Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 960, S. 3166.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of H.R. 5265, which is at the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the Pryor amendment at the desk be agreed to; the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following items en bloc: Calendar Nos. 1062, 1064, 1065, and 1066.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on a subject that is never far from the minds of citizens in my home State of Florida and others living along our coasts and in tornado alley: the threat of windstorms, and the havoc that these events can wreak on our communities. We were all transfixed by the non-stop news coverage as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike grew into monster storms and crossed the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, leaving a trail of misery in their wake. In Florida this year, these storms, along with Tropical Storm Fay and Hurricane Hanna, reminded us of our vulnerability in the face of Mother Nature. We are not out of the woods yet. Hurricane season lasts for another two months, and other severe storms can generate damaging tornadoes at any time of year. In fact, more than 2,000 tornadoes had hit the United States by mid-September, causing more than 120 fatalities and making 2008 the deadliest year for windstorm-related fatalities in a decade. Although windstorms are a perpetual hazard, particularly in Florida, we have learned a great deal from these events and have taken steps to make our homes, businesses, and infrastructure more resilient. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida and revealed a number of problems with how we designed and constructed buildings in areas subject to high winds. The lessons learned from Andrew drove the adoption of stronger buiding codes in Miami-Dade and Broward counties in 1994, codes that still serve as models for the Nation. In 2001, Florida's State legislature adopted a statewide building code, which made building requirements stronger and more consistent across the state. These actions have already started paying dividends. In 2004, when Hurricane Charley made landfall near Captiva Island as a Category 4 hurricane, communities across Southwest Florida suffered tremendous damage from high winds and floodwaters. In Charlotte County alone, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, estimated that 80 percent of the buildings were damaged and all mobile homes were destroyed. Across the Florida peninsula, 30 deaths were linked to the storm and property damage was estimated at $14.6 billion. But there was some positive news to be found amongst the devastation. Government and private-sector experts who reviewed Charley's damage found that homes designed and constructed with the stronger, post-Andrew building codes performed well, even in Punta Gorda, one of the hardest-hit areas. There can be no doubt that many lives were saved and millions in additional damages were avoided as a direct consequence of earlier decisions to build stronger and safer. While our experience in Charley shows that we are on the right track in antiipating and avoiding windstorm impacts, we cannot rest on our laurels. Millions in Florida and across our Nation live in structures built either before there was a building code in effect or before important wind-resistant materials and practices became required. Much work remains to find feasible and cost-effective ways to retrofit these older structures, and to educate our citizens on the need to take actions now to reduce their vulnerability to future windstorms. To help address these outstanding needs, I am introducing the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Reauthorization Act of 2008. This legislation would extend and enhance the National Windstorm Impact Reduction program, the primary goal of which is to achieve major, measurable reductions in losses of life and property from windstorms. This is a program that I have a long history of supporting. In July 2004--just weeks before four hurricanes, Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne struck my State--I introduced the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. This bill sought to focus the Federal efforts to identify wind hazards and assess and mitigate windstorm impacts. In the wake of the 2004 hurricanes, Congress saw the need to better coordinate and invest in wind-related research and mitigation, and passed separate legislation establishing NWIRP in October of that year. At that time, Congress's vision was for NWIRP to improve our understanding of windstorms and then mitigate potential impacts through nationwide data collection and analysis, risk assessment, outreach, technology transfer, and research and development. Since its enactment in 2004, NWIRP has struggled to get off of the ground. The Bush Administration has not adequately supported the development and implementation of the program, failing to request any appropriations for NWIRP activities at the primary agencies: the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and FEMA. Despite explicit language from Congress in its report accompanying the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill, the Administration has refused to allocate the more than $11 million designated for NWIRP. I find this lack of cooperation on NWIRP, a program that can help save lives and avoid property damage, to be particularly troubling as millions of people on the Gulf Coast and in Florida struggle to recover from recent hurricanes. While I will continue my efforts to obtain additional funding for NWIRP, Congress must help by extending the program past its expiration on September 30th of this year. My legislation would extend NWIRP through 2013, and make several other programmatic changes that are needed to put the program on a stronger footing moving