Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to respond to the Senator from Arizona, who is my friend. But I want the Senator to understand that the committee did not cut THAAD nor the Aegis. To the contrary, the committee raised, for the very reasons the Senator from Arizona said--that we need more THAAD for our area commanders--we raised that $115 million, as well as the Aegis ballistic missile defense. We raised that $100 million from what was requested. So let's make sure we know what we are talking about. Mr. President, what this all boils down to is the National Missile Defense Program is requested by the administration for $9.3 billion of authorization in this bill. In essence, this whole argument is that the committee has pared back that $9.3 billion request by $400 million. That is what all this argument is about. It is an attempt to increase back that funding of a de minimis cut in a $9.3 billion program. Given all the other requirements we have in the U.S. Government and given all of the other requirements we have in the Department of Defense, should we have a modest decrease from the President's request of $9.3 billion in 1 year? I suggest that there are so many other demands. Think about body armor. Think about getting the V-shaped hulls of MRAPs that are so resistant to the improvised explosive devices they run over on the road and that are saving marines' and soldiers' lives. Ask any commander in Iraq or Afghanistan what are their high priorities. Ask the commanders if THAAD, which is an intercept that can be launched from a mobile launcher, is an important program to them to intercept an incoming intermediate-range missile and you will get a quick answer from those military-area commanders that is what they want. That is the philosophy we have tried to adapt in this bill and at the same time allow national missile defense research to continue but recognizing there are other priorities besides national missile defense. So we just took a de minimis cut out of a $9.3 billion request by the President. That is what all of this flap is about here: Is national missile defense going to have a minor cut so that we can do some of these other priorities for protecting our troops and satisfying their commanders' requests? That is what all this is about. The Vitter amendment proposes to cut $271 million from the rest of the Defense Department and add it to the Missile Defense Agency. This is not funding that the Defense Department has requested. These are programs that are fully funded in our Armed Services Committee bill. But this amendment would give the Secretary of Defense an extraordinary and unwarranted power; that is, the power to cut any items in the defense budget that the Congress is putting in here in order to pay for this increase in an already flush national missile defense budget we have provided. As the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, I can tell you that we have some of the Nation's most sophisticated weapons systems, many of which we cannot even speak about here because of their classification. This is not a good allocation of priorities. I don't think we would want to give the Secretary of Defense the authority to ignore the will of Congress. For example, would we want the Secretary of Defense to be able to go in and, in order to fund this amendment, cut body armor or would we want him to be able to go in and cut what the commanders in Afghanistan now are begging for--more of these V-hulled vehicles, which replace the humvees, that are saving our boys' and girls' lives called the MRAPs? Of course, we don't want that. Would we want the Secretary of Defense to have the authority to go in and cut $271 million from the $430 million in the bill for sustaining the Joint Strike Fighter, its alternate engine which the Department supports? Of course, we wouldn't want to give the Secretary power to do that. Would we want to give the Secretary the power to go in and totally wipe out the additional $118 million we provided in this bill for operating a full B-52? The Department opposed that. Would we want to give the Secretary the ability to override the will of Congress to do that? How about the F-22, the most sophisticated fighter aircraft? Would we want to give the Secretary of Defense the power to go in and cut half of the $500 million we have provided in this bill for advance procurement of the F-22? I don't think we would want to do that, but that is what we would do, is give the Secretary the power to do that if this amendment is adopted. Would we want to give the Secretary the power of reducing the Army budget request of $512 million for the Patriot missile? Talk about countries and allies and force protection for our own troops of incoming warheads--the Patriot missile is a quick-reaction missile that intercepts those incoming missiles on our troops in a theater. Would we want to cut the increase we provided in this bill? This amendment would give the Secretary the power to do that. Would we want to eliminate the proposed addition of $170 million for advance procurement of another amphibious ship called the LPD-17? I don't think that is what we want to do, but that is what this amendment is going to do, all under the ideology that we haven't provided enough for national missile defense. But we have provided almost $9 billion in this bill for it. We have to set priorities and we have to allocate for programs that we want to make sure are there for the protection of our troops and our allies, and that is what we tried to do. Didn't we have a unanimous vote coming out of the committee for all of these priorities? We did. So why do we want to suddenly change the unanimous, bipartisan support of the Senate Armed Services Committee to adjust all of these priorities? Why would we want to change that? Because there are some people who say ideologically we want to pour more and more money into national missile defense. Isn't $9 billion enough for 1 year? This Senator respectfully requests that the Senate listen to reason and common sense in the allocation of priorities. The committee recommends already--as I stated to Senator Kyl, we have added $215 million for THAAD, which is the terminal high-altitude aerial defense which commanders are requesting, and we have also added that total amount of money, including the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program, which is launched from a ship and is very effective for incoming warheads. We certainly agree there are potential threats from North Korea and places such as Iran, but those threats are generally in the neighborhood of where they are. That is why Aegis from a ship is so effective, and that is why THAAD from a mobile platform is so effective. We have plussed up those programs. They shouldn't be cut. But the Secretary of Defense, under this amendment, would have that authority. The Vitter amendment would not make any choices about where the additional money to provide for this plus-up to an already rich and robust national missile defense budget would come from. This amendment would not make any choices about where that additional money would come from. So what it says is that this $271 million in additional funding for missile defense, programs that we have either fully funded at the level requested by the Pentagon or increased in our committee bill by $215 million--that program is so important that the Secretary of Defense could cut any other funding program in the Pentagon to pay for it. I don't think that is a responsible way to go. This Senator, as the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, will oppose the amendment. It is my hope that Members on both sides of the aisle, members of the Armed Services Committee, will support the committee product. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would say to my good friend from Arizona, first of all, recognize how much we have spent on national missile defense. We have spent over $150 billion on national missile defense. In this 1 year, the request is $9.3 billion, of which the committee felt like there were other priorities for $400 million of that. That is a reduction of only 4.2 percent in a program that has spent $150 billion--$150 billion--to date. Now, that is a de minimis cut when you have so many other priorities in the budget of the Pentagon. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, yesterday, I warned publicly that we could not trust the oil companies that want to drill in the waters off our most protected coastlines nor the Federal watchdogs charged with keeping a watchful eye over them. Now we have proof because just this afternoon the inspector general at the Department of the Interior has released this scathing report about the Mineral Management Service in the U.S. Department of the Interior and specifically an office that manages revenue from offshore oil drilling, and it concludes: We also discovered a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity in the Royalty-in-Kind Program, both within the program--including the supervisor, Greg Smith, who engaged in illegal drug use and had sexual relations with subordinates-- and in concert with the industry. Internally, several staff admitted to illegal drug use as well as illicit sexual encounters. Alcohol abuse appears to have been a problem when program staff socialized with the industry. For example, two program staff accepted lodging from industry after industry events because they were too intoxicated to drive home or to their hotel. These same program staff also engaged in brief sexual relationships with industry contacts. Sexual relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by definition, be arm's-length. The inspector general's report goes on to say: More specifically, we discovered that between 2002 and 2006, nearly one-third of the entire program staff socialized with and received a wide array of gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies with whom the Royalty-in-Kind Program was conducting official business. While the dollar amounts of the gifts and gratuities was not enormous, these employees accepted gifts with prodigious frequency. In particular, two Royalty-in-Kind Program marketeers received combined gifts and gratuities on at least 135 occasions from four major oil and gas companies with whom they were doing business. This is in the offshore leasing program, Madam President. I continue the quote: . . . A textbook example of improperly receiving gifts from prohibited sources. When confronted by our investigators, none of the employees involved displayed remorse. It is bad enough that the Government employees who oversee offshore oil drilling are literally, as well as figuratively, in bed with big oil. The rest of the U.S. Government doesn't need to jump in bed with them. Offshore drilling will not solve our energy crisis nor will it bring down prices at the pump. Instead, it will enrich the oil companies and reward the culture of corruption that has been fostered, funded, and now exposed by the inspector general of the Department of the Interior. This comes out at a time that we are being told: Drill here, drill now, drill, baby, drill--as if that were the solution. We should simply not allow ourselves to become a part of the agenda of the oil companies. Here we have an example from the inspector general of what is supposed to be the Government watchdogs overseeing a part of this offshore leasing program that uses sex and drugs and illegal gifts to foster their program. I commend to my colleagues the three parts of the inspector general's detailed report along with the memorandum which is the cover memorandum from the inspector general, Earl Devaney, on the subject of the office of the inspector general investigation of the MMS, the Minerals Management Service, employees. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record what is moving across the wire right now, the Associated Press story by Dina Cappiello, about this expose.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the Senator from Louisiana, but I would first like to ask unanimous consent that after my response, the majority leader have time as in morning business.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Well, Mr. President, I wish to respond, but all I can do is read the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. On page 4, starting at line 6: The amount authorized to be appropriated by this division . . . is hereby reduced by $271 million, with the amount the reduction-- And it goes on to say-- to be allocated . . . in the manner specified by the Secretary of Defense. What do the words ``this division'' in his own amendment mean? It means everything in the Pentagon, the Department of Defense spending, minus military construction. So when he says the amendment would not allow the Secretary of Defense, at his discretion, to cut all these things I have listed, that is incorrect. That is what the amendment says, as it is drafted. I would add this gets down into the weeds, but since a lot of this is very arcane, there are some additional concerns regarding the Vitter amendment that I will mention for the record. The amendment proposes an additional $87 million for targets, for flight tests. But those funds would, instead, go to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program. That is in the wrong place because the targets program is managed in a totally separate office. So any additional funds for targets should go to the test and targets funding line, not to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program. I said this is in the weeds, but we have to get in the weeds to talk about how this amendment is flawed. Another example is the proposed $54 million to convert two Aegis cruisers to the missile defense configuration. Well, the Navy doesn't plan on doing two such cruiser conversions, and this amendment might be a problem for the Navy. It is better to simply refer to ``ships'' rather than cruisers. In any event, we should get more information before we authorize something where we don't know what we are doing. Additionally, the amendment would propose $30 million for technology risk reduction to one component of the Standard Missile-3, called the Throttling Divert and Attitude Control System, pronounced TDACS. Well, rather than put all those funds into this one piece of the Standard Missile-3, it would seem like it would be better--and this is according to the Missile Defense Agency--it would be better to provide funds for the overall Standard Missile-3 Development Program. That would be doing a lot more good than the proposal in this amendment. So I think even down in the weeds there are a lot more objections to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, his cuts would allow the Secretary of Defense to make cuts across the board to the budget in order to fund his add-back, and that could be the Joint Strike Fighter, the B-52, the F-22, the Patriot Missile, and the LPD amphibious ship. This is not good policy. Our committee came out, on $9.3 billion, and cut only 4 percent on national missile defense.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Senators, I can make this very quick. This is for the widows and orphans. This is removing the offset from the survivor's benefit that a military retiree pays, like an insurance premium, and gets a survivor's benefit. But, oh, by the way, under current law that survivor's benefit is offset--what they get out of the Veterans Affairs Department--in dependency and indemnity compensation. We passed this overwhelmingly last year. We need a big vote so we can tell the conference committee not to gut it again. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last week we heard chants, slogans--as if those slogans were going to solve the energy crisis--of drill, baby, drill. I think it is more appropriate to use the words of Tom Friedman: Innovate, baby, innovate. If we are going to solve this energy crisis, we have to have a comprehensive solution, and we need to unleash what America can do best, which is our intellectual capacity, our creativeness, our ingenuity. We need to unleash that capacity of America to get out and whip the energy crisis where we are addicted to oil. In fact, in this Senator's judgment, the single greatest threat to our security may well be our dependence on oil, not foreign oil but oil. We all have been hearing from our constituents about what is the possible path for us to break this addiction, and we need to break the addiction and become energy independent in 10 years. I caution against misguided rhetoric and hollow chants, as we have heard--of drill, baby, drill--as a seemingly swift and simple solution to high gas prices. It doesn't have any basis in reality. Remember the words of President Kennedy: Real solutions are not easily or cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. So as we approach it in a comprehensive way, it is not easily and simply explained. Common sense ought to tell us, since the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, and yet uses 25 percent of the world's oil production, we can't drill our way out of the problem. Indeed, there are 65 million acres leased by the oil companies from the Federal Government, not one of which has been drilled. In the Gulf of Mexico itself--where the so-called gang of 10 that is now called the gang of 16 seems to want to pick on my State of Florida and wants to drill all the way up to within 50 miles of the coast--there are 32 million acres under lease by the oil companies, and not one of those acres has been drilled. Yet they are leased from the Federal Government. As a matter of fact, that includes 8.3 million acres on which this Senator worked a compromise to try to solve this problem and got it into law 2 years ago, 8.3 million new acres kept away from the military mission line where we do our testing and training off of Florida, kept away from the shores of Florida. Not 1 acre of that 8.3 million has been drilled since it was offered for lease. More leasing would not stabilize Iraq or guarantee Saudi Arabia's long-term friendship, nor would it end the unregulated speculation that drove oil prices to over $147 a barrel and pushed pump prices to more than $4 a gallon. More leasing of Federal lands will only delay America's freedom from oil. If we do drill, baby, drill, we will dirty and destroy Florida's economy. Even worse, if this so-called gang of 16 puts it all the way up to 50 miles off of Florida, it will cut the heart and lungs out of the last area of unfettered military training for the U.S. military, the largest testing and training for the U.S. military in the world, which is the range in the Gulf of Mexico, all off of the coast of Florida. No matter what anybody says, when the United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves but uses one-fourth of the world's oil supply, drill, baby, drill is not going to work. Now, that is what this Senator has been saying for years. By the way, now even a Texas oilman is saying the same thing. T. Boone Pickens has all of these commercial ads on TV, and he says we cannot drill our way out of this problem. As a matter of fact, the White House report from 5 months ago that I have shared with the Senate several times says the same thing: That drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States will not change the price of gasoline one whit until the year 2030. So what do we do? Well, for the short term, we need to keep bringing gas prices down by not wasting so much oil and by banning the greedy speculation on the part of the oil traders and the profiteers. We have a Senate investigation that has reported that there is lax Federal oversight of these traders, and that is as a result of a loophole that was slipped in in the dead of night in December just before Christmas in the year 2000 at the behest of the infamous Enron Corporation. BP, Amoco, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley also were instrumental in getting this so-called Enron loophole through Congress. Afterward, the price of both oil and natural gas skyrocketed, despite reports that oil supplies were mostly adequate. Links between soaring oil prices and vast sums of money flowing into these unregulated commodities have been uncovered by the Senate Commerce Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. As a matter of fact, just last week, a report by the Washington Post pointed out, unbelievably, that of all the futures contracts for the oil commodities, 81 percent of all that trading was done by people who do not intend to use that oil. If true, done by the speculators: 81 percent. We have had testimony in Congress by an ExxonMobil executive. We have had testimony from a Shell Oil Company executive who said that under normal supply and demand oil ought to be at $55 a barrel. But by any measure, this Enron loophole, which exempts the traders of energy contracts from Federal oversight, was an ill-conceived public policy. That is why a number of us have filed legislation to fully close that loophole and to stop the unchecked runups in speculation of crude oil and gasoline prices. Now, what do I mean by ``unregulated futures commodities markets''? I mean that a governmental entity, if it were regulated, would require them to put a substantial downpayment on the contract for future oil-- to put their money where their mouth is--or a regulated market would be that they would require the bidder for that future oil contract to be somebody who was going to use the oil instead of just speculating on the price and running up the price. So if we do not do something about speculation, they can drive that up again, and we have to fully close that loophole. About 50 percent of the oil we use goes into our cars and trucks. So it should not take a rocket scientist to realize this ought to be where we ought to focus. It took us in the Congress more than 30 years to raise mileage standards to a paltry 35 miles per gallon, to be phased in over the next 15 years--35 miles a gallon. It was 25 miles a gallon back in the 1980s. But, oh, by the way, that exempted light trucks and SUVs. It is interesting that American car manufacturers sell cars in Europe and the cars over there already get 43 miles a gallon. Japan is approaching 50 miles per gallon. In other words, we are wasting billions of gallons of oil here at home. To stop it, we must enact serious conservation measures, such as 40 miles per gallon for our vehicles. We must provide bigger tax incentives for people to buy hybrid cars and plug-in hybrids. Now, what I have shared with you are not simple chants, simple slogans. They are real solutions for the short term. But for the long term, we need to unleash that American ingenuity and to rapidly build cars that run on batteries or hydrogen, not petroleum. We need to develop alternative fuels such as ethanol from things we do not eat. Our Government, led by the next President, must enact a national energy program to transition us from petroleum to alternative and synthetic fuels. It needs to be leadership by the next President in the memory of President Kennedy, when we had only flown Alan Shepard in suborbit, and President Kennedy had the vision and said: This Nation is going to go to the Moon and back in 9 years. That is the kind of leadership we need, and we now have to act with the same urgency. So we are going to have to pay attention to how we power our homes and industry. We are going to need to develop solar, wind, and thermal energy and safer nuclear power. We have a lot of innovative work. I see some colleagues are in the Chamber who wish to speak, and I will conclude. Let me say that I want everybody to know, including the Senator who is just walking onto the floor, this Senator is not going to allow Florida to be a sacrificial lamb for whatever is struck as an energy compromise, nor is this Senator, who has been protecting the interests of the U.S. Department of Defense for 25 years, ever since I was a young Congressman representing the east coast of Florida, going to allow drilling to cut the heart and the lungs out of the military mission area, which is our largest testing and training area, nor to threaten the interests of the State of Florida, by people succumbing to the simple slogan of ``drill, baby, drill'' when it ought to be ``innovate, baby, innovate.