Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That amendment is identical to legislation passed in the House of Representatives by a whopping vote of 402 to 19. It will put the brakes on excessive speculation in the oil markets. The bill directs the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to use its existing authority, including its emergency powers, to immediately curb the role of excessive speculation in any market it regulates and to eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or unreasonable fluctuations, or unwarranted changes in prices. We wonder how does this occur. It occurs because as people get into the marketplace wanting to protect against the future rise of the price of a barrel of oil, they buy a contract to lock in a certain price for that oil to be delivered in the future. Naturally, a business that would want to do that would be, for example, the airlines. If they think the price of oil is going up, they want to get in and buy a supply of that petroleum at the price now before it goes up. What happens is, when these commodities exchanges were unregulated by the Enron loophole in December of 2000, there is no regulatory authority by these exchanges. So, for example, they could not require a certain amount to pay down, if you are going to buy that futures contract. And if you don't have to pay anything down, then there is no skin in the game of just continuing to buy and bid up the price. Or, for example, they could require that you had to buy those contracts because you had a reasonable expectation you were going to use that in the future, like an airline company. But, no, what happens is, if you don't have to have that reasonable expectation, the people who want to get in and ride that price up--in other words, the speculators, such as the condo flippers who buy a condo because the rise in price is going to occur and will flip the contract for the purchase of the condominium without ever having to close. It is the same concept of speculation. We should note this does not apply only to the markets the Commodities Futures Trading Commission does regulate. There are still dark markets beyond the regulators' control. There is respectful debate amongst some in the Senate over the reach of the provision we passed in the farm bill last year that gave the Commodities Futures Trading Commission the oversight over unregulated trading of large oil contracts. We have to go further. I recently learned that the commission, the CFTC, is now utilizing its new authority for the first time. I believe what we have to do is to give them additional tools to go further than just discretionary oversight and that they should be able to regulate all energy trades. In addition to the Sanders amendment, ultimately, I wish the Senate would consider a bill I have filed that would simply turn the clock back to December of 2000 when the Enron loophole was passed, before these sweeping changes were made that allowed rampant and excessive speculation in the energy markets.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, while we debate the Tourism Promotion Act, we are remiss to not mention the fact that as we are going into this travel and tourism season of summer, what is happening with gas prices. Gas prices have risen for the last 50 days. It has been the longest record streak of rises, dating back to 1996. The national average of gas has gone from $1.61 a year ago to more than $2.67 a gallon today. Crude oil is now over $70 a barrel. It has doubled in the last 4 months. How soon we forget the lessons we learned a year ago during last summer. In the runup of the oil and gas prices, it wasn't the result of the fundamental concepts of supply and demand. It is largely runup due to excessive and unchecked speculators on unregulated commodities futures markets, running up the price of oil as they speculate buying and selling. It is a fact that across America, we are using less gas. According to the Energy Information Administration, demand for petroleum products in this country is lower today than it was 10 years ago. According to the EIA, the supply of petroleum products is higher than it was in 1982. So we wonder why. If this isn't being caused by supply and demand, which it isn't, but gas prices keep going up, what is happening? There is going to be an amendment on this bill offered by Senator Sanders. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1330.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to speak to the nomination of Inez Tenenbaum to be Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Over the past few years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has faced a number of serious challenges: inadequate staffing, insufficient funding, a product testing facility that was a joke. As a matter of fact, we saw a picture of it--it was a couple of cardboard tables with all of the imported toys dumped on it--when we were having that trouble with the defective imported Chinese toys. Most significantly, it lacked leadership at the top. We took action last year, and we gave the CPSC new authority, new funding, and a new lab facility. Today we have to deal with the final issue, and that is leadership. I commend to the Senate that I think Inez Tenenbaum