Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader, I would have asked that, but this Senator thought that was locked in with the previous unanimous consent. I thank the majority leader for the opportunity. Mr. President, the United States has benefited enormously because of the good will. That is one thing. But when you see these folks who have been bedeviled with this terrible, terrible infliction suddenly have a chance for a normal life as a result of these lifegiving drugs, when properly administered, along with the food programs as well, indeed it is one of the least things we can do. Is it not in the capacity of the United States to help the rest of the world? Of course it is. Is it not within our ethos to want to help the rest of the world? It certainly is. Just as a byproduct of that, the people of Africa are recognizing the leadership that the United States has taken. They are appreciative. I must say that there was a part of this African trip that was very disturbing to me, and that was the grave situation in Zimbabwe. That is as a result of the disastrous regime of Robert Mugabe. Last Friday, a bunch of us Senators had joined Senators Feingold and Isakson, who are leaders on the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, in introducing a resolution to rebuke Robert Mugabe and support U.S. efforts at the United Nations to impose tougher sanctions on the Mugabe regime. Although the U.S.-sponsored resolution failed to overcome the vetoes of China and Russia--listen to that: the vetoes of China and Russia--in the Security Council on Friday--we kind of get an indication of where their attitude is about a democratically elected government in Zimbabwe--it is critical for us to continue to work with the U.N. and our African Union partners to help bring about a political solution for the desperate people in Zimbabwe. On this most recent trip, I didn't go to Zimbabwe. I wasn't welcome. It was a striking survey of the governments that I saw in those four countries, a new African leadership, strong economic growth, the rule of law, political stability--what a contrast with the old ways of dealing with people such as Mugabe, in a government that is marked with autocracy, corruption, and the rule of law through the barrel of a gun. Well, what is clearly in the interest of the people of Zimbabwe and the rest of the world is stability in Zimbabwe. And it is important that we continue to press forward. In east Africa, the rule of law does have some new applications--for example, the Government of Kenya. There, the whole place was being torn apart because of a dispute in the December election. Finally, after much violence and with as many as 5,000 deaths--if you can believe it-- because of the violence following the election, the business community, the government community, and the two opposition parties came together and said: We have to have a better way. They formed this unity government. Thus far, it has worked. Let's see how it continues. But in the aftermath of September 11, we know all too well how instability and weak governance and corruption can sow the seeds of radicalization and terrorism. Now, however destitute and downtrodden the heroic people of Zimbabwe, however, those heroic people have risen up against Mugabe's machine at the ballot box on March 29 and they cast their votes overwhelmingly for Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change. That opposition party won 48 percent of the vote against 43 percent for Mugabe. But then, of course, Mugabe initiated a reign of terror and intimidation in the lead-up to this farce of a runoff election. His state-sponsored violence against opposition members, against supporters, against civilians, in an attempt to consolidate his power, ultimately caused the opposition candidates to withdraw from the election. He had to take refuge in the Dutch Embassy. This recent runoff was declared neither credible nor fair by independent election monitors. Mugabe was the only candidate left. He was declared the winner. Since the initial election back in March, the opposition party said that 86 of its supporters have been killed and 200,000 of its supporters forced from their homes by militias loyal to Mugabe's party. If you will go back decades, Mugabe took over in a new country of Zimbabwe when he had thrown off the colonial rule under the old Rhodesia. Mugabe was looked upon as a freedom fighter and someone who was going to bring a fresh break, a fresh government that was going to be a democratic government. He has long been celebrated by his fellow African leaders for his role as a liberation leader for Zimbabwe. In recent years, Mugabe has too often been coddled as his failings have come to light. Two weeks ago, unfortunately, the African Union allowed him to take his seat as the head of state among the leaders in their annual meeting that was in Sharm el-Sheikh. Those African Union leaders were split over how to deal with Mugabe, but they allowed him to be seated. Many leaders, including South African President Mbeki, who serves as the South African Development Community's designated mediator, have stood by as Mugabe has trampled human rights, as he has silenced the press, as he has undermined the rule of law, and he has run the once-thriving Zimbabwean economy into the ground. South Africa worked behind the scenes to sink the U.S.-sponsored resolution on Zimbabwe at the U.N. last week. This is quite distressing, given that South Africa is where it is today because of the international sanctions to end apartheid. So now because of these ruinous economic policies, Zimbabwe is the world's fastest shrinking economy. It has a negative GDP of minus 6 percent. It has skyrocketing inflation. Zimbabwe's central bank stopped posting inflation figures in January when inflation stood at, unbelievably, over 100,000 percent. A loaf of bread cost 30 billion Zimbabwean dollars--a loaf of bread. The sinking economy and the government-orchestrated political intimidation and murder has caused a massive refugee flight into the neighboring countries. According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch, there is now estimated to be 1.5 million Zimbabweans who have fled across the border into South Africa. The international community must honor the courage of the Zimbabwean people and help them take back their country from the brink of ruin. Recent reports show that a Chinese ship loaded with more than 1 million pounds of arms bound for Zimbabwe was eventually turned away by the dock workers in Durban, South Africa, a reminder of the support Mugabe continues to receive from around the world. The United States is going to have to continue to work in the U.N. and with the African Union to immediately call for Robert Mugabe to step down and to push for a number of practical solutions for the crisis in Zimbabwe. First is an international arms embargo and stricter sanctions. Although our backed resolution in the United Nations last Friday failed, we must continue to work on an international framework to impose sanctions on international arms, travel, and an asset embargo. We have to get Mugabe to understand that his totalitarian, dictatorial ways have to change. Then we need to press for any new power sharing arrangement. Any new mediation must secure agreement with the opposition, with Tsvangirai in the lead, and provide support in setting up new institutions. We can assist the transitional government by helping to provide a framework for future elections and reforms. We need to help them economically. The African Union, led by Zimbabwe's largest trading partners, including South Africa, Zambia, Congo, and Botswana, should put together a package of aid and reconstruction funding to help the ravaged people of Zimbabwe stand on their feet. The United States and Europe can play a leading role in backing that effort with the support that we are so generously quick to offer. The situation in Zimbabwe is dire, and the United States must take the lead in rebuking Robert Mugabe in calling for a new dawn for Zimbabwe. It is a time in which when you see the success, the beginnings of political stability, the beginnings of economic blossoming in countries such as Kenya and Tanzania and Uganda and Rwanda, we know the same thing can be done in a place such as Zimbabwe. Just think, in those last two countries I mentioned, Uganda and Rwanda, look from where they have come. It was not too many years ago that there was a brutal dictator named Idi Amin. A lot of people have seen the movie ``The Last King of Scotland,'' which tells about the brutality of that regime. But as soon as Idi Amin was gone, the former President came in again and became almost as bad, Obote. It wasn't until another strong man, a general named Museveni, came on that he has brought stability for the last couple of decades. Look at the country immediately to the south of Uganda. Look at Rwanda. Look at what has happened to Rwanda, a country, just 14 years ago, in 1994, because there was the hatred between the two tribes, the Hutus and the Tutsis--the Hutus were in charge of the government. They allowed the militias, the gangs, the thugs to reign and use as an excuse the downing of the President's airplane, and they unleashed a reign of terror that was nothing short of mass slaughter, genocide, of which, unbelievably, within 100 days, 1 million people were slaughtered and hacked to death by machetes. That was 14 years ago. The general who took over and is now the President of Rwanda, the opposite tribe, a Tutsi, said: We are not going the same way. We are not going to take revenge. You can imagine when his army came in and invaded the capital city of Rwanda and they saw bodies strewn all over the streets rotting, corpses that dogs were eating the flesh, and when his soldiers found out that