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the H.R. 4040 conference report. The issue of consumer product safety--and particularly the safety of toys and other children's products--has long been an important issue for me. Over the last few years, however, we've seen ample evidence that the Consumer Product Safety Commission's authority to protect the public was not up to the task. This breakdown in authority was made crystal clear by last year's ``summer of recalls''--when we saw recall after recall of children's products, including: Children's jewelry and toys covered in lead paint. Toys with detachable magnets that can cause fatal intestinal obstructions. Stuffed animals with small parts that can detach and become a choking hazard. A children's craft kit containing beads that--when swallowed-- metabolized into the same chemical compound as GHB, the date rape drug. Unfortunately, I saw some of the impacts of harmful toys first hand. Last July, I visited with a team of emergency room doctors in Tampa who treated children with intestinal obstructions due to magnets that had detached from toys. In some cases, the doctors noted that the intestinal obstructions were so severe that the children had to undergo surgery to remove the blockages. Invasive surgery like this is scary for most adults--so you can only imagine what it was like for a 4- or 5-year-old to go through something like this. That August, I also visited with a family in Jacksonville who left two of their children in a room with a disco ball toy. The disco ball toy later overheated, caught fire, and emitted enough carbon monoxide to kill both children. After visiting with the families of these children, I also learned first hand about the weaknesses in our product safety laws--and the general failure of leadership at the CPSC. This regulatory breakdown was highlighted by the fact that the CPSC had only one full time employee--who worked in this cramped, antiquated lab--responsible for ensuring the safety of our children's toys. Quite frankly, I was outraged by this--and last summer I introduced S. 1833, the Children's Product Safety Act, which would, require third- party testing of toys and other children's products. These third-party testing requirements were incorporated by Senator Pryor into the Senate version of the CPSC Reform bill--along with an amendment I offered in the Commerce Committee that would mandate the first mandatory safety standards for toys. And I am very pleased that they are included in the final conference report. Taken together, these provisions will ensure that toys and other products intended for children 12 and under will be tested by a rigorous third-party screening process that is continuously updated to address new and emergency hazards. And that is a big victory for America's families. I would like to thank the members of the conference and the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee for all of their hard work on this issue. This legislation will help ensure that we never face another ``summer of recalls.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill and get it to the White House as soon as possible.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address the growing harm that nonnative or ``invasive'' species are inflicting on the wildlife and environment of our National Wildlife Refuge System. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt issued an executive order that designated Pelican Island, located in my home State of Florida, as a Federal bird reservation. This designation was intended to protect the numerous species of waterfowl that called Indian River Lagoon and Pelican Island home, including the last known brown pelican rookery on the East Coast of Florida. President Roosevelt's action marked the first time that our Federal Government set aside land for the sake of wildlife. In the century that followed, the Pelican Island reservation, 27 additional sites in Florida, and other areas nationwide were set aside by the Federal Government and grew into a vast network that is now the National Wildlife Refuge System. Today, this system is comprised of 540 wildlife refuges and 3,000 waterfowl production areas, spanning 95 million miles across all 50 States and several U.S. territories. These refuges are home to 700 bird species, more than 200 mammal species, 250 reptile and amphibian species, and more than 200 types of fish-- including one-fourth of all federally recognized threatened and endangered species. The habitat afforded by our refuges will become even more critical to the survival of wildlife, which is already being forced to adapt to a rapidly changing climate. As if encroaching human development, water and air pollution, and climate change weren't great enough challenges, our wildlife refuges and other protected areas are also threatened by a more insidious and persistent problem: invasive species. These non-native plant and animal species compete for habitat, food, and other resources that are essential to native wildlife, including endangered and threatened species. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, over 400 nonnative animals and nearly 1,200 exotic plant species have been documented in the State, with more arriving each day. The old world climbing fern, Lygodium, poses a greater threat than any other nonnative plant to south Florida's natural areas, including one of our national treasures, the Everglades. This plant currently infests over 70 percent of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge near Boyton Beach, Florida. The Everglades' tree islands, which are a unique and extremely rare habitat for nesting wading birds and terrestrial wildlife, are particularly vulnerable to Lygodium. This invader first surrounds the islands' hardwood trees and dry ground, then grows over the tree canopy, and eventually smothers the native plants. This process essentially eliminates all of the ecological services that the tree islands once provided to native wildlife. The threats posed by nonnative species are not confined to my home State of Florida--this is truly a national problem. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invasive species are one of the most significant problems facing the National Wildlife Refuge System. Resource managers cite nonnative species as the single greatest threat to the refuges' biological and ecological functions, and as one of their most pressing management challenges. Currently, experts estimate that nonnative plant species infest more than 2 million acres in the Refuge System, and that nearly 4,500 invasive animal populations are established. Efforts are underway to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative species in our wildlife refuges and other conservation areas. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service treated 2,500 acres of Lygodium on tree islands in the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge in fiscal year 2006. The South Florida Water Management District has partnered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service to develop a sustained population of natural enemies, known as biological controls, to reduce the spread of invasive plants. The district has funded a biological control program for Lygodium since 1997, and has been working to find a natural enemy for the Brazilian pepper, one of the most noxious, widespread weeds in Florida. Projects like these are having a positive impact on the Everglades restoration, and show why it is important that all levels of government work together to combat harmful, nonnative species. While these and other invasive species control efforts have yielded promising results, the job is far from complete. In the current fiscal year, approximately $8.7 million was budgeted for treatment and control of nonnative plants in the Refuge System. That may sound like a lot of money, but it represents a mere drop in the bucket: the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the total cost of managing invasive species on refuges nationwide is in excess of $300 million. Clearly, we need to dramatically increase the resources we devote to combating harmful, nonnative species if we expect our refuges to fulfill the wildlife conservation purposes for which they were set aside. That is why I have worked with Senators Stabenow, Collins, Cardin, and Martinez to develop and introduce the Refuge Ecology Protection, Assistance, and Immediate Response Act, or REPAIR Act. The primary purpose of this act is to protect, enhance, and restore habitats for native fish and wildlife within the National Wildlife Refuge System. The REPAIR Act would establish within the Fish and Wildlife Service a grant program to support projects to assess, monitor, and manage harmful, nonnative species. Specifically, REPAIR grants would be available to States, tribes, and territories to assess invasive plant and animal species that may threaten refuge resources, and to prioritize restorations needs and activities. Grants would also be available to State and local governments, universities, conservation organizations, and others to implement control projects to eradicate harmful, nonnative plants on refuges and adjoining, nonfederal lands and