is going to be that leader. She had her nomination hearing earlier this week in the Commerce Committee. Throughout her career in the South Carolina Legislature, Inez Tenenbaum showed compassion and leadership on environmental and children's issues. Then she was South Carolina's superintendent of education. It was an elected position. She took charge and reinvigorated an agency with over 1,000 employees. By the time she stepped down from that post in 2007, she was recognized for her efforts to improve the accountability, standards, and performance in South Carolina's public schools. I think this is exactly the kind of leadership the CPSC needs at this time. I met with her personally, and I know her personally, and I strongly support her nomination. So my concluding comment is, we are not only having problems in Florida with Chinese drywall--Chinese drywall that is completely ruining the lives of people in their homes because of the smell and the corrosion and the sickness that it is bringing on to people--lo and behold, they are finding that Chinese drywall now in daycare centers, in commercial buildings, and it is even reported in Virginia that they are finding it in a hospital. This is going to be a big issue in front of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They have the authority under the law to do something about it. They have lacked the leadership. Now, with Inez Tenenbaum, they ought to be able to start doing the regulatory oversight that the U.S. Government should have been doing in the first place with these defective imported products into our country. That is why I think we need to go ahead and get Ms. Tenenbaum confirmed as quickly as possible. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``S. 372--The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 11 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 11, 2009, at 3 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Exploring the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009.''

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to met during the session of the Senate on June 11, 2009, at 2 p.m.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2009, at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 11, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Healthcare Reform'' on Thursday, June 11, 2009. The hearing will commence at 3 p.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2009, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing entitled ``North Korea Back at the Brink?''.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2009, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with several of my colleagues, the Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act. The energy, environmental, and food supply challenges confronting our nation are immense. The United States imports roughly 60 percent of the crude oil consumed domestically, much of it from unstable parts of the world. As global demand continues to rise, price shocks in oil markets are increasingly common, causing economic pain and hardship for American consumers. Our overwhelming reliance on traditional fossil fuels contributes to unsustainable greenhouse gas emissions levels and the damaging effects of global warming. Ethanol made from corn or soybean--also called first generation biofuels--serve an important function in diversifying our energy base, but their benefits are largely offset by their adverse effects on food prices and the environment. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted strategy that invests in renewable and alternative energy sources, green technology, and conservation measures. If we succeed, the payoff will be a cleaner, healthier, and more economically prosperous future. I was pleased that the economic stimulus legislation enacted earlier this year included important investments in renewable energy and green technology programs. It also included a number of expanded tax incentives, including tax credits for renewable energy sources, such as wind, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass; energy-efficient home improvements; and plug-in electric vehicles, to name just a few. The legislation I am introducing today with six of my colleagues in the Senate--three on each side of the aisle--builds on these investments and incentives by recognizing the powerful potential of a new and emerging energy source, algae. After years of basic research at the academic and governmental level, new algae-based fuels are poised to move from the experimentation stage to commercial development. These fuels have the potential to make a significant contribution to our energy future. Algae are one of nature's most prolific and efficient photosynthetic organisms. They have a short growing cycle, high oil content, and can require little land or potable water. An algae-based fuel needs only sunlight, CO2, and in some cases, other nutrient inputs to produce biomass that can be converted into readily usable liquid transportation fuels--gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. Unlike some of the other energy sources currently under development, algae-based fuels are ``drop-in'' fuels, that is to say, they can be incorporated into our existing energy