their entire families had been wiped out, hacked to death with machetes, you can imagine the problem of discipline that general, now the new President of Rwanda, had in trying to exert discipline. The President told me in our meeting that was a very difficult time because a soldier would go to his home and find his entire family slaughtered, and he felt that he would have to take the revenge into his own hands, despite the order that the general had given him. The general, the new President, then would have that soldier arrested, even though you can understand the feeling of outrage of seeing 50 members of his family slaughtered. The President told me also the story about the notes that he would get from members of his army that said: Mr. President, it is not going to please you because you have given orders to the contrary, but I could not stand by and see these people who have slaughtered my family get away with it. And then that soldier would take the revenge and that soldier would then turn the gun on his own self and commit suicide. But the general's orders took hold. He established a government. It was a government where they would go through under Rwandan law and try those people. They would try to bring about reconciliation. And 14 years later, after 1 million people were slaughtered in a 100-day period, Rwanda is on its way back with some stability, some economic promise, and some economic progress. This is what can happen in Africa, and this is what needs to happen in Zimbabwe. Soon there are going to be elections in South Africa bringing in a new President. If present President Mbeki will not move, since they are the biggest influence on Zimbabwe because of their trade relationship, if he will not move, then there is another election in South Africa that will elect a new leader, and maybe that new leader will move to bring sanctions on Zimbabwe so that, once again, the promise of Africa will become realized, as so many countries in Africa today are realizing. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Congressional Record for July 9, 2008, inadvertently omitted my written statement for the Record. The text is as follows: Mr. President, I believe that we must pass a new FISA bill that enables our intelligence community to get the information it needs to stop terrorist plots while also protecting our civil liberties, by requiring a court order before any American is targeted for eavesdropping. But I don't believe in blanket immunity for the phone companies. That's why, in the Intelligence Committee, I offered language to deny immunity to the telecommunications companies for their alleged participation in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. But that amendment failed--and failed miserably. During floor consideration of the FISA bill, Senator Feinstein and I offered a compromise amendment that would have required the FISA court to review the actions of telecommunication companies who participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. But it failed too. Now I am backing an amendment by Senator Bingaman that would at least delay immunity until the inspectors general of the U.S. Government complete their investigation of the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Upon completion of the report, the Senate will have ninety days to act before immunity is granted to the telecommunications companies. This will allow us time to change some minds if real wrongdoing is found. Overall, I believe this legislation significantly improves civil liberties protections for Americans while enabling our intelligence community to listen in on terrorists. This is an important step forward and I will support this legislation.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. What is the procedure? Since Senator Feingold is not here, is that locked in as such for him?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am grateful to the vice chairman. I wish to say--and I will do it in a minute and a half--how much I appreciate the chairman and vice chairman being able to come up with a product that we need so we get some certainty about the court review of this process so we can balance this interest of going after the terrorists but at the same time protecting the civil liberties of American citizens and American persons who are here legally in the country. I think the bill does that. We have struggled with it for a year and a half in our committee. I am certainly going to support the final product. There are obviously some matters we have had in the Intelligence Committee that we are not able to discuss here. I am sure the people listening understand that. I just want to say on the controversial issue of immunity that I do not believe in blanket immunity for the phone companies, and that is why, when this issue was in front of our Intelligence Committee, I offered language to deny them immunity. But it failed, my amendment, and it failed miserably. So when it came to the floor, I offered a compromise to the full Senate, along with Senator Feinstein, that would have required a special court to review the phone companies' action, but that failed as well. Now I am backing an amendment by Senator Bingaman that would at least delay immunity until the inspectors general of the U.S. Government complete their investigation of the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Upon completion of the report, the Senate will have 90 days to act before immunity is granted to the telecommunications companies. This will allow us time to change some minds if real wrongdoing is found. Overall, I believe this legislation significantly improves civil liberties protections for Americans while enabling our intelligence community to listen in on terrorists. This is an important step forward and I will support this legislation.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator allow me to have a couple of moments?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is there an order established here under unanimous consent?

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. 832, S. 2766, the Clean Boating Act, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last month I chaired a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to consider a difficult but extremely important issue--compensating Holocaust survivors and their heirs for the value of Holocaust-era insurance policies they held before the war but lost or had stolen from them by the Nazi regime. Although this hearing was the first time a Senate committee had met specifically to consider Holocaust-era insurance compensation issues, I have been involved in the issue for more than a decade. As Florida's insurance commissioner in the late 1990's, I helped lead an international effort by regulators and Jewish groups that ultimately forced many European insurers to come to the table and for the first time begin paying restitution to survivors. Florida is a State with a large population of Holocaust survivors--one of the largest concentrations of Holocaust survivors in the world. Most are in their 80s or 90s. The very youngest are in their 70s. They are valued constituents, and while I recognize that no amount of financial compensation or property restitution can ever make up for the indescribable wrong of the Holocaust, I have been and remain committed to doing what I can to assist survivors to obtain without delay meaningful compensation for assets that they lost during the war. The primary purpose of the hearing was to examine what remains to be done to compensate Holocaust survivors and their heirs for the insurance policies, now that the decade-long compensation process undertaken by the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, ICHEC, has ceased operations and paid out some $306 million to 48,000 Holocaust victims and their heirs for Holocaust-era insurance policies that belonged to them and never were paid. While Western European countries and insurance companies participated in and contributed to ICHEIC, there was undisputed testimony at the hearing that Eastern European countries and companies did not, and should be called upon to compensate Holocaust survivors for the unpaid value of their insurance policies. Millions of Jews lived in Eastern European countries before the war. While many of them lived in rural areas and were too poor to afford insurance, there were certainly Jews who purchased insurance policies from subsidiaries of Western European companies whose assets were taken by the communist governments that came into power, or by Eastern European companies that were nationalized. Unfortunately, the Eastern European countries neither participated in ICHEIC nor contributed to any of the insurance compensation efforts that have taken place. ICHEIC nonetheless paid claims on those Eastern European policies from out of the humanitarian funds that were contributed by the ICHEIC companies, ultimately distributing $31 million on more than 2,800 such claims. Unfortunately, Eastern European countries have not taken nearly enough action on restitution for insurance and other private and communal property taken from Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution, and then seized by the communist governments that ruled Eastern Europe after the war. Poland, for example, is the sole member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe not to have enacted property restitution legislation. And Lithuania has yet to enact promised legislation to compensate communities that had communal and religious property seized. This is unacceptable. Today, Senator Smith and I, joined by our colleagues Senators Cardin, Coleman, and Menendez, are introducing a bi-partisan resolution urging countries in Eastern Europe to enact fair and comprehensive private and communal property restitution