forward. I propose shifting primary authority and responsibility for managing NWIRP from the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy to NIST, an agency that has excelled in leading the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program since 2004. My legislation would also clarify the roles and responsibilities of all Federal agencies participating on NWIRP's Interagency Working Group on Windstorm Impact Reduction. Three Federal agencies with current missions that provide valuable data or expertise that support NWIRP's goals will be added to the program, namely the Department of Transportation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lastly, the legislation would set a deadline for NIST to assemble the National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction, a group charged with providing guidance to NIST and the Interagency Working Group on windstorm-related research, mitigation, outreach, and other program priorities. The Advisory Committee will include representatives from a broad array of NWIRP stakeholders, including state and local governments and experts from the research, technology transfer, building design and construction, insurance, and finance communities. I did not want to return to Florida this fall without taking action to keep us focused on reducing the impacts of windstorms on our citizens and our economy. That is why I felt it important to propose this legislation to extend, revamp, and revitalize the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. In closing, I would like to recognize the efforts of Representative Dennis Moore of Kansas, who is introducing a companion measure in the U.S. House of Representatives today. Kansas is particularly vulnerable to the devastation that tornados and hailstorms can cause, so I know that he shares my desire to ensure that our constituents have innovative, effective, and affordable tools available to help reduce their vulnerability to windstorms. I also understand that three members of the Florida delegation in the House, Representatives Alcee Hastings, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Mario Diaz-Balart, are original cosponsors of Representative Moore's bill. In addition to demonstrating how important this legislation is to the State of the Florida and the Nation, I welcome the bipartisan support that these cosponsors provide. I look forward to working with Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Hutchison and the other members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to debate this important 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, I rise today to introduce legislation on a subject that is never far from the minds of citizens in my home State of Florida and others living along our coasts and in tornado alley: the threat of windstorms, and the havoc that these events can wreak on our communities. We were all transfixed by the non-stop news coverage as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike grew into monster storms and crossed the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, leaving a trail of misery in their wake. In Florida this year, these storms, along with Tropical Storm Fay and Hurricane Hanna, reminded us of our vulnerability in the face of Mother Nature. We are not out of the woods yet. Hurricane season lasts for another two months, and other severe storms can generate damaging tornadoes at any time of year. In fact, more than 2,000 tornadoes had hit the United States by mid-September, causing more than 120 fatalities and making 2008 the deadliest year for windstorm-related fatalities in a decade. Although windstorms are a perpetual hazard, particularly in Florida, we have learned a great deal from these events and have taken steps to make our homes, businesses, and infrastructure more resilient. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida and revealed a number of problems with how we designed and constructed buildings in areas subject to high winds. The lessons learned from Andrew drove the adoption of stronger buiding codes in Miami-Dade and Broward counties in 1994, codes that still serve as models for the Nation. In 2001, Florida's State legislature adopted a statewide building code, which made building requirements stronger and more consistent across the state. These actions have already started paying dividends. In 2004, when Hurricane Charley made landfall near Captiva Island as a Category 4 hurricane, communities across Southwest Florida suffered tremendous damage from high winds and floodwaters. In Charlotte County alone, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, estimated that 80 percent of the buildings were damaged and all mobile homes were destroyed. Across the Florida peninsula, 30 deaths were linked to the storm and property damage was estimated at $14.6 billion. But there was some positive news to be found amongst the devastation. Government and private-sector experts who reviewed Charley's damage found that homes designed and constructed with the stronger, post-Andrew building codes performed well, even in Punta Gorda, one of the hardest-hit areas. There can be no doubt that many lives were saved and millions in additional damages were avoided as a direct consequence of earlier decisions to build stronger and safer. While our experience in Charley shows that we are on the right track in antiipating and avoiding windstorm impacts, we cannot rest on our laurels. Millions in Florida and across our Nation live in structures built either before there was a building code in effect or before important wind-resistant materials and practices became required. Much work remains to find feasible and cost-effective ways to retrofit these older structures, and to educate our citizens on the need to take actions now to reduce their vulnerability to future windstorms. To help address these