waters. Volunteer and public-interest groups would also be eligible for grants to conduct habitat surveys and monitor invasive plant and animal species. The REPAIR Act would also give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to provide financial assistance to States to respond quickly to outbreaks of invasive plants at a stage when complete eradication is possible and more affordable. The Fish and Wildlife Service would be responsible for awarding REPAIR grants on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis. For control projects, we establish numerous criteria that give priority to efforts that aid threatened and endangered species, encourage increased coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies, nongovernmental groups, and private entities, and that contain a comprehensive plan to prevent reintroduction of target species. All projects include monitoring and reporting elements, with oversight provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These provisions will help ensure that we achieve the greatest return on our investments to restore and maintain native habitat in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The assessments and control projects authorized by the REPAIR Act will most certainly be of benefit to native wildlife living in and around our refuges, including the numerous threatened and endangered species that we have worked hard to protect. The restoration and preservation of native habitats and wildlife provided by the REPAIR Act will also benefit the 37 million people who visit our refuges each year and take advantage of fishing, hunting, and other recreational and educational opportunities that these special places provide. In closing, I would like to recognize the efforts of Congressman Ron Kind of Wisconsin, who introduced and championed the REPAIR Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House passed this important legislation in October of last year. I hope that we can find a way for the companion measure that I introduced today to pass the Senate and become the law of the land. I look forward to working with Chairman Boxer and the other members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 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, yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I want to recall that after the space shuttle Challenger went down 22 years ago, in a Nation that was shocked because the very symbol of technological prowess had exploded in front of our own eyes on our television screens, the President addressed a mourning Nation and noted that even out of that tragedy, we have grown accustomed to wonders in this country. He observed that we had been so accustomed to all of that technological achievement, it was almost as if it was a Sunday afternoon drive in the car. As President Reagan said, it is hard to dazzle us. But America's space program has been doing exactly that. Now for 50 years it has been dazzling us, even in times of loss and even in times of tragedy. Fifty years ago, it was President Eisenhower who signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act and created NASA. Fifty years ago, in 1958--remember the context of history. The Soviets suddenly took the high ground. The Soviets shocked us because they put the first satellite, sputnik, in orbit. Here, time after time, with the old Navy Vanguard rocket, it would explode on the pad. It was not until the President went to a group of Germans--who were here because we, the United States, had gotten to Peenemunde, Germany, before the Soviets did and got about two-thirds of those German rocket scientists, headed by Wernher von Braun. So years later, the President goes to Wernher von Braun, as America's prestige was on the line because we couldn't get a rocket off the pad, and Wernher von Braun said: Give me 6 months. With the Army Redstone rocket, he put up America's first satellite--Explorer. It was in that historical context that the Congress wrote this new act that set up NASA. Then, after we had been beaten in space by the Soviets with the first satellite, we were beaten in space by the first human in orbit. As a matter of fact, we didn't even have a rocket that had enough lift capability to get the Mercury capsule into orbit because it was that same Redstone rocket that we put the Mercury capsule on for Alan Shepard to go into suborbit. It was in that context that President Kennedy, after we had been shocked again with the Soviets putting up Gagarin for one orbit and then a few weeks later we put up Alan Shepard only into suborbit, it was at that point that the President, who is the only one who can lead America's space program--that President, in 1961, President John F. Kennedy, set the goal. He gave the vision. He said we are going to the Moon and back in 9 years, before the end of the decade. It was a bold challenge. He did that in front of a joint session of Congress: Send a human to another celestial body. Here we had not even gotten into orbit with John Glenn. It was 10 months later, on an Atlas rocket--which was an ICBM. It was not rated for humans. We knew it had a 20-percent chance of failure when John Glenn climbed into that Mercury capsule, and then we were off on that space race. The skeptics did not think it could be done. They certainly didn't think we could go to the Moon. But NASA's Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions were all designed because of that bold stroke of leadership and that vision of a young President. Nine years later, on July 20, 1969, the President's dream became a reality when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. Who can ever forget those immortal words: Houston, the Eagle has landed. And who can ever forget those words as the commander of that mission, Neil Armstrong, climbed down the ladder of those spindly spider legs of the Apollo Lander, when he said: That is a small step for man, but that is a giant leap for mankind. Since then, we have flown the shuttles, we have built the space station, we have explored Jupiter and Mars, and we have had Rovers all over Mars. Indeed, it looks as if there was water on Mars. As we continue to explore the heavens, if there was water--and when we eventually get there with humans--with water, was there life? If there was life, how developed was it? If it was developed, was it civilized? And if that life was civilized, what happened? What can we learn as we explore the heavens in order to be better stewards of our planet, protecting our planet and this civilization that is on this home called planet Earth? I am quite excited, as America celebrates NASA's 50 years of history, that we are now preparing to chart a new course into the cosmos. I am excited about the wonders that await us. There is hope for space settlements and perhaps that discovery of life elsewhere in the universe. It is going to be a page-1 story when suddenly there is some kind of transmission that we intercept that indicates there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Mr. President, you and I--our human minds cannot conceive the enormousness of the universe. When we look at the size of our solar system around the Sun and we understand that there are billions of other solar systems just in our galaxy and then try to comprehend that there are billions of other galaxies--can you imagine that in a far- distant galaxy, there is another star, similar to our Sun, with planets rotating around it, that has created the climatological conditions that have brought forth the life here on this planet? Given the infinite expanse of the universe--it is going to be quite interesting when we have some discovery of an intelligent message from somewhere else in the universe. This is the excitement of the future. As we look back on the accomplishments of 50 years of NASA, we can look with great pride, but excitement, to the future. This is the promise of a new President of the United States making a bold declaration of our understanding and exploration of the heavens. As President Kennedy promised all those years ago, science and education have been greatly enriched by the new knowledge of our universe and of our environment. Life here on Earth has improved by leaps and bounds from the spinoffs of the space technology--the space tools, the computers, the miniaturization--all of this which has been adapted to our daily lifestyles and to industry and to