legislation addressing the unjust taking of property by Nazi, communist, and socialist regimes, and to do so as quickly as possible. Given that the youngest Holocaust survivors are in their 70s, time is of the essence. Our resolution calls for the Secretary of State to engage in dialogue to achieve the aims of the resolution as well as for the convening of an international intergovernmental conference to focus on the remaining steps necessary to secure restitution and compensation of Holocaust-era assets. The resolution has received overwhelming support from the survivor community. Following the hearing, Holocaust survivors were notified of our intent to file this resolution and asked to provide input via e- mail. Over the space of six weeks, we received more than 200 messages from Holocaust survivors and their children and relatives now living in nations around the world, supporting restitution. Many e-mails addressed specific claims to property in Eastern European countries including Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine. The following message of support from a Holocaust survivor from England exemplifies the many heart-rending and compelling e-mails I received, recounting what was lost by survivors who had lived in Eastern Europe and their inability thus far to obtain restitution or compensation: I support your efforts to secure property restitution in Eastern Europe for Holocaust Survivors. With my family, I was expelled from our apartment in Lodz, Poland on December 11, 1939. We were allowed to take with us only 3 rucksacks and all our material belongings had to be left behind. These included a newly built apartment block with 10 luxury flats, a textile factory employing over 100 people and magazines full of finished fabrics. My mother and I survived the Warsaw ghetto, my father was killed by the Germans in December 1944 and we returned to Lodz after liberation by the Russians in early 1945. Our factory and our apartment belonged now to the Polish authorities. We left Poland soon afterwards. After the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the communist regime, I tried [to] get our possessions back without success, my appeal having been dismissed by the Polish High Court. No compensation was offered. We hope our resolution we are introducing today will spur our own government and governments in Eastern Europe into action and call attention to this important unfinished business. Justice and memory demand nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be placed in the appropriate place in the Record and ask that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address an ongoing problem that adversely affects local communities and coastal areas around my home State of Florida and across coastal States nationwide. Today, Senator Snowe and I, along with Senators Cantwell, Kerry, Vitter, Levin, Voinovich, Boxer, Cardin, and Mikulski, are introducing a bill that would reauthorize and enhance the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, HABHRCA, which was enacted in 1998 and reauthorized 4 years ago. This act has enabled critical monitoring, forecasting, and research activities that have greatly improved our understanding and prediction of harmful algal blooms, nuisance blooms like red drift, and low-oxygen or hypoxia events that plague our estuaries and coastal waters. While the accomplishments made to date through HABHRCA are certainly valuable and to be commended, more work lies ahead. In Florida, harmful algal blooms, including red tides, and frequent red drift events continue to occur along our coasts. According to experts from Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, most of Florida's red tides are caused by a microscopic algae called Karenia brevis, which creates blooms that can last for months and cover hundreds of square miles. What makes this organism so harmful are the toxins it produces. These toxins can kill fish, birds, and other marine animals. For humans, the toxins trigger respiratory problems, eye and skin irritation, and shellfish poisoning when the toxins accumulate in oysters and clams. When these blooms die, the decomposing algae strip oxygen from the water column. These hypoxic conditions deprive fish, manatees, and other animal species of the oxygen they need to survive. A particularly devastating and intense red tide struck the Florida gulf coast in the summer of 2005, causing widespread animal deaths and public health and economic problems. The St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention and Visitors Bureau estimated upwards of $240 million in losses for the Tampa region as a result of this bloom. Scientists have told us that red tides are a lot like hurricanes complex but natural phenomena that can have profound impacts on our environment and society. Although we may not be able to stop this natural process, we can do more to predict it and take actions to minimize its impacts on our citizens and natural resources. While red drift algae lack the toxins associated with red tide, they can nonetheless cause enormous problems along Florida's beaches. We have had numerous red drift events in Florida over the last few years. In March 2007, some witnesses described clumps of red drift algae the size of hay bales floating on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, and washing onshore from Fort Myers to Anna Maria Island. Scientists have also been looking into whether nutrients from the decomposing algae may feed subsequent blooms, keeping local waters in a terrible cycle. Other algal blooms are impairing waterways and causing social and economic problems in my state. Earlier this month, a water treatment plant on the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County had to be closed temporarily due to a bloom of blue-green algae. It is clear that harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events can have devastating impacts on water and air quality, aquatic species, wildlife, and beach conditions, which in turn affect public health, commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and related businesses in our coastal communities. The question becomes, what can we do to stop this? If we can't stop these events, how can we better plan for them and take steps to minimize the impacts? We have learned from scientists and researchers, many of whom were funded by HABHRCA-authorized programs, that some harmful algal blooms and red drift events can be triggered by excess nutrients from upland areas that wash into rivers and are delivered to the coast. Because this problem often crosses political and geographic boundaries, we must pursue solutions that are regional in nature and bring together expertise from all levels of government, from academia, and from other outside groups who have a stake in keeping our coastal waters healthy, clean, and productive. Senator Snowe and I have worked together to craft a bill that will not only continue critical research on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, but help address some of these pressing needs that exist on every coast--from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, to the Pacific and the Great Lakes. Our bill will help integrate and improve coordination among the government's programs that study and monitor these events. The bill would also improve how regional, state, and local needs are considered when prioritizing research grants and developing related products. Most importantly, this bill would focus new resources on translating research results into tools and products that state and local governments can use to help prevent, respond to, and mitigate the impacts of these events. Although we have made significant progress in identifying some of the causes and consequences of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia since 1998, much work remains to find solutions that minimize the occurrence of these events and that enable our coastal communities to become resilient to the impacts. This legislation to amend and reauthorize the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Act represents an important step toward realizing those goals. In closing, I would like to recognize Senator Snowe for her leadership on this issue. As the sponsor of both the original legislation in 1998 and the 2004 amendments, her expertise on harmful algal blooms and the impacts of these events on her constituents has proved invaluable as we developed the measure before us today. I look forward to working with Senator Snowe, in her role as ranking member of the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, as well as with Chairman Cantwell and the other members of our subcommittee, to debate this important legislation.