outstanding needs, I am introducing the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Reauthorization Act of 2008. This legislation would extend and enhance the National Windstorm Impact Reduction program, the primary goal of which is to achieve major, measurable reductions in losses of life and property from windstorms. This is a program that I have a long history of supporting. In July 2004--just weeks before four hurricanes, Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne struck my State--I introduced the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. This bill sought to focus the Federal efforts to identify wind hazards and assess and mitigate windstorm impacts. In the wake of the 2004 hurricanes, Congress saw the need to better coordinate and invest in wind-related research and mitigation, and passed separate legislation establishing NWIRP in October of that year. At that time, Congress's vision was for NWIRP to improve our understanding of windstorms and then mitigate potential impacts through nationwide data collection and analysis, risk assessment, outreach, technology transfer, and research and development. Since its enactment in 2004, NWIRP has struggled to get off of the ground. The Bush Administration has not adequately supported the development and implementation of the program, failing to request any appropriations for NWIRP activities at the primary agencies: the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and FEMA. Despite explicit language from Congress in its report accompanying the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill, the Administration has refused to allocate the more than $11 million designated for NWIRP. I find this lack of cooperation on NWIRP, a program that can help save lives and avoid property damage, to be particularly troubling as millions of people on the Gulf Coast and in Florida struggle to recover from recent hurricanes. While I will continue my efforts to obtain additional funding for NWIRP, Congress must help by extending the program past its expiration on September 30th of this year. My legislation would extend NWIRP through 2013, and make several other programmatic changes that are needed to put the program on a stronger footing moving forward. I propose shifting primary authority and responsibility for managing NWIRP from the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy to NIST, an agency that has excelled in leading the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program since 2004. My legislation would also clarify the roles and responsibilities of all Federal agencies participating on NWIRP's Interagency Working Group on Windstorm Impact Reduction. Three Federal agencies with current missions that provide valuable data or expertise that support NWIRP's goals will be added to the program, namely the Department of Transportation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lastly, the legislation would set a deadline for NIST to assemble the National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction, a group charged with providing guidance to NIST and the Interagency Working Group on windstorm-related research, mitigation, outreach, and other program priorities. The Advisory Committee will include representatives from a broad array of NWIRP stakeholders, including state and local governments and experts from the research, technology transfer, building design and construction, insurance, and finance communities. I did not want to return to Florida this fall without taking action to keep us focused on reducing the impacts of windstorms on our citizens and our economy. That is why I felt it important to propose this legislation to extend, revamp, and revitalize the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. In closing, I would like to recognize the efforts of Representative Dennis Moore of Kansas, who is introducing a companion measure in the U.S. House of Representatives today. Kansas is particularly vulnerable to the devastation that tornados and hailstorms can cause, so I know that he shares my desire to ensure that our constituents have innovative, effective, and affordable tools available to help reduce their vulnerability to windstorms. I also understand that three members of the Florida delegation in the House, Representatives Alcee Hastings, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Mario Diaz-Balart, are original cosponsors of Representative Moore's bill. In addition to demonstrating how important this legislation is to the State of the Florida and the Nation, I welcome the bipartisan support that these cosponsors provide. I look forward to working with Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Hutchison and the other members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to debate this important 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, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2786, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Dorgan substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have just passed the NASA reauthorization bill. It is noteworthy that next week, October 1, is the 50th anniversary of the start of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and if my colleagues will recall, that was 1958. My colleagues may remember what was happening. The Soviet Union had surprised us by putting into orbit the first satellite, Sputnik, and America, in the midst of the Cold War among two superpowers, was absolutely shocked that we were behind in our technology; that we could not be premier. Then, lo and behold, 3 years later, they shocked us again by putting the first human in orbit, Yuri Gagarin, for one orbit when, in fact, we only had a rocket, the Redstone, that could get a human into suborbit. Then, we put Alan Shepard and subsequently Gus Grissom in suborbit, and then, in the meantime, the Soviet Union