Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today it is my honor to introduce a bill that would create the U.S. Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund. I am joined in this effort by my good friends, and fellow ``Citrus State Senators''--Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. By introducing this bill, it is our collective goal to create a guaranteed source of funding for scientific research aimed at addressing diseases, invasive pests, and other challenges faced by the U.S. citrus industry. Most importantly, the scientific research supported by my bill would benefit all citrus producers, regardless of where the citrus is growing. Citrus growers in the U.S. shouldn't have to ask themselves if this is the year a disease or a pest will wipe them out. That's why having a permanent fund to help combat these threats just makes a lot of sense. The most serious of these threats is citrus greening, a disease which kills the citrus tree and is spread by the Asian citrus psyllid, an insect no bigger than my fingernail. Because it attacks the tree and because it is so easily spread, this disease has the ability to wipe out the entire citrus industry. My bill does not require new funding or create any new taxes--it is funded by a portion of the existing import duties collected from imported citrus products. Specifically, the total amount of the fund may not exceed $30 million dollars annually, which is only about half of the total duties presently collected on imported citrus products. My bill is based on the model established by the Wool Trust Fund and adopts oversight and administrative controls for similar programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this bill is signed into law.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today it is my honor to introduce a bill that would create the U.S. Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund. I am joined in this effort by my good friends, and fellow ``Citrus State Senators''--Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. By introducing this bill, it is our collective goal to create a guaranteed source of funding for scientific research aimed at addressing diseases, invasive pests, and other challenges faced by the U.S. citrus industry. Most importantly, the scientific research supported by my bill would benefit all citrus producers, regardless of where the citrus is growing. Citrus growers in the U.S. shouldn't have to ask themselves if this is the year a disease or a pest will wipe them out. That's why having a permanent fund to help combat these threats just makes a lot of sense. The most serious of these threats is citrus greening, a disease which kills the citrus tree and is spread by the Asian citrus psyllid, an insect no bigger than my fingernail. Because it attacks the tree and because it is so easily spread, this disease has the ability to wipe out the entire citrus industry. My bill does not require new funding or create any new taxes--it is funded by a portion of the existing import duties collected from imported citrus products. Specifically, the total amount of the fund may not exceed $30 million dollars annually, which is only about half of the total duties presently collected on imported citrus products. My bill is based on the model established by the Wool Trust Fund and adopts oversight and administrative controls for similar programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this bill is signed into law.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are now on the 84th day of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Along with the over 175 million gallons of oil and natural gas that have gushed into the gulf, over 1 million gallons of dispersants have been applied, with 700,000 gallons applied under the surface of the water. This is a method of using dispersants that has been likened to a science experiment. With each passing day, we see new images of oil washing up on the shores, onto our beaches, into the wetlands, coating the wildlife. We have all seen it on television, and it is heartbreaking. But I worry more about something else, something we do not see. For 2 months now, academics, the media, and the public have asked about the possibility of vast amounts of oil miles away from the location of the spill. Independent scientists from research institutions in my State, such as the University of South Florida and Florida State University, took to the water early on. They sent their own research vessels out there to find the answers. What they found confirmed the fears we have--what we do not see, and that is detectable amounts of oil and hydrocarbons impacting areas away from the spill. These hydrocarbons may not look like what we imagined. We imagined ominous black clouds. But, in fact, what scientists pulled up from different depths in their water samples often came up clear, but just because you can't see the oil doesn't mean it is not there and it doesn't mean it is not having an impact. A few weeks ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its first report on subsea oil. Our top ocean science agency has been working to understand the impacts of subsurface hydrocarbons. While there is now some publicly available information on subsurface oil, many unanswered questions remain. Is the subsurface oil down there, and especially that which you can't see? Is it there because of the use of dispersants? Does the large amount of pressure caused by the weight of the water column at such depths--as far as 5,000 feet--lead to these plumes of oil being subsurface? What is the effect of having oil and gas throughout the water column as opposed to the oil floating on the surface? I believe it took so long to get any information because this is something we simply have not seen before. The last time this country dealt with a spill even near this magnitude was the Exxon Valdez spill. But that was a tanker that leaked in a bay where all the oil was in the upper layers of the water column. The oil basically stayed afloat. Here, we have a situation where the oil is being released 5,000 feet below the surface of the gulf. It is being sprayed with dispersants, and that keeps much of it down in that fragile environment and away from view. But, of course, the many organisms that live down at those depths are the base of the food web, and the impact of the dissolved and dispersed hydrocarbons on these critters is simply unknown. We haven't even begun to deal with the question of the natural gas that is also spewing out of the well. Some have estimated that as much as half of the volume coming out of the well is actually natural gas. Some of that is very probably dissolving, and it is possible that most of it is dissolving. But who knows how these chemicals are interacting with it? If any of the natural gas is bubbling to the surface, it could pose a threat to the health and the safety of wildlife, and it could pose a health hazard to humans on the surface of the gulf. As a result of all of this and so that we learn from this situation so we don't keep doing this same thing over and over, I am introducing the Subsea Hydrocarbon Imagery and Planning Act. This bill will address some of these gaps in our knowledge and understanding of what happens when oil and natural gas are released under the ocean. This bill will direct NOAA to review its current protocols for detecting and mapping subsea hydrocarbons. It would require them to develop priorities and to adopt a plan for the future by implementing a program within the Office of Response and Restoration dedicated to mapping subsea hydrocarbons and releasing what their trajectories are. State and local governments and the American people should have access to this information so they can plan accordingly. NOAA itself needs this information for incorporation into its protocols for closing and opening fisheries. And the people in charge of managing this crisis need this information so they can make informed decisions about how to proceed. We are in the midst, as we know, of hurricane season. While we have not seen this subsea oil with our eyes yet, a hurricane could make that worst-case scenario a reality. Last week, during the recess, I spent some time with some of Florida's best and brightest scientists who are studying this spill. I spoke with researchers from Florida Gulf Coast University, Mote Marine Laboratory, and the University of Miami's Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing. These institutions might have the technology and expertise that could be used to detect and monitor subsea oil and gas and measure its impact on fragile marine environments. As we look to the future and as we are getting NOAA to adopt a plan, that is a plan we need. This legislation--the Subsea Hydrocarbon Imagery and Planning Act--will ensure that days in the future we will not