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address an ongoing problem that adversely affects local communities and coastal areas around my home State of Florida and across coastal States nationwide. Today, Senator Snowe and I, along with Senators Cantwell, Kerry, Vitter, Levin, Voinovich, Boxer, Cardin, and Mikulski, are introducing a bill that would reauthorize and enhance the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, HABHRCA, which was enacted in 1998 and reauthorized 4 years ago. This act has enabled critical monitoring, forecasting, and research activities that have greatly improved our understanding and prediction of harmful algal blooms, nuisance blooms like red drift, and low-oxygen or hypoxia events that plague our estuaries and coastal waters. While the accomplishments made to date through HABHRCA are certainly valuable and to be commended, more work lies ahead. In Florida, harmful algal blooms, including red tides, and frequent red drift events continue to occur along our coasts. According to experts from Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, most of Florida's red tides are caused by a microscopic algae called Karenia brevis, which creates blooms that can last for months and cover hundreds of square miles. What makes this organism so harmful are the toxins it produces. These toxins can kill fish, birds, and other marine animals. For humans, the toxins trigger respiratory problems, eye and skin irritation, and shellfish poisoning when the toxins accumulate in oysters and clams. When these blooms die, the decomposing algae strip oxygen from the water column. These hypoxic conditions deprive fish, manatees, and other animal species of the oxygen they need to survive. A particularly devastating and intense red tide struck the Florida gulf coast in the summer of 2005, causing widespread animal deaths and public health and economic problems. The St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention and Visitors Bureau estimated upwards of $240 million in losses for the Tampa region as a result of this bloom. Scientists have told us that red tides are a lot like hurricanes complex but natural phenomena that can have profound impacts on our environment and society. Although we may not be able to stop this natural process, we can do more to predict it and take actions to minimize its impacts on our citizens and natural resources. While red drift algae lack the toxins associated with red tide, they can nonetheless cause enormous problems along Florida's beaches. We have had numerous red drift events in Florida over the last few years. In March 2007, some witnesses described clumps of red drift algae the size of hay bales floating on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, and washing onshore from Fort Myers to Anna Maria Island. Scientists have also been looking into whether nutrients from the decomposing algae may feed subsequent blooms, keeping local waters in a terrible cycle. Other algal blooms are impairing waterways and causing social and economic problems in my state. Earlier this month, a water treatment plant on the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County had to be closed temporarily due to a bloom of blue-green algae. It is clear that harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events can have devastating impacts on water and air quality, aquatic species, wildlife, and beach conditions, which in turn affect public health, commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and related businesses in our coastal communities. The question becomes, what can we do to stop this? If we can't stop these events, how can we better plan for them and take steps to minimize the impacts? We have learned from scientists and researchers, many of whom were funded by HABHRCA-authorized programs, that some harmful algal blooms and red drift events can be triggered by excess nutrients from upland areas that wash into rivers and are delivered to the coast. Because this problem often crosses political and geographic boundaries, we must pursue solutions that are regional in nature and bring together expertise from all levels of government, from academia, and from other outside groups who have a stake in keeping our coastal waters healthy, clean, and productive. Senator Snowe and I have worked together to craft a bill that will not only continue critical research on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, but help address some of these pressing needs that exist on every coast--from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, to the Pacific and the Great Lakes. Our bill will help integrate and improve coordination among the government's programs that study and monitor these events. The bill would also improve how regional, state, and local needs are considered when prioritizing research grants and developing related products. Most importantly, this bill would focus new resources on translating research results into tools and products that state and local governments can use to help prevent, respond to, and mitigate the impacts of these events. Although we have made significant progress in identifying some of the causes and consequences of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia since 1998, much work remains to find solutions that minimize the occurrence of these events and that enable our coastal communities to become resilient to the impacts. This legislation to amend and reauthorize the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Act represents an important step toward realizing those goals. In closing, I would like to recognize Senator Snowe for her leadership on this issue. As the sponsor of both the original legislation in 1998 and the 2004 amendments, her expertise on harmful algal blooms and the impacts of these events on her constituents has proved invaluable as we developed the measure before us today. I look forward to working with Senator Snowe, in her role as ranking member of the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, as well as with Chairman Cantwell and the other members of our subcommittee, to debate this important legislation.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will be offering an amendment which I think will be adopted or embraced, approved, cleared by both sides. It is a bipartisan amendment with Senator Coleman. It is to give some commonsense relief to homeowners who are trying to stay in their home while their home is under foreclosure. If a homeowner is there and doesn't have any cash, the homeowner has fewer options of what to do if the bank is foreclosing on the home. But suppose the homeowner has a retirement fund, a private retirement fund, a 401(k) retirement fund. We have allowed, under current law, for the ability of a homeowner to take money out of that retirement fund, without paying the 10 percent penalty, to take it out of the retirement fund before retirement for the purpose of purchasing a home. But if it is a homeowner with a home that is under foreclosure and they need cash, under current law, if their only source of cash is that retirement fund, in order to pull it out, they have to pay a 10-percent penalty. It seems it is common sense and the kind of public policy that we would want to adopt to give the homeowner the means of avoiding foreclosure by being able to tap into some of their cash in their retirement fund in order to save their home. That is what the amendment is all about. It is simple. It waives the 10-percent penalty for folks wishing to make an early withdrawal from their retirement fund in order to avoid foreclosure. We put some parameters, some boundaries around it so it cannot be abused. We say homeowners have to show they are participating in a government- or industry-sponsored foreclosure prevention program, such as the ones we are setting up in this bill, the HOPE NOW or the HOPE for Homeowners programs. Both of those are established in the bill before us today. That is one parameter. Another parameter is, we make this thing limited for 2 years so it will not go on and on. The foreclosure crisis is right now. We want to help homeowners stay in their homes. We limit it for 2 years. The third parameter, we put a limit of $25,000 on what they can take out of their retirement fund. We are going to give that homeowner, once they take the money out and they save their home, the ability to put that money back into their retirement fund within a 3-year period and not have to pay income tax on that money. A normal retirement fund, you take money out of the fund, you will have to pay income tax on it. If the purpose is to get a ready source of cash to help them stay in their home under foreclosure, we want to give them that opportunity to get it back in their retirement fund and not have to pay income tax. They have to do that--another one of those parameters--within 3 years. The cost is fully offset. I want to give an example. We all, from our States, get horror stories. I got one from a retired Air Force sergeant who lives in Stuart, FL. He recently lost his job and, in order to stay in his home, pay his mortgage, he liquidated his 401(k) savings and paid the 10-percent penalty. The bill we are considering today gives, in another provision, a tax credit for first-time homeowners to buy their first home. But unless we do it with this provision, we are going to penalize folks such as Wayne who didn't have any source of cash except his 401(k) in order to try to do his best to save his own home using his own money. It is true that for most people, a home is the greatest single source of wealth. It seems to me it is common sense that we would have this narrowly defined, limited exception to allow homeowners to use every tool available within their power to stay in that home and not have it foreclosed. That is the amendment I will be offering at an appropriate time. I believe we have received clearance from Senator Grassley. I am trying to get clearance from Senator Baucus, then the two managers of the bill, and the Banking Committee, to get clearance from them. Oil Futures Why has oil hit, last week, $140 a barrel, and why is it, within the last couple days, somewhere in the high 130s? We have had testimony now from the president of Shell Oil Company. We have had testimony from an executive of ExxonMobil. The two respective testimonies say that under the normal marketplace for oil, a world marketplace of supply and demand, one of them testified oil ought to be at $55 a barrel, not $140, and the other one testified it ought to be somewhere between $35 and $65 a barrel, not $140. So why is it at $140? It is true that little ``jitterations'' in the marketplace, any little minicrisis in any part of the world is going to send jitters into the financial marketplace. That is going to cause upward pressure. The fact is that China and India, of course, having so much