infrastructure, including our pipelines, terminals, and our fleet of trucks, cars and jets. For example, over the past several months, commercial airlines have flown four successful test flights using a variety of biofuel jet fuel blends, including a Continental Airlines flight using a blend of algae- and jatropha-derived biofuel and a Japan Airlines flight using a similar blend that also included camelina. Moreover, some algae-based fuel production processes even sequester and consume CO2. Algae production facilities can use CO2 emitted by a coal-fired electric utility as a feedstock for the production of the fuel. As a result, algae-based fuels can help transform the energy landscape by shifting our energy consumption to a renewable, home-grown fuel that is carbon neutral or better. Unfortunately, current Federal tax policy inhibits the production of algae-based fuels by failing to provide a level playing--field relative to other alternative and renewable fuels. Tax incentives currently apply to the production of liquefied petroleum gas, compressed or liquefied natural gas, ethanol, liquefied hydrogen, biodiesel, liquid fuels derived from coal, and other alternative fuels. Many of these incentives were added to the tax code well before recent technological developments demonstrated the extraordinary promise of algae as a renewable fuel source. In order to ensure that Federal tax incentives stimulate the most promising and environmentally beneficial energy sources available, the tax code should be updated to incorporate and promote algae-based fuel production. The Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act would make two modest changes to the tax code to promote the development and commercialization of algae-based fuels in the U.S. First, the bill would expand the $1.01 per gallon income tax credit for cellulosic biofuels to cover algae-based biofuels. The bill retains the current law December 31, 2012, expiration date for the cellulosic biofuel producer credit. Second, the bill would extend the capital investment tax incentives for cellulosic biofuels to cover equipment used to produce algae-based fuels. Specifically, the bill would modify the 50 percent bonus depreciation provision for property used to produce cellulosic biofuel by extending the provision to qualified algae-based biofuel plant property. The bill retains the current law requirement that qualified property must be placed in service before January 1, 2013. By ensuring that algae-based fuels fully benefit under Federal tax policies that promote renewable and alternative fuels, the legislation will encourage investment in this sustainable energy source and make an important contribution to our energy landscape for years to come. Algae-based fuels are just one of the many renewable and alternative energy sources under development by aggressive and entrepreneurial start-up firms. These firms seek to capitalize on the commercial opportunities presented by the transition away from reliance on fossil fuels. It is critical that we regularly review the tax code to ensure that it encourages and promotes the most promising renewable energy sources available. The Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act is one step in this direction. I encourage my colleagues to support it. 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, I rise today to introduce, with several of my colleagues, the Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act. The energy, environmental, and food supply challenges confronting our nation are immense. The United States imports roughly 60 percent of the crude oil consumed domestically, much of it from unstable parts of the world. As global demand continues to rise, price shocks in oil markets are increasingly common, causing economic pain and hardship for American consumers. Our overwhelming reliance on traditional fossil fuels contributes to unsustainable greenhouse gas emissions levels and the damaging effects of global warming. Ethanol made from corn or soybean--also called first generation biofuels--serve an important function in diversifying our energy base, but their benefits are largely offset by their adverse effects on food prices and the environment. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted strategy that invests in renewable and alternative energy sources, green technology, and conservation measures. If we succeed, the payoff will be a cleaner, healthier, and more economically prosperous future. I was pleased that the economic stimulus legislation enacted earlier this year included important investments in renewable energy and green technology programs. It also included a number of expanded tax incentives, including tax credits for renewable energy sources, such as wind, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass; energy-efficient home improvements; and plug-in electric vehicles, to name just a few. The legislation I am introducing today with six of my colleagues in the Senate--three on each side of the aisle--builds on these investments and incentives by recognizing the powerful potential of a new and emerging energy source, algae. After years of basic research at the academic and governmental level, new algae-based fuels are poised to move from the