put Titov into several orbits. Of course, the eyes of the world then focused in on Cape Canaveral, when a young marine, one of the original seven American astronauts, named John Glenn, climbed into that capsule knowing that the Atlas rocket had a 20-percent chance of failure. He rode it into the heavens for only three orbits. There was an indication on the instrument panel that his heat shield was loose, and as he started the deorbit burn, John Glenn knew that if that was an accurate reading, on reentry into the Earth's fiery atmosphere, heating up in excess of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, he would burn up. It is that memorable time when we heard his last words before he went into the blackout period on radio transmissions: John Glenn humming ``The Battle Hymn of the Republic.'' It is hard to tell that story without getting a lump in my throat. Of course, what then happened, months before we flew John Glenn, we had a young President who said: We are going to the Moon and back within 9 years. This Nation came together. It focused the political will, it provided the resources, and it did what people did not think could be done. A generation of young people so inspired by this Nation's space program started pouring into the universities, into math and science and technology and engineering. That generation that was educated in high technology has been the generation that has led us to be the leader in a global marketplace by producing the technology, the innovations, the intellectual capital that has allowed us to continue to be that leader. So it is with that background that this Senator, who has the privilege of chairing the Space and Science Subcommittee within the Commerce Committee, wants to say: Happy birthday, NASA. We are sending to the House of Representatives tonight this NASA reauthorization bill, which will give the flexibility to the next President, and his designee as the next leader of NASA, the flexibility in a very troubled program that has not had the resources to do all the things that are demanded of it to try to continue to keep America preeminent in space; also to continue to have access to our own International Space Station that we built and paid for; and then to chart out a course for the future exploration of the heavens that will keep us fulfilling our destiny of our character as an American people, which is that by nature we are explorers and adventurers. We never want to give that up. If we ever do, we will be a second- rate nation. But we would not because we have always had a frontier, a new frontier. In the development of this country, it used to be westward. Now it is upward and it is inward and that is the frontier we want to continue to explore. So happy birthday, NASA. It is my hope that we will have the House of Representatives take this up on their suspension calendar tomorrow. I wish to give great credit to the staff who are in the room for the majority and the minority. They all have worked at enormous overload-- Chan Lieu and Jeff Bingham. Jeff, despite the fact of having suffered a heart attack earlier this year, and we didn't even let him out of his recuperative bed but that I was on the phone with him getting him to start corralling all these other Senators and House Members so we could get a consensus, so we could come together in an agreement. The result tonight is the fact that this has been cleared in a 100- member Senate, when Senators are on edge and they are always looking for something to object to, and there is no objection here, as ruled by the Presiding Officer. My congratulations to all the people, to the staff of the Commerce Committee, and to the staff of the Science and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives, chaired by Congressman Bart Gordon of Tennessee. I am very grateful for everybody coming together and making this happen.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Nelson of Florida and Vitter substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6063 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to request the return of the papers on H.R. 3068 from the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6460, which was received from the House.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Levin amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

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 wanted to speak to the Senate today about this enormous decision we must make about what to do about our current financial catastrophe. We are in a recession. By any measure, we are in a recession. The question is we must ask today is: What can we do to prevent this recession slipping into a full-blown depression? That is the matter that is in front of the Senate. One way or another we are going to have to come to grips with this by the weekend, or have an understanding that we are going to come back next week and try to finish this. What should be the underlying policy we pursue? Well, we ought to find ways to help stabilize the mortgage market that has caused this crisis. Let me quickly recapitulate what caused this financial mess. It was the fact that banks, and financial institutions acting as banks but not regulated as banks, started encouraging people to take loans on their homes which they could not afford. All the checks and balances that regulations would have required these financial institutions ignored. They did not conduct their due diligence, and ask the practical questions: Did the people have a sufficient income stream to be able to afford their mortgage? Did they put some skin in the game, by having to put some money down on the house they were purchasing? Could they afford the interest rates and the other terms of that mortgage? Lenders and brokers weren't paying any attention to that. A whole bunch of these loans were granted by financial institutions, and sometimes