consumption of oil, makes it tighter. But even so, with all that, they said it ought to be in the range of somewhere between $35 and $65 a barrel. The reason it isn't is because 8 years ago, in the dead of night just before Christmas in the year 2000, the Senate, adjourning to go home, a provision was slipped into an unrelated bill that deregulated energy futures contracts. It was called the Enron loophole because it benefited Enron. We saw that a couple years thereafter in electricity contracts in California having been bid up and bid up and bid up, and that caused a great crisis that ultimately caused blackouts in California. Then, when Enron unraveled financially, we found out about that. But nothing was done to reregulate the agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC. A lot of our colleagues here think we just reregulated them last Thursday night in the farm bill. But we only partially reregulated them when we passed the farm bill over the President's veto. What that was, was new power of the CFTC to go in on an ad hoc basis on an individual oil contract, with certain other limitations, to examine it and then determine if it wants to regulate it. I don't want to do that. The bill I have filed--and I have Senator Dorgan, Senator Obama, and Senator Boxer as cosponsors--takes us back to the status quo before the Enron loophole was passed, which is the trading mechanisms attached to the United States have to be regulated if it is energy futures contracts. It is very simple. As a matter of fact, my bill is only two words. It inserts the words ``or energy'' in there to reregulate energy futures contracts. What is regulating? That Commission would decide, for example, that they are going to require that if you are going to bid on these future contracts for oil, you are going to have to use that oil. It is people now who don't have any intention of using oil who go into these markets and speculate and bid up the price. It is believed that if we plugged this loophole, the price of gasoline will drop by half. That is pretty dramatic. Yesterday, the House of Representatives had testimony that the price of oil per barrel would drop by over half. That is pretty dramatic. People are hurting. Every Senator knows that. Our people are hurting. This $4 gas is hurting our people financially. They are not able to make financial ends meet. So if we want to do something, we have to get to where we can do something about it. Why did the price of oil futures jump $11 in 1 day? Do you know what the airline industry has told us? That 1-day jump of $11 a barrel cost the airline industry $4 billion extra. They can't survive like that. This is an entity we want to survive. They transport us about the country and the world. We can do something about it, if we have the political will. This Senator is going to continue to pound on this issue to try to get the attention, and we are getting some heft, when Dorgan and Obama and Boxer all start signing up. It is a very elegant, very simple thing. You go back and plug the loophole that was unplugged back in December of 2000 and allow the Government to do what it ought to do by saying that the commodity exchanges have to regulate the trading of oil futures contracts. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are on the bill having to do with homes and foreclosures. I want to speak on the bill, and then I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak thereafter as in morning business.

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

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Floridians are hurting-- foreclosures are skyrocketing. According to one estimate, at the end of March 2008, Florida had nearly 200,000 properties in foreclosure. In the first quarter of 2008, Florida had the second highest total of foreclosures, nationwide--up 17 percent from the previous quarter and 178 percent from last year. Statewide, one in every 97 households received a foreclosure filing. In May, Cape Coral Ft. Myers, Florida, had the second highest foreclosure rate in the Nation, with one in every 79 homes receiving a foreclosure filing. This crisis isn't limited to subprime mortgages or risky borrowers--it destroys the value of entire communities. The ripple effect translates into big losses for the State's economy--an estimated $35.9 billion decrease in home value and tax base in Florida. I rise to discuss a bipartisan amendment that have filed with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman. This amendment provides commonsense relief to homeowners trying to stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure. Current law imposes a 10 percent penalty for individuals choosing to make an early withdrawal from their retirement savings. There are exceptions to this penalty: years ago, we allowed first time homeowners to use their retirement savings to help purchase a home. Surely, we can agree that in 2008 we should allow homeowners to use a small portion of their savings to save their home. Our amendment waives the 10 percent penalty for folks wishing to make an early-withdrawal to help avoid foreclosure. To be eligible for this waiver, homeowners must have proof that they are participating in a Government or industry sponsored foreclosure prevention program, like HOPE NOW, or the HOPE for Homeowners Program established in the bill we are considering today. This benefit is limited to 2 years, and the withdrawal amount is capped at $25,000. Taxpayers will also have 2 years to repay what they borrowed from their retirement savings. This amendment is fully offset. I received an email from Wayne, who lives in Stuart, FL. Wayne is an Air Force Veteran who recently lost his job, and in order to try to keep his home, he liquidated his 401(k) savings and paid the 10 percent penalty. The housing bill we are considering today gives tax credits for first time homebuyers to purchase homes, but current tax law penalizes folks like Wayne, who are trying their best to save their home, using their own money. In many instances, a home is the greatest single source of wealth for Americans. It makes sense to make a limited exception to allow homeowners to use every tool available to stay in that home, and save their greatest investment. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have quite a brouhaha that was stirred up in my State of Florida when the President and Senator McCain both announced their position--a changed position for Senator McCain--that all of the offshore lands on the continental United States be drilled for oil and gas. Presently, most of those offshore lands are under a Presidential moratorium until the year 2012, save for the Gulf of Mexico off the west coast of Florida, which is under statutory prohibition to drill until the year 2022. It has caused quite a brouhaha because both Senator McCain and the President have said that if you want to lower the $4 price of gas that people are hurting under, what you have to do is drill. But what they have neglected to say is that there are 65 million acres, onshore and offshore, which have already been leased, that the oil companies have not drilled. So if you want to drill as if that were the answer to lowering gas prices--which it is not, and I will tell you why in just a minute--you have plenty of land and submerged land in which to drill. So why don't you drill? It is being used as a red herring to get everybody off of what we ought to do, which is eliminate our addiction to oil and start going to alternative sources, which is ultimately the solution. Let's take the President's and Senator McCain's point of view that you are going to lower gas prices by drilling. As a matter of fact, the President's own administration has said--the Energy Information Administration, in their annual report last year, has said--that drilling in the offshore of the continental United States will not have any affect on gas prices until after the year 2030. That is 22 years into the future. So the internal documents that have just emerged in the Bush administration belie the very same thing that the President and Senator McCain were trying to do. What are they trying to do? The administration is trying to give away the store before they leave town. They are trying to help the oil companies. How do they do it? The value of an oil company is, in part, determined by how many reserves of oil and gas they own. Therefore, if they have additional acres of leases that have not been produced both onshore and offshore, which is considered a reserve--and that is certainly a value--and that is listed as an asset on the books of the oil companies, and the greater amount of land they can have that has some proven oil and gas deposits, the greater their asset value even though it is not being drilled and not produced, which is the very reason they say we ought to drill. But, of course, that is belied by the fact that they already have 65 million acres they have not drilled. By the way, 31 million acres of that is in the Gulf of Mexico. This Senator has fought for years. I first started this fight in 1982 as a young Congressman over in the House of Representatives, when a Secretary of the Interior, named James Watt, wanted to drill off the entire east coast of the United States, from Cape Hatteras, NC, all the way south to Fort Pierce, FL. I have been fighting this since then. Why? Clearly, there is an economic reason in our State. We have a $65-billion-a-year tourism industry that depends on pristine beaches. Clearly, there is an environmental reason, which is that the bays and estuaries are necessary for so much of the spawning of the marine life in both the Atlantic and the gulf. But the other reason is that almost the entire Gulf of Mexico off of Florida--that area which is prohibited in statute, which Senator Martinez