experimentation stage to commercial development. These fuels have the potential to make a significant contribution to our energy future. Algae are one of nature's most prolific and efficient photosynthetic organisms. They have a short growing cycle, high oil content, and can require little land or potable water. An algae-based fuel needs only sunlight, CO2, and in some cases, other nutrient inputs to produce biomass that can be converted into readily usable liquid transportation fuels--gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. Unlike some of the other energy sources currently under development, algae-based fuels are ``drop-in'' fuels, that is to say, they can be incorporated into our existing energy infrastructure, including our pipelines, terminals, and our fleet of trucks, cars and jets. For example, over the past several months, commercial airlines have flown four successful test flights using a variety of biofuel jet fuel blends, including a Continental Airlines flight using a blend of algae- and jatropha-derived biofuel and a Japan Airlines flight using a similar blend that also included camelina. Moreover, some algae-based fuel production processes even sequester and consume CO2. Algae production facilities can use CO2 emitted by a coal-fired electric utility as a feedstock for the production of the fuel. As a result, algae-based fuels can help transform the energy landscape by shifting our energy consumption to a renewable, home-grown fuel that is carbon neutral or better. Unfortunately, current Federal tax policy inhibits the production of algae-based fuels by failing to provide a level playing--field relative to other alternative and renewable fuels. Tax incentives currently apply to the production of liquefied petroleum gas, compressed or liquefied natural gas, ethanol, liquefied hydrogen, biodiesel, liquid fuels derived from coal, and other alternative fuels. Many of these incentives were added to the tax code well before recent technological developments demonstrated the extraordinary promise of algae as a renewable fuel source. In order to ensure that Federal tax incentives stimulate the most promising and environmentally beneficial energy sources available, the tax code should be updated to incorporate and promote algae-based fuel production. The Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act would make two modest changes to the tax code to promote the development and commercialization of algae-based fuels in the U.S. First, the bill would expand the $1.01 per gallon income tax credit for cellulosic biofuels to cover algae-based biofuels. The bill retains the current law December 31, 2012, expiration date for the cellulosic biofuel producer credit. Second, the bill would extend the capital investment tax incentives for cellulosic biofuels to cover equipment used to produce algae-based fuels. Specifically, the bill would modify the 50 percent bonus depreciation provision for property used to produce cellulosic biofuel by extending the provision to qualified algae-based biofuel plant property. The bill retains the current law requirement that qualified property must be placed in service before January 1, 2013. By ensuring that algae-based fuels fully benefit under Federal tax policies that promote renewable and alternative fuels, the legislation will encourage investment in this sustainable energy source and make an important contribution to our energy landscape for years to come. Algae-based fuels are just one of the many renewable and alternative energy sources under development by aggressive and entrepreneurial start-up firms. These firms seek to capitalize on the commercial opportunities presented by the transition away from reliance on fossil fuels. It is critical that we regularly review the tax code to ensure that it encourages and promotes the most promising renewable energy sources available. The Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act is one step in this direction. I encourage my colleagues to support it. 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. This is what the article says: There is a rhythm to summer that has become as predictable in Washington as it is predatory and senseless: Schools let out, vacation season begins, gas prices rise and opportunists in Congress--encouraged by Big Oil--cite the pain at the pump to push for expanding offshore drilling, jeopardizing Florida's priceless coastline. The St. Petersburg Times editorial continues: Do any of the 13 members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee who voted to expand drilling Tuesday realize that the nation is moving in the opposite direction and seeking to reduce reliance on fossil fuels with a cleaner energy policy? The committee approved an amendment to a Senate energy bill that would allow gas and oil drilling just 45 miles off Florida's west coast and even closer off the Florida Panhandle. It would wipe out a 2006 congressional compromise that bans drilling. . . . And it goes on to cite the numbers I told you, basically keeping that eastern area off-limits. The editorial continues: Allowing drilling within 10 miles of the eastern Gulf Coast would also jeopardize an important training area for the Air Force and Navy. As an energy strategy, the