wonder how much oil and gas is out there, where it is, where it is going, and what its impacts will be because we will know. I hope my colleagues in the Senate are going to support this effort. Clearly, with what is going on, this well needs to be killed. There are 60,000 barrels of oil a day gushing into the gulf, and this has been going on now closing in on 3 months. Until the time the well is killed, they will continue to try to siphon off as much as possible, and that is the process they are doing now. They took off that one cap. All of that oil is gushing. They are going to try to put on another cap that will have a tighter seal that they can get more to the surface. In the meantime, all that oil on the surface--we have the skimmers-- we need to skim off and keep it from reaching the shore. If it gets on the beach, that is one thing. We can get it off the beach. It harms all of the industries. It harms tourism. Clearly, the perception that there is oil harms fishing. But the real ecological damage is when it gets past the beach and it gets into the bays, the estuaries, and the marsh grasses. Then it is so difficult to get out and it all the more compounds the impact on the critters. No. 1, kill the well. No. 2, scoop as much as we can get off the surface to keep it away from the shore. But No. 3, the big unknown is how much oil is underneath the surface and what is its long-term effect on the health of the gulf and on the entire ecological balance of the Gulf of Mexico and, indeed, other waters that could be affected, such as the Loop Current that turns into the gulf stream and that goes into the Atlantic. That is the big unknown, and that is what we are asking NOAA to do. That is why I am introducing this legislation. Mr. President, 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, we are now on the 84th day of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Along with the over 175 million gallons of oil and natural gas that have gushed into the gulf, over 1 million gallons of dispersants have been applied, with 700,000 gallons applied under the surface of the water. This is a method of using dispersants that has been likened to a science experiment. With each passing day, we see new images of oil washing up on the shores, onto our beaches, into the wetlands, coating the wildlife. We have all seen it on television, and it is heartbreaking. But I worry more about something else, something we do not see. For 2 months now, academics, the media, and the public have asked about the possibility of vast amounts of oil miles away from the location of the spill. Independent scientists from research institutions in my State, such as the University of South Florida and Florida State University, took to the water early on. They sent their own research vessels out there to find the answers. What they found confirmed the fears we have--what we do not see, and that is detectable amounts of oil and hydrocarbons impacting areas away from the spill. These hydrocarbons may not look like what we imagined. We imagined ominous black clouds. But, in fact, what scientists pulled up from different depths in their water samples often came up clear, but just because you can't see the oil doesn't mean it is not there and it doesn't mean it is not having an impact. A few weeks ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its first report on subsea oil. Our top ocean science agency has been working to understand the impacts of subsurface hydrocarbons. While there is now some publicly available information on subsurface oil, many unanswered questions remain. Is the subsurface oil down there, and especially that which you can't see? Is it there because of the use of dispersants? Does the large amount of pressure caused by the weight of the water column at such depths--as far as 5,000 feet--lead to these plumes of oil being subsurface? What is the effect of having oil and gas throughout the water column as opposed to the oil floating on the surface? I believe it took so long to get any information because this is something we simply have not seen before. The last time this country dealt with a spill even near this magnitude was the Exxon Valdez spill. But that was a tanker that leaked in a bay where all the oil was in the upper layers of the water column. The oil basically stayed afloat. Here, we have a situation where the oil is being released 5,000 feet below the surface of the gulf. It is being sprayed with dispersants, and that keeps much of it down in that fragile environment and away from view. But, of course, the many organisms that live down at those depths are the base of the food web, and the impact of the dissolved and dispersed hydrocarbons on these critters is simply unknown. We haven't even begun to deal with the question of the natural gas that is also spewing out of the well. Some have estimated that as much as half of the volume coming out of the well is actually natural gas. Some of that is very probably dissolving, and it is possible that most of it is dissolving. But who knows how these chemicals are interacting with it? If any of the natural gas is bubbling to the surface, it could pose a threat to the health and the safety of wildlife, and it could pose a health hazard to humans on the surface of the gulf. As a result of all of this and so that we learn from this situation so we don't keep doing this same thing over and over, I am introducing the Subsea Hydrocarbon Imagery and Planning Act. This bill will address some of these gaps in our knowledge and understanding of what happens when oil and natural gas are released under the ocean. This bill will direct NOAA to review its current protocols for detecting and mapping subsea hydrocarbons. It would require them to develop priorities and to adopt a plan for the future by implementing a program within the Office of Response and Restoration dedicated to mapping subsea hydrocarbons and releasing what their trajectories are. State and local governments and the American people should have access to this information so they can plan accordingly. NOAA itself needs this information for incorporation into its protocols for closing and opening fisheries. And the people in charge of managing this crisis need this information so they can make informed decisions about how to proceed. We are in the midst, as we know, of hurricane season. While we have not seen this subsea oil with our eyes yet, a hurricane could make that worst-case scenario a reality. Last week, during the recess, I spent some time with some of Florida's best and brightest scientists who are studying this spill. I spoke with researchers from Florida Gulf Coast University, Mote Marine Laboratory, and the University of Miami's Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing. These institutions might have the technology and expertise that could be used to detect and monitor subsea oil and gas and measure its impact on fragile marine environments. As we look to the future and as we are getting NOAA to adopt a plan, that is a plan we need. This legislation--the Subsea Hydrocarbon Imagery and Planning Act--will ensure that days in the future we will not wonder how much oil and gas is out there, where it is, where it is going, and what its impacts will be because we will know. I hope my colleagues in the Senate are going to support this effort. Clearly, with what is going on, this well needs to be killed. There are 60,000 barrels of oil a day gushing into the gulf, and this has been going on now closing in on 3 months. Until the time the well is killed, they will continue to try to siphon off as much as possible, and that is the process they are doing now. They took off that one cap. All of that oil is gushing. They are going to try to put on another cap that will have a tighter seal that they can get more to the surface. In the meantime, all that oil on the surface--we have the skimmers-- we need to skim off and keep it from reaching the shore. If it gets on the beach, that is one thing. We can get it off the beach. It harms all of the industries. It harms tourism. Clearly, the perception that there is oil harms fishing. But the real ecological damage is when it gets past the beach and it gets into the bays, the estuaries, and the marsh grasses. Then it is so difficult to get out and it all the more compounds the impact on the critters. No. 1, kill the well. No. 2, scoop as much as we can get off the surface to keep it away from the shore. But No. 3, the big unknown is how much oil is underneath the surface and what is its long-term effect on the health of the gulf and on the entire ecological balance of the Gulf of Mexico and, indeed, other waters that could be affected, such as the Loop Current that turns into the gulf stream and that goes into the Atlantic. That is the big unknown, and that is what we are asking NOAA to do. That is why I am introducing