and I were able to pass 2 years ago--that area is the largest testing and training area for the U.S. military in the world. It is where we train our pilots in live-fire exercises. It is where we have joint sea and air and, combined with Eglin Air Force Base, land operations. It is where some of the most sophisticated weapons systems that have to be shot for hundreds of miles are tested. We have a letter from the Secretary of Defense that says drilling for oil and gas would be incompatible with the use of the U.S. military, and that is the main testing and training area for the U.S. military in the world. As a matter of fact, it was that very excuse that I used back in 1982, as a young Congressman, facing down the Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, when he wanted to drill off the east coast of Florida in the Atlantic because one thing they omitted to find was, how can you have oil rigs out there off the east coast of Florida, where we are dropping solid rocket boosters in the launch of a space shuttle and the first stages of the expendable booster rockets coming out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in all of our space launches? You simply can't. Thus, that was the reason I was able to defeat it back in the 1980s. And here we are, still carrying these arguments on. Mr. President, no, this is not the answer. The answer, if you want to drill, is to go on and drill. You have the leased land, on land and submerged land. The real answer to the question of $4 gas or $140-a- barrel oil at the end of the day is to wean ourselves from total dependence upon that oil with alternative fuels so that we start having alternative fuels, such as ethanol, made from things that we don't eat, synthetic fuel made from coal. How do you think Germany fueled its war machine during World War II when they were embargoed on oil? They made synthetic fuel from their coal reserve. The United States has 300 years of coal reserves. Using our yankee ingenuity and research and development to develop new engines, new technology, and new fuels--did you see where Honda came out that they are going to produce the first mass-produced hydrogen engine car? This is the beginning of the change of weaning ourselves from total dependence on oil. In the meantime, what can we do about oil which last week spiked $11 per barrel in 1 day and has gone all the way up to $140 a barrel? What is it? Is it just the tightness of supply and demand in the world market? That is part of it. But an ExxonMobil executive, 2 months ago, testified to Congress that supply and demand would say that oil is $55 a barrel. So what is the difference between $55 a barrel and what it sold for last week at $140? The biggest difference is an unregulated commodities trading market that allows speculators, who are not going to use the oil, who are just bidding on the contracts--and they keep bidding that price up and up and up. We did one thing about that last night when we passed the farm bill because in the farm bill was a part that partially started to reregulate those commodities markets. But it wasn't enough. You need to come in and put energy commodities clearly back in the regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. If you do that, then they will require those bidding on oil contracts for future delivery of oil to say they actually are going to use most of that oil instead of just speculating on the price and driving it up and up. It is true the weakness of the U.S. dollar plays into this a little bit, and something we can do about that is balance the budget and strengthen the dollar because oil is traded in U.S. dollars. The weakness of the dollar, compared to other currencies of the world, makes the stronger currencies bid up the price of oil in dollars. But the main reason is speculation. We simply have to be realistic, with common sense, as to what we are going to do about $4 gas from which our people are hurting so much. Sometimes I have been a lonely voice because it is easy and seductive to say, with $4 gas, we ought to drill. But I hope I have demonstrated to the Senate that the problem is much more complicated and that we cannot simply drill our way out of the problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to ask for unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and to lock in an order, but I wish to say, while we are on the housing bill, that I will be coming and offering again a slim-downed amendment that had been declared not germane to the housing bill before, in order to promote people to be able to stay in their homes by withdrawing from their 401(k) savings plan without paying the 10-percent penalty. I will be offering that amendment. We are getting it scored again by the Congressional Budget Office. We think its impact will be much less, and I will be conferring with the chairman and the ranking member of the committee as we approach that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent that I be followed by the Senator from New Hampshire for 10 minutes as well.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help preserve a vital ecosystem and protect a way of life for many citizens in my home State of Florida. I am introducing a bill that would require the U.S. Army Corps of the Engineers to commission the National Research Council of the National Academies to conduct a comprehensive study of water management and conservation of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, ACF, River System. My colleague in the Florida Congressional Delegation, Congressman Allen Boyd, is offering similar legislation today in the U.S. House of Representatives. At the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers, the Apalachicola River begins its winding journey to the Gulf of Mexico. Nearly 112 miles later, the river flows into Apalachicola Bay, bringing fresh water and vital nutrients to the famed oyster beds and fisheries of the bay. I visited the Apalachicola last month, rode down the river, and met with many who are concerned about its fate. When people think of Florida, they may envision palm trees or white sand. That is not what the Apalachicola has to offer, but it is unique and spectacular in its own right. The water is dark from tannic acid leached from trees in the river's swamps. At nearly 140 feet tall, majestic bluffs line the banks of the northern section of the river and form the largest exposed geological outcropping in Florida. In this reach of the river, the Alum Bluff is a significant historic site. Andrew Jackson paused here in 1818, and Confederate troops fortified the area with earthworks and cannon during the Civil War. As you traverse into the southern reaches of the Apalachicola and get closer to the bay, the vegetation changes and the land is flat. The brackish area of the Apalachicola, where the river's freshwater mixes with saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico, is home to one of the Nation's most productive oyster-harvesting areas. I work a great deal on another ecosystem that is much more familiar in Florida and across the Nation, the Everglades. I can tell you that comparing an impaired ecosystem like the River of Grass to the Apalachicola demonstrates a powerful lesson: we must manage our natural resources wisely, or face serious consequences. Chronic drought conditions in the southeastern U.S. have led to dramatic decreases in the quantity of water entering the ACF River System. Both these natural fluctuations in water supply and human- related uses have led to unprecedented reductions in freshwater inflow entering Apalachicola Bay. The water and nutrients delivered to the bay are critical to the health and productivity of the estuary and adjacent coastal waters of the Gulf. This area supports significant recreational and commercial fisheries, including 90 percent of Florida's oyster fishery, as well as shrimp, grouper, and other high-value species. We cannot sit back and watch as the Apalachicola River and Bay decline as a result of this historically low freshwater inflow. Under the current way of doing business, the ecosystems of the river and bay are suffering, as are the citizens who rely upon them for their livelihood. We need a solution that takes into account the environmental sensitivities and real water needs of all citizens in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia who live and work within the ACF River System. This study is a first step toward reaching that goal. As an independent and trusted source of scientific analysis and advice, the National Research Council is uniquely qualified to undertake such a comprehensive study. In the legislation, I ask that the NRC examine a number of critical issues. These include examining the state of the science on the Apalachicola River and Bay, including the impact of reduced freshwater flow on the area's ecology, and assessing water availability, supply options, demand-management alternatives, and socioeconomic factors that influence uses in the ACF River System. There is also a tremendous need for the NRC to provide all concerned with water management in the ACF River System with recommendations on how to determine water limits that adequately recognize and balance the needs of all users. We have responsibility to be good stewards of our environment. This responsibility requires us to ensure that our management decisions are based on the best, peer- reviewed science that is available. The NRC study commissioned in the legislation that I am offering today would go a long way in helping us to fulfill that responsibility. 