measure makes the Senate look hopelessly out of date. Twenty-eight States, in the absence of leadership in Washington, have set targets for renewable energy production. The purpose of energy legislation in both Houses of Congress is to fashion a way to leverage billions of tax dollars to curb emissions of global-warming greenhouse gases, build more fuel-efficient cars, and to foster investment in alternative energies. The editorial concludes by saying: The drilling amendment is an example of a time-honored tactic of tacking on something distasteful to broadly supported legislation. The bill, which committee members expect to pass today, also unfortunately encourages some Republican state legislators who have unsuccessfully sought to open state waters in the gulf to drilling. If the 2006 federal line falls, there will be no stopping the shortsighted in Tallahassee. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has vowed to filibuster the bill if it comes to that. The state's congressional delegation needs to show united opposition, and House members need to demand Speaker Nancy Pelosi stand by her commitment to the 2006 drill-free zone. Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running to succeed Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., also needs to quit waffling and oppose this. And Defense Secretary Robert Gates should explain the implications for naval training and national security should offshore rigs and their attendant infrastructure spring up along the training ranges for America's military pilots. The energy bill is supposed to chart a new strategy going forward. The Senate is headed backward. I thank the Presiding Officer for her indulgence that I could get this off my chest. I don't want to mess up the Energy bill. It is critical for us. I am supportive of many of its provisions. But I am simply going to have to assert my rights under the Senate rules if they try to bring this as a part of that Energy bill.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Recently, we have seen how gas prices have started to rise. Why? Last year, the price of oil went up to $147 a barrel. Why, in 1 day, did the price of oil rise $37 for a barrel of oil? It is because those greedy speculators on unregulated futures commodities markets had been able to bid up crude oil prices in part due to a legal loophole, called the Enron loophole, which, in effect, unleashed insider trading similar to condo flipping since 2001. Some Gulf Coast States, such as Louisiana, have embraced drilling. Congress even agreed to prop them up with revenue sharing. But because Louisiana doesn't have beaches--or has beaches that are left such as this one in the picture--and they don't have a tourism economy like Florida's, it isn't worth the risk to the jobs and the revenue and the economy of Florida. Florida's Gulf Coast has some of the most beautiful beaches in the world. These beaches account for a substantial portion of the $60 billion-a-year tourism economy. Would you visit a beach with oil operations along its shores? Would you want to go to a beach that looks like this photo? I'll tell you a little more about it. This photo is of a relatively small oil spill that occurred as a result of a shipping accident in Pinellas County, FL, in 1993. It simply doesn't make sense to jeopardize Florida's tourism industry and put the coastline at risk of ending up like this. I will close by reading a timely editorial that appeared in today's St. Petersburg Times. That is one of Florida's largest newspapers. This was so poignant I think it is worth me inserting it into the Record, which I will. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, here is what people don't understand. The committee that adopted this amendment, 13 to 10, doesn't realize this is the largest testing and training area for the U.S. military. That is why in the legislation in law we protect everything east of that line that we passed 3 years ago. In return, we gave the oil boys an additional 8.3 million acres in lease sale 181 and lease sale 181 south. That, by the way, is in addition to their 33 million acres they have under lease here, and here, as shown on this map, that they have not drilled. Why do the oil companies want to have this additional lease area when, in fact, they have a lot of leases they haven't drilled--33 million acres plus another 8 million acres? Well, it is because a lease has a legal value. If there is estimated to be any oil or gas there, that has a value, and those leases then become a part of the assets of the company, which increases the value of the company, which, of course, then makes their stock worth more. But what we struck in the compromise 3 years ago that everybody out here on this Senate floor agreed to--agreed to, I might say, with Senator Martinez and me--was in exchange for getting that additional area, they would leave the military mission test and evaluation and training area alone. In the last round of BRAC, which is the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, the ``r'' of BRAC stands for realignment. Is it any wonder that in that round of evaluating military bases they decided to send all the pilot training for the new stealth fighter--the F-22--that they brought it here to