the original legislation, we are going to have this up. I plead with Senators, if you are concerned that you do not want all this money that is being fined as a result of the spill in the gulf--if you want it to go elsewhere in the country, I plead for you to recognize if you were in our shoes what you would want. But acknowledging that you want some of the money--because we had to get a pay-for, and the pay-for is not controversial, yet it produces about $1.5 billion additional--that can go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The pay-for is something that the Senate has extended every year, a portion that was passed back in 2004 having to do with the World Trade Organization. It is a very complicated thing. Each year the Senate has put that in abeyance for another year. That is our pay-for, to put it in abeyance for the ninth year of the 10 years that this provision is to be in effect. What it does is it produces about $1.5 billion for the Land and Water Conservation Fund so that it will have an effect for those concerned outside of the area of the Gulf of Mexico. As you know, the Deepwater Horizon oilspill was right at 5 million barrels. It coated the beaches. It seeped into the wetlands. It kept fishermen at the dock during one of the busiest fishing seasons. It killed wildlife. It kept the tourists away from the gulf. The long-term impacts are not known because there is still a lot of oil out there at 5,000 feet, on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. The fish and the wildlife that were not immediately killed are showing the signs of damage, as I have indicated with the killifish. The gulf residents and the communities continue to suffer. In the Senate today, we have a chance to take a step to make the gulf coast whole again. As a sign of solidarity for the gulf, of the five Gulf Coast States that collectively have two Democratic Senators and eight Republican Senators, all but one Senator of those five States signed as a sponsor of the bill. It is bipartisan. This commonsense legislation is supported by so many people who looked at this: National Environmental Policy Act groups, sportsmen, chambers of commerce, academic institutions, local governments, the business community. Today's vote is going to be a huge step toward making sure that the fine that is going to be imposed upon BP, however much it is, ends up in the local communities that were harmed by BP's oilspill; otherwise, the money is going to end up in the Federal Treasury, and there is no telling, then, where it is going to be spent. The RESTORE Act amendment provides funding to each Gulf State for ecosystem restoration and economic recovery. It also creates a Federal- State council responsible for developing and executing a holistic plan to increase the resiliency of the gulf ecosystem. Why were baby dolphins dying in record numbers? We don't know. We have to find out. We have to test these results for years to come. The amendment is also going to ensure that each Gulf State would come up with a State plan that is consistent with the Federal-State council plan. Finally, this bill sets aside funding for science, specifically dedicating funding for data collection for our fisheries, for our wildlife, for long-term observation and monitoring, and sets up centers of excellence to carry out research on the gulf for years to come. But there is also a national component in this bill. It creates a set-aside funding for an endowment for the oceans, an endowment for the Great Lakes, so in addition to restoring the gulf where the harm occurred, we can better protect all of our coasts from environmental harm. It provides substantial investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which I mentioned, which protects and conserves land in each and every State in this Union. I believe our people, the whole of America, deserve a healthy and productive gulf too, and the civil fines that are going to be assessed to BP can ensure that. I wish to share with my colleagues a vision for a restored Gulf of Mexico. One of the lessons we learned--and we learned it too late--is that we do not have sufficient understanding of the gulf ecosystem. We know that one-third of our domestic seafood comes from the gulf waters but we did not have a clear picture on the biological status of two- thirds of the federally managed fish stocks that call the gulf home, so it is important that some of these fines go toward dedicated, long-term science about the gulf ecosystem. That was one of the main things I wanted to get into the RESTORE Act, because of the obvious implications for the long term. A restored gulf is one in which clean water that is free from algae blooms and free from tar mats, is home to oyster reefs and fish habitat and sea grass beds, where charters ferry tourists from hotels to pristine beaches and then on out to the productive fishing spots. An integral part of the restoration is to shore up the coastal communities that were hardest hit by the economic impacts of the oilspill. It is going to take a substantial investment to achieve those goals. The gulf cannot wait. The rigid partisanship that has sometimes gridlocked this body has given way to a spirit of strong collaboration and bipartisanship in this Senate when it comes to the RESTORE Act. I thank all the cosponsors of the amendment and the