this legislation. Mr. President, 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, while we are waiting on other Senators who wish to speak on this judge, I wish to briefly inform the Senate that this coming Thursday, the full Commerce Committee will consider a number of bills that it will mark up. Among them is the authorization bill for NASA. We are building consensus in what has otherwise been a consensusless position of the future of the manned space program. The President had proposed one thing. He altered that. Different people have different ideas. Different aerospace companies all looking to have a certain part of the manned space program also have their different ideas. Out of this mix, we are trying to bring together Senators to build a consensus in a bipartisan way; the space program is not only not partisan, it is not even bipartisan. It is nonpartisan--to be able to do this in a fairly unanimous way. I am happy to report to the Senate that I think we are getting there. I believe what we will have is the essence of the President's proposal. It will still have the continuation of the President's proposal for competition among commercial space companies to deliver not only cargo to the International Space Station, of which the President recommended, and we will certainly authorize extending the life of the space station to 2020, something on which we have spent $100 billion. It did not make sense, as was proposed before, to cut it out in 2015, something we spent that much money on and are just now completing its construction. These commercial companies would, in this authorization bill, have the direction as to how they go about man rating their systems in order to have the safety, when you strap human beings on to rockets that defy the laws of gravity, to take a human being into low-Earth orbit to rendezvous and dock with the space station and to return safely. That is one thing. The next thing on which we are building a consensus is to accelerate the development of a heavy-lift vehicle. The President said no later than 2015. We are going to authorize NASA to start in 2011 and to take a lot of the existing technology and build upon that, make it evolvable with a heavy-lift vehicle that would be in the range of 75 metric tons in order to get space assets in the low-Earth orbit to ultimately fulfill the President's goal as stated in his speech to the Kennedy Space Center, which was to go to Mars by a flexible path. His specific timeline was to rendezvous and land on an asteroid by 2025. We accelerate the development of the heavy-lift vehicle. Because the hardware is there and ready, will be on the pad, we are going to authorize an additional flight of the space shuttle. This is the shuttle that they call the ``launch on need.'' It is a second space shuttle that is on the pad for the remaining two, in case they get into trouble. It becomes a rescue shuttle to get the marooned astronauts, were that to be the case. The fact is, they are doing so well now, and now that we are going to and from the space station on these final two missions, the likelihood of anything happening is de minimis and, therefore, we are going to authorize the flying of that last shuttle, the launch on need, because we believe there is a minimal risk. If something did happen on ascent-- such as a piece of foam coming off and hitting the wing and knocking a hole in it, which was the cause of the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia back in 2003--then the astronauts would be able to take safe harbor in the International Space Station, and they would then be able to be returned to Earth by other vehicles, such as the Russian Soyuz, which is a permanent lifeboat that is attached--two of them--to the International Space Station. We will continue in this authorization bill a robust research and development program. We will continue the President's recommendations for his science budget, for his aeronautics budget of NASA, and all of this will be within the amount of money the President has proposed. This NASA authorization bill will be for 3 years. We are expecting that we will be able to take this up this Thursday and to pass it out of the full Commerce Committee. We, of course, in respect to the appropriations process, have been in close consultation with our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. How the authorization committee and the Appropriations Committee worked together has been a good example of considerable cooperation. I wanted to bring that message to the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida pertaining to the introduction of S. 3569 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, 10 years ago I gave my maiden speech on the floor of the Senate. I was at a desk on the far side of the Chamber. In the course of that speech, I happened to mention that it was my maiden speech. I had been here about a month. I went on. I can even remember the subject. It was the deficit, since we were in a unique position that we actually had a surplus in the Federal Government and I did not want to see that surplus piddled away. I started talking about the budget and why it was necessary to keep the surplus, to utilize the surplus to pay down the national debt over a 10-year period. Some minutes later, after I had said this was my maiden speech, all of a sudden the doors to the Chamber flung open and in came Senator Robert Byrd. As I was giving this first speech on the floor of the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, he went over to his desk--the one that is draped with black cloth, and upon it sits the vase of flowers to note his passing--he sat there and he looked at me and listened to the rest of that oration. As I concluded, the Senator from West Virginia rose and said: Will the Senator from Florida yield? And I said: Of course I yield. He proceeded, off the top of his head, from that incredible, detailed memory, to lay out the history of maiden speeches on the floor of the Senate. He had been back in his office, and he had heard me, in the course of the audio from the television, say this was my maiden speech. He came up and went into this long discourse about the importance of maiden speeches and who were the ones who had given them and how long into their service as a new Senator they had waited to give them. Later on, as we were debating that budget, the great orator from West Virginia took the floor and began talking about a tax cut the Senate was considering; a tax cut he voted against, and so did this Senator from Florida. The Senator from West Virginia talked about this tax cut that was going to be a staggering $1.6 trillion. This is what the great senior Senator from West Virginia said. ``That is $1,600 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born,'' Senator Byrd declared. He went on to say, ``If we go for this big tax cut . . . that money . . . is gone.'' We all like tax cuts, but what we have to have is a balance of tax cuts and spending cuts, given the position then that we had a surplus, and how to responsibly use that surplus to pay down the national debt. What we have is a reversal of that. We, of course, have a huge deficit because the revenues are not coming in to match the expenditures and, thus, additional problems that have accrued from not listening to the Senator who sat in that black-draped desk. No one else spoke like Senator Byrd or was as original as he was. As we mark the passing of our dear colleague who, it has been said many times, was the longest serving Federal lawmaker since the founding of the Republic, as we mourn his passing, many will remember the Senator from West Virginia by the numbers and by the records he set. He made history. He brought depth and grace to the Senate. He is forever enshrined as a major part of its history. I can tell you that 10 years ago, we freshmen had the blessing of being tutored--no, more than tutored; we were students, we were pupils of the master teacher. He taught us the rules, so important to the conduct of business in this body. But he taught us something more. He taught us decorum. He taught us how to preside as the Presiding Officer. He taught us that it is respectful that when you are presiding, you absolutely listen to the speaker. He taught us so much. He was elected to no fewer than nine terms. He served first in the House for 6 years. He had cast over 18,000 votes. He presided over both the longest session of the Senate and the shortest. We had no fewer than 12 Presidents since he first took office. But the numbers do not tell the full story. Robert Byrd was one of the greatest advocates for just plain folks and especially if they came from West Virginia. He gave them his all, after his first and foremost love, his devotion to his wife Erma. In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, Robert Byrd always put public service ahead of personal fortune. On my desk in my Senate office, as I would suspect on many other Senators' desks, are copies of Senator Byrd's addresses on the history of the Senate--more than 100 of those speeches delivered over a 10-year period. Those are the only books that are set on my personal desk with book ends of two American eagles. That study has been called the most ambitious study of the Senate ever undertaken. Every day, those books remind me of the living history of this institution and its vital role in our democracy. Senator Byrd made rare and noble contributions to his family, his friends, his State, his country, and to this Senate. He was, in a living person, the walking history book of the Senate, which he could recite. Now, as he has gone on to the ages, he will be known as the historian of the Senate. And now forever for history, he will be one of the major parts of the Senate's history. We mourn his passing, we miss him personally, we grieve for his family, and we are thankful there was a public servant who surely the Lord would say: Well done, thy good and faithful servant.