medicine and to our individual homes. America's space effort has created scores of new high-tech companies and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Simply put, we all reap the harvest of gains from our exploration of space. That is why now, at this watershed point of where NASA is going in the future, that is why we cannot cede our leadership in space or waiver in our support for our space program. There is another reason we undertake the risk and invest in space exploration. It is not the pure science, it is not the technology spinoffs, it is not the high-tech workforce, or it is not that we want to extend human civilization beyond our planet. We do it because it is in our character and our nature as a people. We are, as Americans, explorers by nature. In the past, we always have had a frontier. As this Nation developed, it was a westward-expanding frontier. Now that expansion is upward. It has been said that there are two fundamental differences between humans and other species. As humans, we have souls. As humans, we are curious. It has also been said that the exploration of space is a testament to these differences. Curiosity, which is unique to humans, drives us to explore, and our soul gives us meaning to this endeavor. As we celebrate 50 years of NASA's history, let us continue to be a bit overwhelmed. Let us be dazzled again. That concludes my comments on NASA. I have some other comments on a different subject unless we are in some restriction here on the time.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. When one of our colleagues comes to the floor, I am told that I can continue until that time. Samuel Snow I want to share with the Senate the tragedy of a fellow named Samuel Snow, Samuel Snow, 84 years old, African American. The time is 1944 and he is part of the U.S. forces in a military installation in Seattle, WA. It is an installation where there were Italian prisoners of war. Somehow a riot breaks out, and in the course of this riot in the prisoner of war camp, one of these Italian prisoners of war is lynched, and the African-American U.S. soldiers are charged. They are summarily dismissed. They are put in jail. For a year, Samuel Snow was put in jail. He was then dishonorably discharged, all the time maintaining his innocence. As he was discharged dishonorably, he went back to his hometown of Leesburg, FL. The only work he could get was that of janitor. Yet he was so respected in his neighborhood he became the neighborhood handyman. He married his high school sweetheart. They had children. He raised that family. In 2005, a journalist in Seattle, WA, an investigative journalist, dug into this situation and found that Sam Snow had been railroaded and showed he was innocent. Now, you can imagine all of those years after that. Then the Army, the U.S. Army, to its embarrassment, decides it is going to reverse the dishonorable discharge and give him an honorable discharge. And oh, by the way, out of their generosity of heart, they decide they are going to pay him his annual wage for the year he spent in the military prison, so they are going to cut him a check of $725. Well, when this Senator found out about that happening to a Floridian, this Senator about went into orbit again, and, of course, not only writing to the Pentagon but having direct talks with the Secretary of the Army in front of our committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All of them came back and said: Well, the law is that we cannot pay any more. We cannot pay even what we were asking for. At least give him the cost-of-living adjustment for those 60 years of his military pay that he was denied. They say: No, we cannot do it. The law does not allow it. Well, we put it in the Defense authorization bill. It is before the Senate. And as soon as the Senate will finally take up the Defense authorization bill, we will pass it out of here. It is already in the version of the House that has passed the House. It will become law. But let me tell you the sad ending to this story. Last Saturday, Sam Snow and his son Ray traveled to Seattle for the ceremony conducted by the U.S. Army to give him his papers for his honorable discharge. He became ill in Seattle before the ceremony. His son went in his place. His son received the honorable discharge, brought it back to his dad, and with a big smile on his dad's face, his son read him the honorable discharge from an incident, a terrible mark upon the U.S. Army that had occurred 60 years before. I am sad to tell you that 3 hours later, Sam Snow passed away to go on to be with his Maker. He is still owed that back pay, and he is owed more than some $725. This Senator, when we pass that Defense authorization bill, is looking forward to the day that that sum, adjusted, will go to his grieving family. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, until another Senator has come to the floor to seek recognition, I have another subject I have been waiting patiently to speak on, and we have been so busy on the floor that I have not had a chance to speak on it. This is another good news story. We have finally passed, by the Senate working together across the aisle, bipartisan, we have passed a bill, we have passed legislation, and it is anticipated that it will be signed shortly by the President into law, averting a total disaster where the Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to a judge's decision in Federal court on the west coast of the United States, the EPA was going to require a permit of every little recreational boat owner for any kind of runoff from that boat, whether it be in washing down the deck, whether it be the bilge water, whether it be water coming out of an outboard motor, whether it be trying to scoop out the water filling up in a little motorboat. Whatever it is, they were going to require, for the 23 million recreational boat owners, 2 million of which are in my State of Florida, they were going to require going to the EPA in order to get a permit. By working it out on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan fashion, we were able also to get a delay of an additional 24 months for commercial vessels under 79 feet and all commercial fishing vessels regardless of size. All of this came from the decision of a judge who was trying to protect the interests of the United States. Because what happened is these foreign vessels that come in with ballast water in order to weigh down a vessel before it then comes to the United States and takes on cargo that weighs down the vessel would then dump this water that was there for ballast in the waters of the United States. The problem was they would take on water elsewhere in the world that was contaminated, and a certain kind of snail was one of these contaminants that would then go into any kind of drain under the water and start to clog up the drain. So there was clearly an environmental interest to be protected against all of these big commercial vessels bringing in this foreign ballast water that was contaminating our waters. But the fact is, the court's ruling became so expansive that it said in incidental runoff from little recreational boats, you are going to have to get an EPA permit as well. Fortunately, common sense prevailed and we have been able to overcome that. We passed it in the House and the Senate. It is on its way to the White House. Presumably the President will sign this momentarily and it will be law, averting this disaster that was about to occur in September where all of these recreational boat owners and the commercial small fishing vessels were going to have to get this EPA permit. That is a commonsense story. It is also a good news story. I wanted to share that with the Senate. I thank the folks who have worked with me on this legislation, particularly the chairman of the Environment Committee, Senator Boxer, and Senator Murkowski of Alaska, who helped work with us with regard to the commercial fishing vessels that were 79 feet and less. I am glad to bring this good news to the Senate. 