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 to help preserve a vital ecosystem and protect a way of life for many citizens in my home State of Florida. I am introducing a bill that would require the U.S. Army Corps of the Engineers to commission the National Research Council of the National Academies to conduct a comprehensive study of water management and conservation of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, ACF, River System. My colleague in the Florida Congressional Delegation, Congressman Allen Boyd, is offering similar legislation today in the U.S. House of Representatives. At the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers, the Apalachicola River begins its winding journey to the Gulf of Mexico. Nearly 112 miles later, the river flows into Apalachicola Bay, bringing fresh water and vital nutrients to the famed oyster beds and fisheries of the bay. I visited the Apalachicola last month, rode down the river, and met with many who are concerned about its fate. When people think of Florida, they may envision palm trees or white sand. That is not what the Apalachicola has to offer, but it is unique and spectacular in its own right. The water is dark from tannic acid leached from trees in the river's swamps. At nearly 140 feet tall, majestic bluffs line the banks of the northern section of the river and form the largest exposed geological outcropping in Florida. In this reach of the river, the Alum Bluff is a significant historic site. Andrew Jackson paused here in 1818, and Confederate troops fortified the area with earthworks and cannon during the Civil War. As you traverse into the southern reaches of the Apalachicola and get closer to the bay, the vegetation changes and the land is flat. The brackish area of the Apalachicola, where the river's freshwater mixes with saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico, is home to one of the Nation's most productive oyster-harvesting areas. I work a great deal on another ecosystem that is much more familiar in Florida and across the Nation, the Everglades. I can tell you that comparing an impaired ecosystem like the River of Grass to the Apalachicola demonstrates a powerful lesson: we must manage our natural resources wisely, or face serious consequences. Chronic drought conditions in the southeastern U.S. have led to dramatic decreases in the quantity of water entering the ACF River System. Both these natural fluctuations in water supply and human- related uses have led to unprecedented reductions in freshwater inflow entering Apalachicola Bay. The water and nutrients delivered to the bay are critical to the health and productivity of the estuary and adjacent coastal waters of the Gulf. This area supports significant recreational and commercial fisheries, including 90 percent of Florida's oyster fishery, as well as shrimp, grouper, and other high-value species. We cannot sit back and watch as the Apalachicola River and Bay decline as a result of this historically low freshwater inflow. Under the current way of doing business, the ecosystems of the river and bay are suffering, as are the citizens who rely upon them for their livelihood. We need a solution that takes into account the environmental sensitivities and real water needs of all citizens in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia who live and work within the ACF River System. This study is a first step toward reaching that goal. As an independent and trusted source of scientific analysis and advice, the National Research Council is uniquely qualified to undertake such a comprehensive study. In the legislation, I ask that the NRC examine a number of critical issues. These include examining the state of the science on the Apalachicola River and Bay, including the impact of reduced freshwater flow on the area's ecology, and assessing water availability, supply options, demand-management alternatives, and socioeconomic factors that influence uses in the ACF River System. There is also a tremendous need for the NRC to provide all concerned with water management in the ACF River System with recommendations on how to determine water limits that adequately recognize and balance the needs of all users. We have responsibility to be good stewards of our environment. This responsibility requires us to ensure that our management decisions are based on the best, peer- reviewed science that is available. The NRC study commissioned in the legislation that I am offering today would go a long way in helping us to fulfill that responsibility. 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, many experts have concluded that the skyrocketing price of oil reflects not just the realities of supply and demand but also the influence of speculators and futures traders. Many of these speculators work for funds and investment banks with no actual inventory of oil, and thus no business need to hedge against an increase in the price of oil. Put simply, they enter the energy futures market to make a profit by gambling on the price per barrel. Last month, with passage of the Farm Bill, the Congress finally succeeded in bringing a measure of oversight and transparency to this market, requiring the Commodities Future Trading Commission, CFTC, to review all contracts to determine which ones should be regulated as though traded on a major public exchange. While this was a step in the right direction, and the result of much thoughtful discussion and debate, it could be improved upon and strengthened. I am basing this on testimony heard by the Commerce Committee on June 3 from Michael Greenberger, former director of CFTC's Division of Trading and Markets. Mr. Greenberger has emerged as a leading expert on the current state of our Nation's energy markets. In light of these developments and to add to the growing debate about how to protect consumers and our economy from rampant speculation, I'm now introducing a bill to shut down the unregulated oil futures markets created by the now-infamous ``Enron loophole.'' It also removes energy from the list of exempt commodities; requires energy to be traded on a regulated market, and creates a new definition of what constitutes an energy commodity. As the Senate continues to debate and ultimately consider proposals related to energy market speculation, the influence of large investors, regulated and unregulated exchanges, I would ask that my colleagues also consider the ideas put forward in this bill. 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, today I have introduced legislation which will impose a fee of no less than $5 per acre per year for Federal lands leased in the Outer Continental Shelf, specifically within the Gulf of Mexico. It is my hope this legislation will improve the management of the nation's oil and gas leasing program, a program that has greatly expanded in recent years. Since the 1990s, the federal government has consistently encouraged the development of its oil and gas resources and drilling on federal lands has steadily increased during this time. The number of drilling permits issued for lands on and offshore has exploded in recent years, going from 3,802 five years ago to 7,561 in 2007. Let me also share some statistics prepared by the House Resources Committee regarding offshore energy resources. On the Outer Continental Shelf, 82 percent of federal natural gas and 79 percent of Federal oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing. Offshore, only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are currently producing oil or gas. It is simply, unfair, dishonest, and disingenuous to try to persuade the American people that all we need to do is drill. In fact, I have concerns the oil companies are hoarding a resource that belongs to the United States of America and sitting upon it until the price is right for them to drill. Before we open up more areas for leasing, we must first use what we have. That makes sense to me. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, many experts have concluded that the skyrocketing price of oil reflects not just the realities of supply and demand but also the influence of speculators and futures traders. Many of these speculators work for funds and investment banks with no actual inventory of oil, and thus no business need to hedge against an increase in the price of oil. Put simply, they enter the energy futures market to make a profit by gambling on the price per barrel. Last month, with passage of the Farm Bill, the Congress finally succeeded in bringing a measure of oversight and transparency to this market, requiring the Commodities Future Trading Commission, CFTC, to review all contracts to determine which ones should be regulated as though traded on a major public exchange. While this was a step in the right direction, and the result of much thoughtful discussion and debate, it could be improved upon and strengthened. I am basing this on testimony heard by the Commerce Committee on June 3 from Michael Greenberger, former director of CFTC's Division of Trading and Markets. Mr. Greenberger has emerged as a leading expert on the current state of our Nation's energy markets. In light of these developments and to add to the growing debate about how to protect consumers and our economy from rampant speculation, I'm now introducing a bill to shut down the unregulated oil futures markets created by the now-infamous ``Enron loophole.'' It also removes energy from the list of exempt commodities; requires energy to be traded on a regulated market, and creates a new definition of what constitutes an energy commodity. As the Senate continues to debate and ultimately consider proposals related to energy market speculation, the influence of large investors, regulated and unregulated exchanges, I would ask that my colleagues also consider the ideas put forward in this bill. 