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. Madam President, I wish to give the Senate a report on the gulf oilspill. Mother Nature is now developing hurricane and it is very likely within a couple of days of reaching hurricane strength, which is 75 miles per hour or greater, but Mother Nature is smiling on us in that it is going on a more westerly track. It will probably go into the coast at northern Mexico, possibly southern Texas, but it will keep it away from heading into the area to the east of Louisiana where the oilspill is. Of course, if it had gone on that trajectory, then one of the worst nightmares would be that it takes all that oil on the surface, and in the rage of a hurricane, the counterclockwise rotation of the winds would take that right on to shore over the barrier islands, into the bays and estuaries where oil, once contaminating all the marsh grasses, becomes so difficult to get out. The effects of that we don't know. It could be for years to come, just as we don't know the effects of the subsurface oil that is there, that the scientists have identified, that BP denies, that even some of our Federal officials in NOAA deny. We are waiting on their report. Of course, we won't know the effects of that for years. We have a lot of uncertainty here. But at least for the moment, the hurricane is not bearing down on the oilspill, although let me remind my colleagues that we have a very active hurricane season coming up. What it is going to do, this first hurricane, is make the seas choppy and the waves large, even that far away. As a result, the skimming operations are going to be thwarted. That brings me to the topic of the skimming operations. I am grateful, since the U.S. Navy had identified 27 additional small skimmers that are stationed in ports around the country, that those have now been tasked to come to our inland waterways that are calm waters such as ports so that when the oil comes through the passes, through the inlets and gets into those calm water bays, we will have those skimmers there positioned to try to get it skimmed up before it gets into the marsh grasses. But why did it take so long? Why, of the 27, have only 9 been put on trailers and are on their way to the gulf? Why are the remaining 18 having to go through the legal ramifications, which I understand the law is the law, not to be completed until June 30, which is tomorrow, but why wasn't this done weeks ago? Because people do not have the sense of urgency that we do down on the gulf coast. They are not seeing their lives destroyed and their livelihoods eliminated and their culture completely changed. Of course, the effects of this for years, with 60,000--now people are finally getting around to acknowledging that it is 60,000--barrels of oil a day gushing into the gulf. It is filling up the gulf. It is affecting us and our way of life. There are how many States on the gulf? Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the big one, with the most coastline, Florida, my native land. How many is that? That is five. The remaining 45 States are not affected. They can see it nightly on the TV. They can rant and rave, and they can see that gusher that continues. It is there on TV for us to see, and we can be mad about that. But unless one lives there and understands the daily effect on people's lives, they can't get that sense of outrage we have. So is it any wonder I have such impatience when five of my counties on the gulf coast have submitted requisition forms for the moneys they have advanced and they still have not been paid? Is it any wonder I have a sense of outrage when I see people lose incomes because cancellations are coming in on a daily basis? Is it any wonder I have a sense of outrage when I see local governments not being able to plan on their budgets because they don't know what their local tax revenue is going to be because of a diminution of business? Is it any wonder those of us on the gulf have a sense of outrage as we see the fear, the trepidation, the anxiety about the future about what their livelihoods are? I am going down to the White House now to talk about the one thing we can make something good come out of this travesty, and that is the future of trying to wean ourselves from our dependence on oil by aggressively going after alternative energy sources. I hope out of this tragedy that will be one of the outcomes and that it will be led vigorously. But that sense of outrage I don't see. I am going to try to express it in the next few moments. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to show the Senate Pensacola Beach yesterday. It has hit us full force. That white is the natural sugary sand of the northwest Florida beaches. You can see as far as the eye can see down to the beach. It is covered with this black tar-like sludge. This was yesterday. More rolled in last night. There have been attempts to get out and scoop this up. This, as you can see, is not the tar balls, the little quarter-sized or dime-sized tar balls that have hit the beaches before. No. What this is showing is when you have 60,000 barrels a day gushing into the Gulf of Mexico now for more than 2 months, and that very likely will continue to gush for the rest of the summer--that is another 2\1/2\ months. It shows you what is the potential that is being portended. Another picture here from yesterday, Pensacola Beach. This is where the pier is. Here is the gulf. Here are the waves crashing in. This is far over this sugary white sand that you can see how much oil has collected. In the middle of the day when the Sun is beating down, it stays almost fluid like this. As the Sun goes down and it cools, this will start to become a more viscous consistency. As much as we want the people to come and enjoy our beaches--and this is the height of the season on the world's most beautiful beaches--is this going to be an incentive for them to come? You can imagine the lost income from the hotels, the restaurants, and all of the ancillary businesses. So this is a saddening reality, but it is a glimpse of what it is yet to become with that much oil out there in the Gulf of Mexico. Let me just give you a couple of iterations. They have said by putting this top hat--that is like a funnel to siphon off a lot of it until they can finally kill the well. They are saying it is going to be the end of August, the first part of September before they can get down to the bottom, the 18,000 feet below the seabed, intercept the well pipe, and then put cement down in it to kill the well. Until that point, they are trying to siphon it off at the well head, which is where the blowout preventer failed. Remember, they went in with one of those big shears and they clamped off the pipe called the riser pipe, and they put this kind of funnel over it called a top hat, and they are siphoning off. They said they have been able to siphon off 25,000 barrels a day. Well, that is very good, except 60,000 barrels a day are gushing. So as much as they can continue to siphon that off, at least maybe, certainly not half but at least some is being siphoned off and taken up to a tanker on the surface 5,000 feet above the seabed. But you know, check the Weather Channel. There is a tropical wave that is now developing in the South Caribbean. If you look at the National Weather Service projection of where it is going to go, it is going to intensify. It is going to become a tropical depression. Then it is going to likely become a tropical storm. Who knows, it may be a hurricane. And its projected path is to go right up in the Gulf of Mexico toward this damaged well. What happens? The ships cannot stay out there if a hurricane is coming. They have to go in and find safe port. So some 5 days before the arrival of the hurricane, the ships