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. President, I have the opportunity to clear the decks today with another speech I have been waiting to give. Since one of our colleagues is not coming, I am going to take advantage of this lull of the Senate and, since a Senator is walking in, I will make it short. A tragedy occurred in Florida about 4 years ago, when a child in Deltona, FL, which is north of Orlando, started choking. The mom raced to the phone and dialed 9-1-1 and then she ran back to the child when she could not get anyone to answer on 9-1-1 to help the child. But it was to no avail. And what we found out was, in fact, this was a voice over the Internet telephone conversation and that, in fact, there was no emergency 9-1-1. So for the last 3 or 4 years, some of us have been trying to make sure there is a mandate for 9-1-1 service on a telephone that happened to be transmitted over the Internet instead of over the normal telephonic wires. Happily, I can say to the Senate we worked that legislation out. It was comprehensive. We worked out the differences between the House and Senate. On another happy occasion, the President invited a bunch of us to come down for a signing ceremony. I'm happy to say that in the future, when anybody runs to a telephone to dial 9-1-1, it is not going to be the technical difference of that phone. They are going to know it is hooked up to emergency services. That is my good news story. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address the growing harm that nonnative or ``invasive'' species are inflicting on the wildlife and environment of our National Wildlife Refuge System. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt issued an executive order that designated Pelican Island, located in my home State of Florida, as a Federal bird reservation. This designation was intended to protect the numerous species of waterfowl that called Indian River Lagoon and Pelican Island home, including the last known brown pelican rookery on the East Coast of Florida. President Roosevelt's action marked the first time that our Federal Government set aside land for the sake of wildlife. In the century that followed, the Pelican Island reservation, 27 additional sites in Florida, and other areas nationwide were set aside by the Federal Government and grew into a vast network that is now the National Wildlife Refuge System. Today, this system is comprised of 540 wildlife refuges and 3,000 waterfowl production areas, spanning 95 million miles across all 50 States and several U.S. territories. These refuges are home to 700 bird species, more than 200 mammal species, 250 reptile and amphibian species, and more than 200 types of fish-- including one-fourth of all federally recognized threatened and endangered species. The habitat afforded by our refuges will become even more critical to the survival of wildlife, which is already being forced to adapt to a rapidly changing climate. As if encroaching human development, water and air pollution, and climate change weren't great enough challenges, our wildlife refuges and other protected areas are also threatened by a more insidious and persistent problem: invasive species. These non-native plant and animal species compete for habitat, food, and other resources that are essential to native wildlife, including endangered and threatened species. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, over 400 nonnative animals and nearly 1,200 exotic plant species have been documented in the State, with more arriving each day. The old world climbing fern, Lygodium, poses a greater threat than any other nonnative plant to south Florida's natural areas, including one of our national treasures, the Everglades. This plant currently infests over 70 percent of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge near Boyton Beach, Florida. The Everglades' tree islands, which are a unique and extremely rare habitat for nesting wading birds and terrestrial wildlife, are particularly vulnerable to Lygodium. This invader first surrounds the islands' hardwood trees and dry ground, then grows over the tree canopy, and eventually smothers the native plants. This process essentially eliminates all of the ecological services that the tree islands once provided to native wildlife. The threats posed by nonnative species are not confined to my home State of Florida--this is truly a national problem. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invasive species are one of the most significant problems facing the National Wildlife Refuge System. Resource managers cite nonnative species as the single greatest threat to the refuges' biological and ecological functions, and as one of their most pressing management challenges. Currently, experts estimate that nonnative plant species infest more than 2 million acres in the Refuge System, and that nearly 4,500 invasive animal populations are established. Efforts are underway to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative species in our wildlife refuges and other conservation areas. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service treated 2,500 acres of Lygodium on tree islands in the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge in fiscal year 2006. The South Florida Water Management District has partnered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service to develop a sustained population of natural enemies, known as biological controls, to reduce the spread of invasive plants. The district has funded a biological control program for Lygodium since 1997, and has been working to find a natural enemy for the Brazilian pepper, one of the most noxious, widespread weeds in Florida. Projects like these are having a positive impact on the Everglades restoration, and show why it is important that all levels of government work together to combat harmful, nonnative species. While these and other invasive species control efforts have yielded promising results, the job is far from complete. In the current fiscal year, approximately $8.7 million was budgeted for treatment and control of nonnative plants in the Refuge System. That may sound like a lot of money, but it represents a mere drop in the bucket: the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the total cost of managing invasive species on refuges nationwide is in excess of $300 million. Clearly, we need to dramatically increase the resources we devote to combating harmful, nonnative species if we expect our refuges to fulfill the wildlife conservation purposes for which they were set aside. That is why I have worked with Senators Stabenow, Collins, Cardin, and Martinez to develop and introduce the Refuge Ecology Protection, Assistance, and Immediate Response Act, or REPAIR Act. The primary purpose of this act is to protect, enhance, and restore habitats for native fish and wildlife within the National Wildlife Refuge System. The REPAIR Act would establish within the Fish and Wildlife Service a grant program to support projects to assess, monitor, and manage harmful, nonnative species. Specifically, REPAIR grants would be available to States, tribes, and territories to assess invasive plant and animal species that may threaten refuge resources, and to prioritize restorations needs and activities. Grants would also be available to State and local governments, universities, conservation organizations, and others to implement control projects to eradicate harmful, nonnative plants on refuges and adjoining, nonfederal lands and waters. Volunteer and public-interest groups would also be eligible for grants to conduct habitat surveys and monitor invasive plant and animal species. The REPAIR Act would also give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to provide financial assistance to States to respond quickly to outbreaks of invasive plants at a stage when complete eradication is possible and more affordable. The Fish and Wildlife Service would be responsible for awarding REPAIR grants on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis. For control projects, we establish numerous criteria that give priority to efforts that aid threatened and endangered species, encourage increased coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies, nongovernmental groups, and private entities, and that contain a comprehensive plan to prevent reintroduction of target species. All projects include monitoring and reporting elements, with oversight provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These provisions will help ensure that we achieve the greatest return on our investments to restore and maintain native habitat in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The assessments and control projects authorized by the REPAIR Act will most certainly be of benefit to native wildlife living in and around our refuges, including the numerous threatened and endangered species that we have worked hard to protect. The restoration and preservation of native habitats and wildlife provided by the REPAIR Act will also benefit the 37 million people who visit our refuges each year and take advantage of fishing, hunting, and other recreational and educational opportunities that these special places provide. In closing, I would like to recognize the efforts of Congressman Ron Kind of Wisconsin, who introduced and championed the REPAIR Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The House passed this important legislation in October of last year. I hope that we can find a way for the companion measure that I introduced today to pass the Senate and become the law of the land. I look forward to working with Chairman Boxer and the other members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 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 time controlled by the majority be divided as follows: 10 minutes for myself, 15 minutes for Senator Bingaman, and 5 minutes for Senator Schumer.