they very aggressively pushed these loans on people who could not afford them. Now, the banks don't keep these mortgages. They bundle them together and sell them to institutions as individual mortgages, or perhaps as bundles, or mortgage backed securities. And then different players in the financial institutions would buy these securities--made up of shaky, subprime mortgages and they would in turn sell them. A couple years later, when it became apparent that the homeowner couldn't afford to make the payments each month on their mortgage, and the income stream on those mortgages started dwindling, those financial institutions that had bought these bundles of mortgages found themselves with a shortage of cash. They had to start borrowing to make up for their cash shortage, and the whole system started to unravel. So as we try to straighten out this mess, are we to do what the Secretary of the Treasury has said? Are we to provide almost three- quarters of a trillion dollars--specifically he is saying $700 billion--in order to infuse capital into these financial institutions? These banks, investment banks, and insurance companies that all fed off this frenzy that saw this balloon get bigger and bigger until it started to burst? And if we do that, aren't we rewarding the very people whose financial greed got us into trouble in the first place? I think the answer to that question is yes. So I want to tell the Senate that this Senator is not going to vote for a bailout of the financial institutions by taking nearly 5 percent of the national budget--much of which we will have to borrow from the governments and banks in China and--and give it to these financial institutions. I am not going to vote for that. At the same time, we are caught on the horns of a dilemma, because the economic recession is slipping into economic catastrophe. So we have to act. Well, instead of providing all the funds at once, I am certainly more inclined to provide an initial portion of funds--say $150 billion or $200 billion and seeing how successful the government intervention proves during a 3- or 4-month period, and then coming back. Of course, those on Wall Street will say: No, we have to have the whole amount of $700 billion in order to give confidence to the markets. But don't we have a responsibility to the taxpayer to make sure these funds are being wisely spent? Can't we provide a substantial downpayment on this problem, and in a few months require everybody to come back and to see whether it is working as we intended? I think there is some wisdom to that. And I think there is some wisdom to what everybody has been talking about here, that we want to make sure this money doesn't go towards executive compensation and golden parachutes. That is the least we can do. I was amused to see an article by a conservative columnist--Kristol-- which said, well, maybe what we ought to do is put a provision in that no compensation--for the executives of these financial institutions that participate in this bailout--no compensation can be greater than the compensation to the President of the United States. That would certainly get some people's attention. There ought to be some reasonable limits on executive compensation. The essential question for this Senator, and I think for a lot of my colleagues, is how are we going to get this money into the mortgage market so it will revive lending and restore the housing market? Is this not the purpose of what we are trying to do? Not only save the national economy but get in and resuscitate the housing market. How do we ensure that it does not go solely into the hands of the bankers and the investment bankers and the insurance companies? Therefore, I suggest to the Senate that we consider a couple of courses. In the process of this package, we should create a loan facility that would work with people who are facing foreclosure. This loan facility could well be run out of Freddie or Fannie. For people who have a problem with a mortgage, this facility would have the legal authority, indeed the mandate, to go in and work to modify that mortgage, the terms and interest rate, so that in fact those people can still stay in their homes. I see the chairman of the Banking Committee has come in. This Senator is laying out a suggestion--in addition to that of the esteemed chairman of the Banking Committee, who I think has come out with an excellent product--that in order to get the money, not into the bankers' hands but to get it to revive the mortgage market--in other words revive the housing market--to create a loan facility, within Fannie or Freddie, with the legal authority to get in there and help people change the terms of their loans so they can stay in their homes. Then, second, as the chairman has suggested in his committee package, change the bankruptcy laws so that if someone has gone into bankruptcy, the bankruptcy judge, under law, would have the discretion to change the terms of the mortgage in order to keep the person in his or her home. So, prevent foreclosures through a loan facility with legal authority to modify mortgages, and if the homeowners must declare bankruptcy, give the bankruptcy judge the authority to modify the mortgage. In that way, a lot of the money we are going to put towards this bailout would go to preventing foreclosures. This Senator speaks as one area of my State, Fort Myers, FL, has had one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country for the past year. My suggestions are just a start. I think as we look to this huge bailout we also ought to set up a regulatory system for all financial institutions, not just commercial banks. In other words, we should regulate all securities that are traded publicly or privately so we do not face this problem in the future. Why? Because what happened? They got us into the problem we are in. The financial managers were encouraged