would have to decouple, stop the siphoning off of the 25,000 barrels, and, therefore, the entire 60,000 barrels a day would be gushing. Well, for how long? It would be 5 days before the hurricane and another 5 days after the hurricane passes before they can get back out there, reposition their ships, reattach the top hat. We are talking about a total of 10 days with no siphoning that 60,000 barrels a day and 600,000 barrels will have gushed into the gulf. That is three times the amount of oil that was spilled by the Exxon Valdez just in that 10- day period. So, of course, what I am asking is that the U.S. Navy preposition ships so we can have a surge of ships to come to the site after a hurricane has passed, so that extra 600,000 barrels of oil that has gushed from when they had to shut down would be skimmed. Now, let me tell you about the skimmers. Still today there is not a sufficient command-and-control structure as much as this Senator has continued to ask the incident command and the unified command: How many ships do you have out there? What kind are they? What are their positions? I still cannot get a straight answer to that. What is more is that the Navy has a series of smaller boats that are skimmers in port. That is pursuant to the law. Where you have a port, under the Clean Water Act and under the Oil Spill Act, and all of those existing laws, you have to have the capability, if there is a spill in port, to go in and clean it up. The Navy has some 45 vessels that can do that. Out of those, only six have been deployed to the gulf. These are boats that are basically 30 feet long. We cannot use them out in the gulf, but we can sure use them in the bays. When the oil goes through the pass or the inlet into the bays, we can have those additional smaller boats that skim up the oil before it gets into the bays. Out of those 40 boats, the Navy has identified another 27. Would you believe that until 2 days ago they still had not approved getting those 27 boats which the Navy has identified that they can put on trailers and bring to the gulf coast to preposition them in those bays to protect the estuaries? This Senator has called the head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson. Fortunately, on that very afternoon, she had approved the EPA signing off with a waiver for those boats, to allow those boats to leave those ports to get to the place where the big oilspill is. It has only been going on for over 2 months now. But at least that approval is in. But as of this afternoon--that was over 2 days ago. But as of this afternoon, this Senator cannot get those boats on trailers and on their way. Let me give an example. All along this beautiful beach there are several passes. Others call them inlets. At the State line, the Alabama-Florida State line, is Perdido Pass. That goes into Perdido Bay. That is shared by Alabama and Florida. Further to the east is Pensacola Pass. That goes into Pensacola Bay, the cradle of Naval aviation, at Pensacola Naval Air Station. It is right there on Pensacola Bay. That is where 2\1/2\ years ago, in a Fish and Wildlife boat in Pensacola Bay, that orange mousse that looked so awful was flowing in and flowing right toward downtown Pensacola. We gave a longitude and latitude position, and I think somebody got it before it got downtown. That is where the smaller boats can help and need to be prepositioned. Go further east. We have an interesting different kind of pass. It is called Destin Pass. It is the only inlet going into a huge bay that borders Eglin Air Force Base, called Choctawhatchee Bay. It is huge, with a lot of wetlands. This pass, unlike Pensacola Pass, is shallow. But because it is shallow, the incoming tide rushes through. You can imagine the force of that current, that once the oil gets to that point it is going to carry it into the bay. It is all the more reason we need the small Navy boats in the bays to skim it up before it gets into the wetlands. Because of all of the booming we have done--and I was just there Monday inspecting the booming--when that tide comes rushing in, a lot of those booms are not going to hold it. They even have sophisticated systems that we are trying to get. Since it is a shallow pass, you put on the bottom a pipe that shoots air up and therefore would get oil suspended below the surface, shoot it to the surface so you could collect it with booms, if the booms will hold in that onrushing high tide. Go further to the east, it is the pass going into Panama City, St. Andrews Bay, again, a deepwater pass, a similar situation. We need the skimmers in there. And then go further to the east, to a place where my grandfather came on a boat, my great-great-grandfather, 181 years ago, when my family came to Florida in 1829 to Port St. Joe, inside a natural bay that is created because of the arm of a cape called Cape San Blas. From the tip of that cape to the mainland is only about a mile and a half. It is hard to boom that. There, again, is why we need additional skimmers in that bay. If the skimmers out in the gulf can't get it all--and with so much oil in the gulf, that is going to be a chore-- then at least we have a fighting chance of getting it in the bay. It is with a heavy heart that I show a picture from yesterday in Pensacola Beach. It is a fact. This isn't the only time. We are going to be faced with this for months, indeed, probably for years. It is not only going to be the gulf coast, because when this oil shifts to the south and gets in a current called the Loop Current, that will carry it south to the Florida Keys, which becomes the gulf stream, which will take it up the east coast of not only Florida but the eastern seaboard of the United States. I remember after Hurricane Andrew that valiant emergency operations center director who said, when there was no Federal resources coming in: Where is the cavalry? I am asking now: Where is the cavalry? The cavalry is all these extra skimmers for the bays. The cavalry is the extra surge capacity of additional skimming, when a hurricane comes through and all that extra oil is gushed out. I am asking for the cavalry. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in my at least weekly report to the Senate about what is happening down on the Gulf Coast, I am sad to report to you that as of this moment, one of the remote operating vehicles has bumped into that top hat process that was funneling the oil off of the big structure, the blowout preventer from the pipe, the riser pipe, with the result that all of that oil now is not being siphoned off. The estimates now are upwards and probably pretty close to 60,000 barrels a day of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. Remember, when it started off, oh, it was only 1,000 barrels a day. Then it was only 5,000 barrels a day. Then it was maybe 12,000 barrels a day but max 20,000 barrels a day. Senator Boxer and I were able to get the streaming video out so the scientists could look and they could make their estimates, their calculations. Anyway, it has gone on and on. It is now up to 60,000 barrels of oil a day. The oil industry had said they had started siphoning off--first it was 10,000, then it was 15,000. They were trying to get it up to 25,000. Now, since this accident, that is being shut down--let's hope just very temporarily, but we are now back to the point that most of the oil is gushing back into the gulf. We know the result. If this continues for another 2 months, to the end of the summer, it is going to fill up the gulf with oil and it is going to do just what it is doing now. When the wind comes this way, it brings the oil from the South to the North; it brings it in onshore. The oil is now all the way from the wellhead off Louisiana, all the way across the gulf coast of northwest Florida. The blessing we had is that the wind has kept most of it off the coast. But, inevitably, when the wind rises up in the South, it brings the tar balls up. It has brought some of that terrible-looking orange mousse. That is one of the most repulsive-looking things. When I saw that in Pensacola Bay, to think of that in a pristine bay such as that and that the tides and wind were carrying it right to downtown Pensacola--that is what we are having to deal with. Tomorrow, the Energy Committee is having a hearing on legislation Senator Menendez and I have sponsored. This is to rectify the situation that brought us to this situation in the first place; that is, the safety checks were not made, the attention to detail on the application was not paid, and the checks were not made to see that the backup devices on the blowout preventer were, in fact, going to be there. In other words, the oil regulator--the part of the U.S. Government that is supposed to do all of these safety checks--was not functioning. Why was it not functioning? Because for better than a decade, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil industry and the regulator, called the Minerals Management Service in the Department of the Interior, and that regulator was so compromised by gifts, by trips, by jobs. Indeed, I am sad to report that the 2008 inspector general's report talked about there were parties, there was booze, there were drugs, there were illicit sexual relationships going on between the industry and the government regulators. How can you have government regulation under these conditions? Of course, there was the revolving door. The revolving door happens in other regulated industries as well, but this one was particularly revolving and revolving. What that is, somebody would come out of the oil industry, they would go through the revolving door, they would go right into the government regulator shop, they would stay there for a while and they would supposedly be an independent regulator, but, no, the door would revolve again and they would then go right back out of the government job, back into the oil industry--the very industry they were supposed to be regulating before. Is that a conflict of interest? You bet it is. Can you have an independent regulator? Of course you can't under those circumstances. So Senator Menendez and I have filed a bill. As a matter of fact, we had this back in 2008 when that inspector general's report came out. We could not get anybody to pay any attention to it back then. What is the result of lax regulation? It is exactly what has been visited upon us-- this trauma so many people in that region of the Gulf of Mexico are suffering. As the administration goes about the process of cleaning up the Minerals Management Service, reorganizing it, getting new personnel, then it is up to us to change the law to make sure there are penalties--indeed, even criminal penalties--for gifts and trips by the very industry you are supposedly regulating, which in this case claimed 11 lives and countless jobs and livelihoods and a whole way of life in a culture along the gulf coast. The bill that will be heard tomorrow, which we are grateful for, sets new penalties. It sets a limit--a mere 2 years--so that when someone comes out of the government regulator's office, they can't be employed in that oil industry they have just regulated until a period of time of 2 years has lapsed. It also provides penalties for the gifts, the trips, the favors we have seen chronicled, not in my words but in the words of the 2008 inspector general's report; the report 2 months ago, the inspector general's report; and the report a month ago, the inspector general's report. In this last report, he particularly talked about the revolving door. It is something we have to change. Sadly, it has taken the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history, but because of this tragic condition, this Congress ought to be poised now to crack down on the government's buddy-buddy relationships with the oil industry. Tomorrow, the Senate Energy Committee is set to begin debating legislation aimed at cutting the oil drillers' close ties to the industry and aimed at stopping that revolving door. It is going to prohibit the employees of the Minerals Management Service or its successor--since the Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, is now busting it up--they are going to have to wait around for 2 years before they get a job back in the industry. The goal is obvious: to limit the degree of influence big oil has on those who are hired to keep the drillers in line. It is the least we can do for those folks down home who are suffering so much right now. They expect us to update laws to meet the times. This is such a time. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. If I may finish the sentence--why should we not allow any kind of future devastation by a company to have the same liability?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the oil is relentlessly moving east in the Gulf of Mexico. A week and a half ago it hit Perdido Pass. That is in Perdido Bay. A week ago it hit Pensacola Pass. It is in Pensacola Bay. You ought to see what it looks like. There are tar balls. We know what tar balls look like. You ought to see what the reddish brown gunk looks like that I saw on Monday as the wind was blowing it right toward downtown Pensacola. Today, Destin Pass, further to the east, is being closed. But when it is closed by a boom it will not stop the oil if the oil is not already skimmed off out in the gulf because the tar balls will go right underneath the boom and the tides come rushing into the pass at 6 to 8 knots, and a boom will not stop the oil. This is what we are facing. We are facing the economic devastation as a result of the despoiling of the coast that relies, so much of its economy, on that coast being pristine--whether it is tourism, whether it is fishing, whether it is oyster, shrimp, et cetera. Why shouldn't the company--now that precedent has been set yesterday by them setting up a $20 billion trust fund, but that is not a limit. Why should we not--has my time expired?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I just came back from Pensacola. I saw the oil not only out in the gulf, I saw the oil in Pensacola Bay. It is also in Perdido Bay. There are tar balls in the bay. They are slipping underneath the booms. Those tar balls are getting into the wetlands, into the marsh grass. But out there in the bay, there is this reddish orange gunk. Sometimes it is in streamers. Sometimes it is in hamburger-sized patties. Sometimes it is in quarter, dime-sized patties. It looks awful. That is what we are facing. We are going to face it for a long time, especially if the oil continues to gush into the gulf for the rest of the summer. We have to have a command-and-control structure. After talking to all of our people in Pensacola at the emergency operations center, it is getting better. But it had to get better because when the oil entered Florida waters in Perdido Bay, the emergency operations center in Florida was not even informed by the EOC in Pensacola. So it has to be tightened up more, like a military chain-of-command structure, so when things need to get done they can get done immediately. The problem in the past has been the Coast Guard is here. BP is there. BP is doing its thing. We can't do that for the long term, as much as we will be facing. Secondly, we have to set up a trust fund because we are going to be in this for the long haul. Think of the restaurants and their livelihood that is at stake--not just the fishermen, the restaurants because people are not coming. What about the hotels? What about the lessened revenue for local governments and the school boards as a result of people not having the economic activity due to our fishing, our oystering, our beaches, our tourism, and all that? It is humongous. We need a trust fund. Fifty-five of us sent a letter 2 days ago saying we want a trust fund set up by BP, operated by an independent group, that would be on the magnitude of $20 billion. Let's get it now. I don't think BP is going to be going broke. But on the basis of the experience with the Exxon Valdez, a lot of those claims, there were questions about whether they ever got paid when there were legitimate claims. Third, tonight is the time for the President to say: We are going to declare that this Nation is getting on a road rapidly to make our independence from our dependency on oil. That is a report straight from the Gulf of Mexico on the Florida coastline. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. How much time remains?