cosponsors of the RESTORE Act, and I urge and plead with our colleagues to support this amendment. It is right for the gulf. It is right for the country. I call up my amendment, No. 1822, which is at the desk, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this Friday will mark 5 years since FBI agent Bob Levinson disappeared while on a business trip as a retired FBI agent. He was on a business trip to Kish Island in the Persian Gulf. It is a part of Iran. That is 5 long years that his wife Christine has been without a husband and 5 long years that her seven children have been without their father. Over those 5 years I have spoken so many times about Bob--a retired FBI agent and a resident of south Florida--from the floor of the Senate and so many other venues. Just yesterday I met with his wife Christine after she joined FBI Director Robert Mueller and Deputy Director Sean Joyce in announcing a $1 million reward for information leading to Bob's safe return. So in southwest Asia billboards will soon start to appear announcing that $1 million reward, and it is in southwest Asia that we know Bob is being held. Today I wish to talk about his children because tomorrow in Miami the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI will honor Bob's two youngest children--his son Doug and his daughter Samantha, both of whom, along with their other siblings, have persevered through this very difficult time. Doug was in the seventh grade when Bob disappeared. This year he will graduate from high school, on his way to college. He has excelled academically and athletically and has grown to almost his father's height. Bob will be shocked at how tall Doug is, but he will be even more proud of all that his son has accomplished. Samantha, Bob's daughter, was in high school when Bob disappeared. In just a few weeks she will graduate from college. Samantha has been a resident adviser and a proud member of her sorority. She interned at Disney where she hopes to work after graduation. Again, when her father returns, he will be so proud. To honor Bob's children, and standing in solidarity with one of their own, the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI will award to Doug and Samantha scholarships to assist with the cost of college. I thank that society and those agents who have protected us so much over the years. I thank them for their service and for their kindness. I congratulate Doug and Samantha for all they have accomplished under such very difficult circumstances. To Christine Levinson, this heroic woman who has stood so strong in the midst of great adversity for 5 years--I say to Christine and her children that this government will not rest, none of us will rest until we have brought Bob home. I look forward, as do so many, to that day of celebrating with them and celebrating with all of Bob's friends and his former colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we are going to vote on Judge Jordan, a Cuban-American Federal district judge, who has been named by the President to go to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Jordan came out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. As Senator Rubio and I spoke on Monday, the two of us, in a bipartisan way, do all of the selection of our Federal district judges--and it is all done in a bipartisan way. In this case, with Judge Jordan being elevated to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals--again, done in a bipartisan way and, indeed, the motion for cloture on the nomination; that is, to stop all debate on the nomination, was passed at a 5:30 vote Monday afternoon by a vote of 89 to 5. So at noon today, we are going to vote on the actual confirmation, which is the second step in the process: after the President nominates, the Senate confirms. Judge Jordan, by our vote today--which I expect will be rather overwhelmingly bipartisan--will ascend to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as the first Hispanic judge on that Court of Appeals. I think it is instructive that we could have done all of this Monday at about 6:00 after the vote had occurred 89 to 5 to cut off debate. Yet the Senate rules allow even one Senator, if they object--which one Senator did object--to the waiving of the cloture cutting off debate. The Senate rules say there can be up to 30 hours of debate before the matter at hand is voted on. Of course, with a vote of 89 to 5, it is pretty well determined, especially since Senator Rubio and I were the ones who were bringing this judge to the attention of the Senate. Yet here we are. It is now Wednesday at noon that it is going to take us to get to this judge. This is illustrative of how the Senate is not working. For whatever reason, the Senator who objected--which, by the way, it is my understanding that the Senator had no objection to the judge; it is some other extraneous matter and, therefore, wanted to slow up and throw rocks into the gears of the Senate so that what could have been dispensed with on Monday evening at 6:00 is now taking all the way until noontime on Wednesday, after the 30 hours have run. For the Senate to function it has to have a measure of trust among Senators. It has to be bipartisan. The two leaders have to get along. In the process, a lot of the work is done by unanimous consent, with the consent of the two leaders, the