to leverage all their investments so much in order to increase their own personal compensation. We ought to avoid that at all costs. Unless we get something that is close to what this Senator is trying to share with the Senate and the esteemed chairman of the Banking Committee, who is going to have more influence on this than any other person in this Senate--he is here--unless we can get these checks and balances in the system, this Senator is not going to vote for it. It is my responsibility to try to be a careful steward of the money that has been entrusted to me. We are talking about such mega amounts of money that will almost defy description and tie the hands of the next President and the next Congress. We will have borrowed so much extra money that the new Congress and the next President will not be able to accomplish some goals because there will not be any money left for the Federal Government. I would love to hear from the chairman of the Banking Committee, who I see is ready to speak. Because he is here, this Senator will yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator will yield for a question?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Is the Senator considering one of the things I talked about earlier, that we would not do the whole $700 million in one swat, but we take a part and say that is good for the next 3 or 4 months and come back and evaluate it?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I know under the previous order this side of the aisle has the time first, but I see the Senator from Oklahoma standing, and I wonder if he wanted to respond to the majority leader.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma be allowed to speak, but that time not be taken out of the 1 hour set aside for the two sides of the aisle.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today Senator Robert Menendez and I filed legislation that would address the morass of ethical problems that have besieged the Minerals Management Service, MMS. I have warned publicly that we could not trust the oil companies that want to drill in the waters off our most protected coastlines nor could we trust the Federal watchdogs charged with keeping a watchful eye over them. We have seen proof in report after report detailing mismanagement, a lack of control, and inappropriate, even possibly criminal, behavior. I have voiced serious doubts about the integrity and cost effectiveness of this Royalty-In-Kind program, where oil companies pay the Federal Government with mineral, oil, or gas they produce on public lands, rather than cash. This program was authorized in the 2005 Energy bill, which I opposed for many reasons. The bill that we introduced today seeks to restore integrity in managing our offshore energy resources. Specifically, our bill requires employees of the Minerals Management Service to adhere to the same ethical guidelines that other Federal employees abide by. This means no gifts from industry, the filing of financial disclosure forms for some higher level employees, and the divestment of all industry investments before working at MMS. The bill suspends the scandal-plagued Royalty-in-Kind program until these conditions are met. Additionally, MMS must review the accuracy of its royalty collection program with an independent watchdog to monitor its progress. Finally, MMS is required to conduct extensive audits of the Royalty-In-Kind program to ensure the government is receiving fair compensation for use of public lands. Offshore drilling will not solve our energy crisis nor will it bring down prices at the pump. Instead, it will only serve to further enrich the oil companies and reward the culture of corruption that has been fostered, funded, and now exposed at the Department of the Interior. I hope the Senate will consider our legislation expeditiously.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today Senator Robert Menendez and I filed legislation that would address the morass of ethical problems that have besieged the Minerals Management Service, MMS. I have warned publicly that we could not trust the oil companies that want to drill in the waters off our most protected coastlines nor could we trust the Federal watchdogs charged with keeping a watchful eye over them. We have seen proof in report after report detailing mismanagement, a lack of control, and inappropriate, even possibly criminal, behavior. I have voiced serious doubts about the integrity and cost effectiveness of this Royalty-In-Kind program, where oil companies pay the Federal Government with mineral, oil, or gas they produce on public lands, rather than cash. This program was authorized in the 2005 Energy bill, which I opposed for many reasons. The bill that we introduced today seeks to restore integrity in managing our offshore energy resources. Specifically, our bill requires employees of the Minerals Management Service to adhere to the same ethical guidelines that other Federal employees abide by. This means no gifts from industry, the filing of financial disclosure forms for some higher level employees, and the divestment of all industry investments before working at MMS. The bill suspends the scandal-plagued Royalty-in-Kind program until these conditions are met. Additionally, MMS must review the accuracy of its royalty collection program with an independent watchdog to monitor its progress. Finally, MMS is required to conduct extensive audits of the Royalty-In-Kind program to ensure the government is receiving fair compensation for use of public lands. Offshore drilling will not solve our energy crisis nor will it bring down prices at the pump. Instead, it will only serve to further enrich the oil companies and reward the culture of corruption that has been fostered, funded, and now exposed at the Department of the Interior. I hope the Senate will consider our legislation expeditiously.