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, my worst fears are coming true. The wind that had so blessed us in our State of Florida for going on 7 weeks now shifted a few days ago, and this big spill of oil is moving to the east and to the northeast, and it is closing in on the gulf coast, the northwest gulf coast of Florida. Thus far, most of the more concentrated oil is well off shore. Under the command of the Coast Guard, there are skimmers 25 to 50 miles out from the coast that have a boom that goes out from a fairly decently sized ship that then scoops up that oil into a concentrated area. Then they have what is kind of like a vacuum pump. It is almost like a vacuum cleaner. It sits and floats on top of the water, on top of the oil, and it sucks it up into a pipe, and that goes into a tank or a rubber bladder on top of the ship. Thus far, they have been able to take care of a good bit of that oil. Of course, that is the strategy--to keep the oil offshore; don't let it get to shore because when it does, it messes up your beach and, even worse, it messes up the wetlands. As a matter of fact, when oil gets into wetlands, into marsh grass, into mangroves, you have a problem. More than likely, it is going to take a while for that marsh grass to come back. Mangroves and oil do not mix. Of course, then we are talking about these unique estuaries that spawn so much of our marine life in the Gulf of Mexico. So what we have is a nightmare that potentially is coming to reality. There are a lot of people who are working awfully hard. The Coast Guard is working hard, but right now the Coast Guard is stretched to the limit. There are only so many Coastguardsmen. They still have to do all the things the Coast Guard has to do all over the world, including the gulf coast. They still have to do rescue. They still have to do search missions. Down in south Florida, we still have to have the Coast Guard there going after the drug runners. So there is a limited amount we can have. As good as those men and women are, they are stretched to the limit. They are going around the clock. As the oil continues to gush, this problem is going to become more and more acute. It could become acute in a number of ways. We are being told--and I can certainly say this Senator has become a skeptic about what is correct information. Remember when we were told it was only 1,000 barrels of oil a day that was gushing into the gulf? A couple of weeks later, that was revised to 5,000 barrels of oil a day, and then that was revised to 12,000, but the report was omitted that said it could be as high as 25,000. Now we are told that this attempt called the top hat; that is, an attempt to put a cap on the top of that blowout preventer where they cut off the riser pipe, and the oil is going up to the surface to a tanker--they are saying that is now 10,000 barrels a day, but look at the live video and see how much of it is still gushing outside of that top hat. So how much is going into the gulf? Well, if it is 25,000 barrels a day, if that is the accurate figure, there is still 15,000 barrels of oil a day going into the gulf. And if it keeps going--and the Coast Guard admiral said yesterday it is going to go until September, until they can get the relief wells down and try to plug it with cement down near the oil reservoir, which is some 18,000 feet below the seabed. If it keeps gushing that amount all the way to September, it will be close to the largest oilspill there has ever been on planet Earth in the sea, which was the Ixtoc in the Bay of Campeche spill that spewed for 10 months. By the way, it was only in 150 feet of water, and they couldn't get it stopped. This is in 5,000 feet of water. If I sound a little distressed and frustrated, it is that I am because this Senator is reflecting the feelings of his people. What about the fishermen--those fishermen who have offered to use their boats for BP but have not been contracted to use them, but they can't use their boats because the waters are closed or even if the waters are not closed, the fish houses won't buy their fish because fish houses from all over the country are calling in and saying: We don't want your gulf fish; we think it is tainted. What about those charter boat captains, in the height of the season, summer, on the gulf coast of Florida? Those boat captains don't have the recreational fishermen coming and chartering their boats to go out because over a third of the gulf is closed, and for the same reasons-- they are worried about the fish. Are they getting hired by BP? Why are they hiring people from Tennessee and Arkansas and North Carolina with boats? Why aren't they hiring the Florida fishermen whose livelihoods have vanished? I am expressing some of the frustration my people are expressing to me. What about the poor hotel owners? They are at the height of the season. It starts Memorial Day and goes all the way to Labor Day. What about them? What about the restaurants that are in the height of the season? We hope people will come, because the beaches are still some of the most beautiful in the world. But the fact that they now see these silver-dollar-size tar balls--in some cases, hamburger-patty-size tar balls--that are all over the beach, are they still going to come and honor their reservation at the hotel? Will they go to the local restaurant? And if they do go there, will they order the local seafood? There are a lot of frustrated folks. By the way, Mr. President, the Presiding Officer is the former chief executive of his State. What about the local and State revenues? The State of Florida doesn't have an income tax. The State of Florida has a sales tax. The sales tax--if people are not staying in hotel rooms, and they are not buying meals in restaurants, and if they are not buying down at the local stores, the revenue is starting to dip. What is going to happen to the budgets of the local and the State governments and the revenues they come to expect? In the midst of all of this, we hear that BP says it will be accountable. Yet, we come out here on this floor--Senator Menendez, Senator Lautenberg, and I--and ask unanimous consent that in order to eliminate the artificially low cap of $75 million on liability for economic losses, there is always an oil State Senator who will stand up and object to our consent request to raise this artificially low cap. BP says it is going to, in fact, take care of legitimate expenses. But at the same time, BP was quick to point out in hearings that have gone on for several weeks--and certainly the nine hearings this week will go on--it will point out that there is a certain responsibility of the operator of the rig, Transocean, and the operator of putting the cement down into the well, around the casing that was supposed to be set, but obviously was imperfect--that operator was Halliburton. So, in effect, what we are going to have, and already have, is people pointing both ways. There are going to be so many lawsuits that will go on by the time they get to the bottom of this. And the investigation is going to go on for so long. In the meantime, what about our people and their livelihoods? What are they going to do? I was told by the fishermen that you have to have 14 days in which to actually send in the requisition after you have done your work, once you have been signed up, and you then expect to be paid within 14 days after you submitted your request for payment. Plus 14 is 28, so where is the fisherman going to get any money within that month in order to pay his deckhands, his assistants, and to pay his bills? It can continue to multiply. You wonder why I sound frustrated? There is so much uncertainty and people are scared. In the meantime, BP indeed has given some money for an advertising campaign--and that is a good thing--for Florida to run advertisements to say that our beaches are open, come on. But you know the reality of what they are hearing. I hope people will, because I can tell you those tar balls that are there--if people will get out there and clean it up--oh, by the way, it has to be an appropriately recognized group to go out and clean up the tar balls contracted by BP. Why can't we get our local governments to go out there and get those tar balls off the beach, so our guests and visitors can enjoy our God-given assets? All of these are questions that are still to be answered. So I am going to try several times with my colleagues to continue to get this artificially low cap raised so it will send a message to any oil company that in the future you better not cut corners. You better not have that cozy, incestuous relationship with the government regulator you have had for the last two decades. You better not think you are going to influence the government regulator as you have--as has been stated by the inspector general's report in 2008--with sex, drugs, booze, gifts, trips. And the revolving door, as stated by the most recent IG report last month--the revolving door, where they come out of the industry, the door revolves, and they come in as the MMS, the Minerals Management Service, the government regulator; and then the door revolves and they go right back into the employ of the oil industry. That is a conflict of interest. That is not government oversight of an industry, and it has led to this circumstance, where three apparatuses did not work as back-up mechanisms on the blow-out preventer, and it has led to the sad condition that we now have, where oil is gushing, and has been for 49 days, into the Gulf of Mexico and is ruining a culture and a way of life. I want to say that the Presiding Officer's State is not immune, and the other Senator on the floor right now, his State--an Atlantic coast State as well--is not immune, because, sadly, sooner or later the winds are going to continue to carry this oilspill to the South. It is going to get in what is known as the Loop Current and some of it is already entrained in the Loop Current. The Loop Current goes up into the northern Gulf of Mexico and loops back South, all the way down around the Florida Keys, and it becomes the gulf stream. It then moves North as the gulf stream up the coast of Florida, off the Keys. It then comes in and hugs the southeast coast of Florida quite close--very close--mostly in places less than a mile off the beach. It continues on up to the middle of the peninsula of Florida, and then it takes a turn to the Northeast and parallels the east coast of the United States. It goes up to Cape Hatteras, NC, and depending on winds, I would say to the two Senators who are hearing my words, even though that current, called the gulf stream, that goes off of Cape Hatteras across the Atlantic to Scotland--depending on winds and wave action, it can carry some of that oil to the rest of the Atlantic seaboard and to the States represented by the two very distinguished Senators here on the floor. So this could have profound effects. The question is, how do we get it stopped and, thus far, nothing has happened. So I think it is time for all hands on deck. I think it is time to realize that we have to throw in every asset we have to try to keep this oil off the coast, and especially out of the wetlands, and don't let what happened to Louisiana happen to the rest of our States, especially those delicate wetlands where you cannot get oil out of them. Then maybe this nightmare will be over. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