Tyndall Air Force base at Panama City? Why? Because they have that area. Listen, this fighter does a dog fight at 1.5 Mach, twice what an F-16 and an F-15 does a dog fight at. They are doing a dog fight, doing tight turns at about .75 Mach. The new F-22 stealth fighter will go into and engage another aircraft at 1.5 Mach. When you do turns at twice the speed of an F-15 and F-16, you have a much wider radius of a turn. That is why they need all that area. When they are dropping on targets, they are dropping live ordnance. When we are testing long-range weapons systems at Eglin Air Force Base--some that we release from airplanes, some that are shot from ships--we need hundreds of miles of range. That is why the operative policy of the Department of Defense is that you can't have oil rigs out here to interfere with national security preparation, but, apparently, that is not the way 13 Members of the Senate Energy Committee understood this argument. Now there is another argument. By the way, I might point out that in that realignment of the bases, they are bringing into Eglin Air Force base all the pilot training for the new F-35. That is the Joint Strike Fighter that is still being developed, but that will be coming out within the next few years. That is the Joint Strike Fighter for the Navy, the Marines, and the Air Force. That Joint Strike Fighter will be sold to some of our allies. Where is the pilot training? Right here because of the restrictions, it being a test, a training, and an evaluation area. That is why the U.S. military brought these new assets into this area. There is another reason now that I get so exercised about this, other than the fact of the agreements that were set, that were agreed to; the compromises that were struck 3 years ago are now being abrogated. That is, they now bring oil rig leasing within 10 miles of the world's most beautiful beaches. There are not too many Americans who don't know that the beaches running from Pensacola all the way through Panama City to Mexico Beach are some of the world's most beautiful beaches. They are sugary white sand, and people from all over go to enjoy this extraordinary valuable resource. It is God's way of giving us a blessing on Earth that people enjoy when they want to go to the beach. Can you imagine, what the Energy Committee has passed, allowing oil rigs 10 miles off the world's most beautiful beaches? Environmentally, that is one thing, but let's look at the economy of Florida. The economy of Florida--we are a peninsula. We have more coastline than any other State, save Alaska, but Alaska doesn't have a lot of beaches. We have more beaches than almost--not almost--than any other State. Is it any wonder we want to protect our economy, which is a $60 billion-a- year tourism industry, particularly at a time when the economy is being savaged as much as it is? Yet the Senate Energy Committee would say they are not only going to ignore the military tests and training range that has been off-limits in the law, but now they are going to run rigs up to 10 miles offshore and threaten those sugary white beaches. Well, let me tell you a few points about this wise energy policy they have supposedly adopted. We all know increased domestic drilling is not going to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil. That has been shown over and over. Why? Because if there was oil there, you are not going to get it into production for 10 years. So using the scare tactics of the gas prices going up and up doesn't do a bit for decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and helping gas prices. But let's say it would. Even though bad oil spills and shipping accidents take place, let's say, for a moment, the technological innovations now have made all drilling operations safe; and if the United States wishes to remain dependent on oil, well, shouldn't we drill anywhere we can find oil? How about Colorado for oil shale? But, oh, no, that is off-limits. How about the five Great Lakes? They should have plenty of black gold. But, no, that is off-limits. How about the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? That is off-limits. This Senator has supported keeping that off-limits. No, the reality is that, instead, some of my colleagues in the Senate want to come--it is kind of like: don't tax you, don't tax me, go tax that ``fella'' under the tree. They want to go and hit somebody else. They want to cut the heart and the lungs out of the U.S. military testing area. They want to come in and start fouling up the most beautiful beaches in the world, the northwest Florida coast. Three years ago, we opened that additional 8.3 million acres. We didn't allow any drilling any closer than 100 miles off Pensacola, 125 miles off Panama City, 237 miles off Tampa Bay, and over 300 miles off Naples. Why are some people pushing to change this so soon after that compromise that was struck 3 years ago? It is the oil industry, that is why. The oil industry has those 33 million acres out here in the central and western gulf. It is leased, it is not being drilled, but that is not enough for them. Even though the industry hand-picked areas opened here in the 2006 compromise, it now feels it can make more of a profit by drilling closer to Florida's