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish I could tell the story. I will do it later on and complete the story. Exhibit 1 [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 3, 2007] He Stood Tall After Army Dealt a Blow (By Robert L. Jamieson) He's 83 years old and has a slight frame, shy of 5-foot-5. The weight he carried for 63 years, after being railroaded by the Army for a Seattle crime he always said he didn't commit, would have destroyed a lesser man. But that's not the way of Sam Snow, whose story offers a road map for how to move on after a crushing blow. Snow was a footnote to last week's news--the Army paved the way to overturn convictions of 28 black soldiers linked to a race riot and hanging of an Italian war prisoner at Fort Lawton in August 1944. Snow was brought up on rioting charges even though he wasn't involved in the fracas. After several months in lock-up, he was dishonorably discharged, which disqualified him from the GI Bill--and a chance at college. He was just 19 at the time, and Seattle was the only big city Snow, from a small, Southern town, had visited. After his ouster from the Army, Snow was hurt and ashamed, derailed from the path of his own father, who served during World War

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, back in 1944, 27 African- American soldiers were convicted of rioting and lynching an Italian prisoner of war at Fort Walton, WA. Among those convicted was Sam Snow. Following his conviction, he was imprisoned for almost a year, forced to forfeit his pay, and then when he was released from prison, he was discharged with a dishonorable discharge. Until recently, there was no hope of him receiving any kind of future health or retirement benefits from his admirable service during World War II. Sunday, Sam Snow passed away, not in his home of Leesburg, FL, but in Seattle, WA, because he had gone there, traveling across the country, for a ceremony that the U.S. Army was doing to apologize and award Sam Snow with an honorable discharge because for more than 64 years, Sam Snow had endured this injustice--imprisoned, ordered to forfeit his pay, dishonorably discharged--and it was all wrong. The U.S. Army never got around to changing things until an investigative reporter in Seattle suddenly uncovered this in a book he wrote a few years ago. So the Army, last Saturday, was presenting Sam Snow with his honorable discharge. But he got to feeling bad. His son had to go and accept the honorable discharge for him. His son brought it back to him where he was feeling ill. He clutched it in his hands, and a few hours later he died. After that dishonorable discharge 64 years ago, he returned to his hometown of Leesburg, FL, with a dishonorable discharge. He took a job as a janitor. He took on odd jobs. He even was a neighborhood handyman. Last year, when the Army overturned his and those other surviving veterans' convictions, they decided they were going to give him his backpay they had taken away from him when he was imprisoned for almost a year. Mr. President, do you know how much that was? It was $725, 1944 dollars. When a bunch of us heard about it, we petitioned the Department of the Army. I have come to this floor many times to quote President Lincoln, and I say it again for it is our obligation ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle--and for his widow, and his orphan.'' In May, the Armed Services Committee unanimously reported out the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act which contains a provision to enable the service Secretaries to adjust forfeited pay for all servicemembers who suffer an injustice, such as Mr. Snow, which is later overturned and corrected. It is with a heavy heart that I acknowledge Mr. Snow will not receive an interest-adjusted payment for his injustice. I am hopeful, however, that this body will soon take up the Defense authorization bill so Mr. Snow's family and others like them receive justice when there once was none. Today I will ask the Secretary of the Army Pete Geren to use this authority to ensure that Mr. Snow's surviving wife Margaret and son Ray receive all benefits that are due to them.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I come here to speak about an American, who was discriminated against and who lived a life of trying to overcome that discrimination and was not treated fairly by his Government, who unexpectedly died on Sunday. This is Samuel Snow from Leesburg, FL. I want to tell this story because I want people to be outraged, as this Senator is, at the way he was treated by the U.S. Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two articles: one from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer from November of 2007, as well as the St. Petersburg Times from July 28, 2008, after my comments.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I came to speak about a personal tragedy in the lives of a Florida family. But I wish to say at the outset, here we go with all this talk about it is a certain way or the highway to solve this energy problem. As I said on the floor of the Senate a few days ago, if we had the political will where we could take a balanced approach of looking not only at now and drilling what is available, but look to the future for alternatives and renewables so that we wean ourselves from this dependence on specifically foreign oil, but also on our dependence for decades in the future on oil as the staple of our energy, realizing that if we continue to do that, we are just going to be digging a hole for ourselves maintaining dependence on oil as the No. 1 source of energy. Don't we have enough evidence now that when you have to depend on upwards of 70 percent of foreign oil that is not a good economic posture as well as a defense posture for national security for this country? Don't we have enough evidence now that the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, and yet we consume 25 percent of the world's oil production? And is that not enough to get it through our skulls that the way of the future for this country is to cut that dependence on oil and go to alternative sources? We are confronting on that side of the aisle, that is very cozy with big oil--they want to have it all their way and say, ``drill here, drill now,'' a simple slogan when, in fact, it is a lot more complicated today. Yet we cannot get agreement to do what all of us deep down understand is the commonsense thing to do, and that is bring a comprehensive measure in which we start doing a number of things at once, including pouring the money into research and development and financial incentives, such as tax incentives, to develop new sources, alternative fuels. That is the way to go. Yet we hear this high-blown rhetoric about ``drill here, drill now.'' It is with a heavy heart that I have to continue to say what I just said because all we are is wound around the axle in the Senate since we cannot get anything passed unless we have 60 votes. And if we cannot get the two sides to get along, we have what we have, which is gridlock.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Catherine Zebrowski, a fellow in Senator Brown's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008.