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. Mr. President, I filed two amendments to the emergency supplemental bill that focused on the desperate need for gulf fisheries data in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration knows our oceans and has responsibilities under several Federal laws to analyze the impacts of oil and gas production on sea life. My first amendment would have added $22 million in funding to support baseline environmental monitoring and assessments of the Gulf of Mexico's fisheries. $5 million of that funding would have gone to cooperative research grants that would have allowed fishermen to get out on the water and help collect this data. These funds are needed so that NOAA can do this valuable research throughout the gulf before the oil hits and then again while the spill moves. Like my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, I am committed to ensuring that those responsible bear the costs of this incident. And so my amendment would have required that the parties responsible for this spill reimburse these funds so that the American taxpayer doesn't shoulder this burden in the longrun. Why do we need this information? At a commerce hearing on May 18, Dr. French-Mckay, a Ph.D. in biological oceanography, testified that the lighter hydrocarbons in the oil--chemicals like benzene and toluene-- would dissolve by the time the oil reaches Florida's coral reefs. These hydrocarbons in solution might be just as toxic as they would be if they were still in the oil--but you won't be able to see when they hit. Yesterday, the University of South Florida issued a press release about research they had done that confirmed that there are dissolved hydrocarbons northeast of the spill that you cannot see with the naked eye. The only way you will know the effects of the hydrocarbons on coral and on the entire food web is to know the baseline amounts of these dissolved chemicals present in the water before the spill hits. Additionally, the fisheries in the fertile Gulf of Mexico are in jeopardy. Mangrove habitats provide nursery grounds for juvenile sportfish. The spawning season of many economically and ecologically significant species is upon us. A recent report estimated that saltwater recreational fishing the Everglades alone is worth more than $800 million a year. Unfortunately, baseline data for fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico is lacking. For example, there has never been a complete stock assessment for Tarpon and as a result, there are gaps in the knowledge of Tarpon behavior. Data that is available has been collected by a tagging program implemented by anglers. The research on economically important reef fish that our commercial and charter fishermen make their livelihoods from is also sparse at best. The effects of oil and dispersants on spawning, larval stages, juvenile stages, migrating patterns and lifespan of these valuable fishery and coral resources must be documented. Our Nation's scientists cannot accurately measure the impacts of this devastating spill on our fisheries without baseline pre-impact data. The research community in Florida knows how to conduct these assessments. In fact, they have done this for years when funding is available. The State of Florida has already spent over half a million dollars collecting baseline data. Yesterday, I filed a second-degree amendment. I worked with Members from the Gulf Coast States to try to put something together that could help all of the fishermen impacted by the spill and also evaluate the impacts on the natural resources. Unfortunately, that did not work, but I am pleased to have been a part of getting some funding for fisheries research with the passage of Senator Shelby's amendment. This will provide funds that can be utilized immediately to collect this data. This is an invaluable investment. I would hope that there is a way to utilize the skill and resources of the fishermen by doing cooperative research.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, yesterday, the inspector general for the Department of the Interior came out with their report-- this investigative report--which followed another inspector general report of just a month ago. These two inspectors general reports talk about what is wrong in the Minerals Management Service. The most recent report is quite disturbing, and it comes on the heels of the one a month ago where they found a culture where the acceptance of gifts from oil and gas companies was widespread throughout the Office of the Lake Charles District Minerals Management Service in Louisiana. That information, of course, came on the heels of what we discovered years ago in reports about the incestuous, cozy relationship between the oil industry and the regulators who are supposed to see that the oil industry is doing its job, and doing it safely, and collecting all of the revenues from the royalties that the oil industry is supposed to pay, having drilled on Federal lands, which is the sea bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. This latest investigative report points out: Of greatest concern is the environment in which these inspectors operate--particularly the ease with which they move between the industry and the government. That is called the revolving door. That is somebody in the industry who comes into the government as a regulator, and then the revolving door turns, and they go back into the industry. How in the world can we have a regulator who is coming from the industry into regulation of that industry, and then turn in the revolving door and go right back into that industry? That is the problem, and that is what we have to fix. My office is talking with Senator Menendez's office, and it is my intention that we will file a bill today that will do a number of things. It will stop this revolving door by requiring the same thing we require for ourselves in the Senate--that when we leave the Senate, we can't go to an entity that lobbied us as a business and that would then lobby the Senate for a period of 2 years. That is the minimum we should expect. This legislation will also insist on things that are common sense: that the regulators can't accept gifts from the industry they are regulating, and they have to have a financial disclosure that would show what the regulator owns, if they are in any way compromised with the very industry they are trying to regulate. If they have any outside interest--for example, stock in oil companies they are regulating--they would have to divest from that; and, furthermore, in the egregious case that they would be partially employed by the outside industry they are regulating, clearly that could be prohibited. These are just commonsense things. Why isn't this in the law? Senator Menendez and I offered this law 2 years ago when all of these revelations came out in that inspector general report back then. But, of course, there was enormous push-back on the legislation. Sadly, it has come to this great tragedy of thousands and thousands of barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico to bring us to the point where we ought to have a willing recipient in this Senate to this legislation we are filing that will stop this cozy, incestuous relationship between the oil industry and the regulators. I know Secretary Salazar is trying to clean it up, and he is doing what he should do. But what we want to do is to etch it into the statutes so there is no question about what is the requirement--not just for today but forever. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. One final question, Madam President, if I may----