coast. I don't think we should have to trash our coastline and our economy and the U.S. military so big oil can increase its profit margin. There are serious national security implications if this were to become law. I wish to show you something else. Look at this picture. This is a beach in Pinellas County, Florida after an oil spill. You know what that is--that is oil mixing with white, sugary, powdery, white sand. Drilling 10 miles off the coast of Florida would destroy the economy of the Nation's fourth largest State. It would convert Florida's world- class beaches to an industrial coastline. We would trade the world's top beaches and the tourist attractions for an industrial waste line dotted with transmission pipes, storage tanks, and oil rigs. We would take away the U.S. military's last unfettered testing and training range--and take it away during a time of war. Supporters of opening the eastern gulf say we need to do it to help get America off foreign oil. Tell me, then, why isn't there a clause in the drilling amendment passed specifying that all oil and natural gas that would be produced in the eastern gulf has to stay in the United States for domestic consumption? But, no, that is not there because, the truth is, any oil that would be drilled could be sent to any other country in the world, reducing our use of foreign oil not by one single drop. If we wish to reduce our dependence on foreign oil--and you have heard me say this ad infinitum--we need to increase our use of alternative energy, energy-efficient cars and appliances. Mr. President, is my time coming to a close?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Senate Energy Committee has just approved an energy bill that adopted a very controversial amendment that would allow oil to be drilled 10 miles off of the coast of Florida. I wish to refer to this chart. Here is the peninsula of Florida. This is the panhandle of Florida, including Pensacola, Fort Walton Beach, Panama City, and Cape San Blas. Some of our largest military installations in America are here: the Pensacola Naval Air Station, the big complex of the Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base in that area of Fort Walton Beach. Down here in Panama City is Tyndall Air Force Base, where they are training all of the F-22 pilots. As one can see on this map, the rest of the gulf coast of the United States includes Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and then Texas. This chart illustrates what the Dorgan amendment does to Florida. It shows the western planning area of the gulf, the central planning area, and what is known as the eastern planning area. The chart shows that in legislation we passed in 2006, a compromise was struck whereby the oil industry could drill in an additional 8.3 million acres, in addition to the 33 million acres they have under lease in the central and western gulf--33 million that they have under lease that they had not drilled. We worked out an additional 8.3 million acres in this tan area called lease sale 181. In exchange, the compromise was for the protection of the Gulf of Mexico, everything east of this longitude line known as the military mission line. Why? Because everything east of this line is the largest testing and training area for the U.S. military in the world. It is where we are training our F-22 pilots out of Tyndall Air Force Base, it is where we are training our Navy pilots in Pensacola, and it is where we are testing some of the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world that are under the test and evaluation component of Eglin Air Force Base. This is the area. It is also where we are training our Navy squadrons at Key West Naval Air Station. They will send in a squadron down here to Key West, and when they lift off from the Boca Chica runway, within 2 minutes they are over protected airspace. So they don't have a lot of travel time. They don't spend a lot of gas getting to their training area, which is out here. So we see that we have this area that is now protected. I wish to have printed in the Record a letter from the Secretary of Defense--and this is actually from the previous Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld--in which he says the use of this for oil and gas production would be incompatible with the needs of the U.S. military in this test and training area. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record, if I may.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