Democratic leader and the Republican leader. But when things get too hyperpartisan or too ideologically rigid, then that is when the whole process, the mechanism goes out of kilter. It is just another illustration in this time of an election cycle for President where things are highly sensitive from a political, partisan, and ideological standpoint that a judge who is warmly embraced by both sides for his confirmation is getting held up. I will close by recalling the reason that Judge Jordan got a vote of 89 to 5: He has had a stellar record as a Federal district judge. He has, over the course of his career, clerked, when he came out of law school, for a judge on the Eleventh Circuit. Then he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He went back and was an assistant U.S. attorney, and then went to the bench and has been there for over a decade. This is the kind of person we want to have in the judicial branch of our government. I commend him on behalf of Senator Rubio. The two of us have been in a meeting all morning in duties of another committee, the Intelligence Committee. I commend to the Senate, on behalf of Senator Rubio and me, Judge Jordan to be confirmed for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Reserving the right to object, and obviously I am not going to object, but I want to say to the Senate that this is an example--89 to 5--that debate has been cut off on a nomination that has the bipartisan support of Senator Rubio and myself of a judge from Florida. One Senator was holding up the works in that he would not agree to the consent that you dismiss the 30 hours of debate. That is now causing us to delay this action. Is it any wonder, I ask the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that we cannot get things done around here when we see this kind of action even given this kind of bipartisan support of a judge?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to four American heroes who embody the spirit of what it means to serve your fellow man. Those heroes are the four Army chaplains who served on board the United States Transport Ship Dorchester in 1943--Methodist Minister Reverend George L. Fox, Rabbi Alexander D. Goode, Roman Catholic Priest John P. Washington, and Reformed Church in America minister Reverend Clark V. Poling. On February 2, 1943, the Dorchester was making its way across the North Atlantic, carrying 904 service men, merchant seamen, and civilian workers. This area was under constant patrol by German submarines; it was a dangerous area for American vessels and several ships had already been sunk between Newfoundland and Greenland, the Dorchester's intended destination. At 12:55 a.m. on February 3, a German U-boat spotted the Dorchester and fired 3 torpedoes at the American ship, delivering a fatal blow. The Dorchester began to take on water and would sink beneath the freezing ocean in under 25 minutes. Many had been killed or injured in the initial blast, and panic set in as the passengers and crew attempted to find life vests and get into lifeboats. Many of the surviving passengers recall the calm disposition of the four chaplains who made their way to a storage locker and handed out lifejackets. When there were no more lifejackets, the chaplains removed their own and gave them to four passengers who were without. Rabbi Goode was seen giving away his only pair of gloves, and throughout the chaos and panic survivors could hear the chaplains preaching courage as the ship went down. There were not enough rubber suits onboard to protect the passengers from the frigid North Atlantic waters. Of the 14 lifeboats aboard, only 2 were successfully used in abandoning ship. Of the 904 passengers, only 229 were saved by nearby vessels. 14 bodies were recovered, and 661, including the 4 Army chaplains, were missing and unreported. In recognition of the extraordinary heroism displayed by the chaplains when they sacrificed their lives by giving up their life preservers to other men aboard the Dorchester, Congress authorized the Special Medal for Heroism which was awarded by President Eisenhower on January 18, 1961. No such medal has been awarded again in our Nation's history. Millions of men and women have served bravely in our military. Many, like the chaplains onboard the Dorchester, have gone above and beyond the call of duty. The 4 chaplains on board, despite their differences in faith, came together to bring comfort to the 904 men on board the Dorchester. And they proved that it is possible to serve not only their country and their God but also their fellow man. On February 14, a monument to the four chaplains of the Dorchester will be unveiled in Sebastian, FL. In January, I had a chance to meet Ernie Heaton, the last living survivor of the Dorchester sinking and a key leader in the push to get a monument put up in Sebastian. It was clear after meeting Ernie that witnessing the four chaplains' sacrifice first-hand made a lasting impact on him, just as their story continues to inspire all of us.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is there a consent order that was entered into yesterday?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how many minutes does the minority have remaining?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would the Senator consider 15 minutes, given the inequity of the time?