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, the question that has been postured before the Senate is, What has the stimulus bill done? It has some fancy name--the recovery act--but, in effect, it is known as the stimulus bill. It was an expensive bill. With the country in the economic doldrums that we have been in, it was hoped it was going to get money out there into the economy and provide a kind of electric shock therapy and stimulate the economy to get it moving again; that it would turn the engine of the economy and, therefore, as those dollars in the stimulus bill got injected into the economy and it turned over, it was going to create jobs. Indeed, the number of jobs that it was expected the stimulus was going to create was something like 2\1/2\ million. So the question is, Is it stimulating the economy? Well, a few minutes ago, the CEO of the Shands Health Care Center at the University of Florida was in my office. He told me the story of how the Shands Hospital in Jacksonville--there are a number of these Shands Hospitals; it is a true medical center complex over several cities--was short some $35 million, and he didn't know what he was going to do and how that was going to affect their operation--possibly the shutdown of major portions of that hospital. Remember that one part of the stimulus bill is that we were putting out money into Medicaid to help the States, and there were States that had not been doing their part on Medicaid, which is a joint State operation--generally with a funding formula of about 55 percent Federal, 45 percent State. A lot of the States hadn't been putting their share in, or they had been constricting the eligibility for the poor and the disadvantaged to have access to health care for Medicaid. Well, with the beneficence of the stimulus bill, we put a lot of money back into the States. In Florida's case, it was about $4.5 billion, just for Medicaid. It went from a funding formula-- in Florida's case--of 55 to 45 for the 2-year period of the stimulus, to a funding formula of 67 percent Federal, 33 percent State. That has allowed him to stop the major abrupt halt of that hospital in Jacksonville, FL. Let me give another example. The big county hospital in Miami-- Jackson Memorial Hospital--is a similar case of about a $45 million whack that was going to occur because of the State of Florida constricting its Medicaid funding. The stimulus bill for Florida allowed that additional money to flow and, therefore, that hospital will not have its services terminated for a good part of the medically needy as well as the disabled. Another example: In my State, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has awarded over $100 million in stimulus funds to jump-start crucial Everglades restoration projects, such as the Picayune Strand and the Site 1 Reservoir construction. When you combine that with an additional $140 million in stimulus money for other projects such as water quality improvements down in the Florida Keys, then the spending in Florida is going to create about 2,000 direct jobs and 5,000 indirect jobs. Overall, the stimulus bill is going to create over 200,000 jobs in the State of Florida. Another example: Seminole County School District. Seminole County is to the north of Orlando. It is a major bedroom community for the metro Orlando area. Well, they had a plan to eliminate 139 teachers. Because of the stimulus bill, they reversed that plan. Clay County, to the south of Jacksonville, in northeast Florida-- another bedroom community for the metro Jacksonville area. It will bring back 26 elementary school teachers who had been laid off. Another example: I am just taking a few examples. Miami, Dade County. It has one of the largest highway improvement projects in our State-- the Palmetto Expressway. It has been under construction continuously since 1994 because of the mass of people who utilize that arterial roadway. Now they are going to be able to complete that and put hundreds of people to work. Another example: Northeast Florida. The military complex in Jacksonville--the Jacksonville Naval Hospital and Kings Bay and Mayport Naval Station. The $40 million of stimulus funding is going to be spent over the next several years for improvements for those hospitals and at the air station and at the Kings Bay submarine base, which means architecture, construction, and engineering jobs on top of expanded hospital facilities and energy efficient upgrades. Another example: St. Johns County, St. Augustine, FL--the oldest continuous settlement in the United States--1565. We are going to celebrate the 450 year anniversary. We have 42 years on the English settlement in Jamestown, VA. Not 1607, Jamestown; but 1565, St. Augustine. Well, their school system was going to cut teacher and staff salaries and force them to take unpaid days. Now they are going to get an infusion of an additional $9 million this year and another $9 million next year so these cuts won't occur. Going over to the West Coast of Florida--Tampa. The Tampa International Airport. It is going to create 250 new jobs using $8 million from the stimulus bill to go out there and improve a taxiway on one of the major runways. This is a job that would not have been done had it not been for this bill. I will give one final example. Go back to north Florida. We have a huge forestry industry in Florida. But as we have seen, Mother Nature has not been kind in bringing us droughts. When a drought occurs, the forest becomes a tinderbox. When a match is struck or a lightning bolt strikes, the forest erupts into an enormous fire that becomes a contagion that can rage out of control and impinge on urbanized areas. Well, the Florida Department of Forestry is putting contractors to work on fire mitigation projects in high-risk communities using a $900 stimulus grant. It is helping in my State, and I suspect it is helping in all the other 49 States that are represented on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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