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, today I have introduced legislation which will impose a fee of no less than $5 per acre per year for Federal lands leased in the Outer Continental Shelf, specifically within the Gulf of Mexico. It is my hope this legislation will improve the management of the nation's oil and gas leasing program, a program that has greatly expanded in recent years. Since the 1990s, the federal government has consistently encouraged the development of its oil and gas resources and drilling on federal lands has steadily increased during this time. The number of drilling permits issued for lands on and offshore has exploded in recent years, going from 3,802 five years ago to 7,561 in 2007. Let me also share some statistics prepared by the House Resources Committee regarding offshore energy resources. On the Outer Continental Shelf, 82 percent of federal natural gas and 79 percent of Federal oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing. Offshore, only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are currently producing oil or gas. It is simply, unfair, dishonest, and disingenuous to try to persuade the American people that all we need to do is drill. In fact, I have concerns the oil companies are hoarding a resource that belongs to the United States of America and sitting upon it until the price is right for them to drill. Before we open up more areas for leasing, we must first use what we have. That makes sense to me. 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, our people are hurting. There is something wrong with the price of oil and gas. It is not a normal function of the marketplace of supply and demand that the price of oil hit, last Friday, $139 a barrel. A few months ago, we had an ExxonMobil executive testify before Congress that the normal supply and demand of the marketplace for oil, even in a tight world market, the normal price would be about $55 a barrel. Yet, last Friday, oil sold for $139 a barrel. So what is the problem? Well, it is obviously not a supply-and-demand issue. A normal marketplace sets its price according to the supply, and when the supply is higher, the price is less; if the demand is higher than the supply, then the price is more. As you would expect, in a world where there is an increasing consumption of oil, you would think, even with the emergence of new countries that are demanding oil, the supply would keep going up and up and, in fact, it has. But if the ExxonMobil executive is accurate, and the price ought to be around $55 a barrel, what is the difference that has run the price all the way up to $139? We have to look closer to see. I think the American people are now at the point of hurting so badly we better shake ourselves out of our lethargy and do the congressional investigations that are necessary to pry open this secret box to determine what is causing oil to keep going up and up, so we can give our people some relief. Now, it is true it is a multifaceted problem, and it is true that in a world in which any kind of news would suggest that there is going to be a part of the world that is disturbed, that it sends jitters throughout the marketplace, particularly on oil--since oil is so much valued as a commodity. That would certainly be one reason that would increase the price. So bad news having to do with this or that--bad news with regard to the war, or Iran suddenly having small boats that would swarm the U.S. Navy fleet in the Persian Gulf at the Strait of Hormuz, that would certainly send jitters. Whatever the world event is, it is going to send jitters, and that will cause people to worry whether they are going to have the oil contracts and supply for the future. But that still doesn't explain the gap between $55 a barrel and $139 a barrel. So what we have discovered is, lo and behold, back in December of 2000, on an unrelated bill, there was an insertion made in that bill, without any fanfare, that took away energy and metals from being a regulated commodities on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Whereas, in the past, that Commission would have had a regulation that says, if you are going to buy futures contracts of oil, you have to be a buyer who is planning to use that oil. You take away that regulatory effort that, if you want to buy it, you have to buy it for the purpose of using it, you take away that regulatory requirement, and then what happens? In an unregulated market, these contracts for future oil start to get bid up and speculators want to speculate and more and more they think it is a valuable commodity and the price keeps going up and up in pure speculation. It is similar to a potential owner of a house who wants to buy a house because they want to live there, but another potential buyer of a house who doesn't want to live there but merely wants to speculate on the house puts in a contract on the house, knowing the value is going to go up and would not even wait to close to own the house but will take the contract for this price and flip it to a new buyer who will buy it for a higher price. Thus, the speculative fever drives up the price. That is what has happened, in part, with regard to these oil contracts. There is another reason the price is going up too; that is, so much of the available money in the world to be invested--we call that capital--used to go into real estate, but we know what has happened to the housing market. We know what has happened to the value of real estate. Instead of, as it has over the past decade or so, continuing to go up, it is going down. So a lot of that money that was available for real estate investments is out there to be used and invested someplace else. Naturally, what looks like a good market is the one that keeps bidding up the price of oil. Now we have more money flowing into the bidding up of the oil contracts, which causes them to be bid up to a higher and higher price. And guess who pays at the end of the day. It is all of us. It is our people who are now paying in excess of $4 per gallon with the enormous consequences they are suffering, in many cases--I have just come back from almost two dozen townhall meetings in which I can tell you that our people are hurting. They are crying. Literally, people are standing up in townhall meetings weeping. Families cannot make financial ends meet; families cannot, with the cost of everything else going up, afford to drive their car; families who happen not to live close to their place of work, who have to depend on their own car for transportation, are getting into a terrible fix. So what are we going to do about it? Last week, our Commerce Committee heard testimony from a professor, Michael Greenberger. He suggested we close off the loophole by taking energy commodities, such as oil and natural gas, off the list of exempt commodities, making it clear that energy commodities must be traded on regulated markets. We thought we did this on the farm bill which we passed a couple of weeks ago by closing that loophole that was allowed in the law in December of 2000. That loophole, by the way, is called the Enron loophole. It was done at the behest of the Enron company. And then the Enron company, once their commodity--energy--was not regulated, they utilized that-- remember, in the early part of this decade?--they utilized that to run up the price of electricity contracts in the State of California. It was this same phenomenon: speculators speculating, bidding higher and higher on contracts for future electricity. Mr. President, am I under a time limit?

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 am just getting cranked up, but I will see if I can crank it up and conclude within 4 minutes. We saw the devastation of the electricity contracts being bid up by speculators as a result of the Enron loophole in the law. We thought we closed that Enron loophole a few weeks ago on the farm bill so that there will be new regulation, but there is disagreement on this floor among Senators as to whether we have closed it. This Professor Greenberger has opined to us in the Commerce Committee that we did not sufficiently close it off. I think we ought to examine how ironclad our closing of that loophole is and ask ourselves some important questions. Question No. 1: Should we consider the outright barring of trading energy except for a legitimate business purpose? In other words, if you want to buy a future oil contract, you have to plan to be able to use it. No. 2: Should we stop large investors and hedge funds from gambling in energy contracts? If it is for the purpose of just running up the investment cost, I think we should. No. 3: Should we regulate or shut down international exchanges that do business in the United States and whose trades and actions impact the lives of our people in this country? In other words, if they are not trading just on that commodities futures trading exchange but are trading on another exchange that they say is overseas, such as London or Dubai, but, in fact, are trading on electronic machines in this country, should we regulate that or shut it down? No. 4: Should we close the over-the-counter markets until the Commodity Futures Trading Commission can get its act together with this new law that says they should regulate these energy contracts? Energy is too precious and it impacts the economy too greatly. This endless game of speculation must stop. While the traders are making billions of dollars, our people are having difficulty in being able to afford to drive to work. There are a bunch of Senators who have been involved in this issue-- Senator Levin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Cantwell, Senator Dorgan, and a host of others I am joining. I support these efforts to find some answers quickly to help our people. At an appropriate time, it is this Senator's intention, if we have not gotten our act together and offered amendments, to do exactly what I have been talking about. This Senator intends to do it. I look forward to the debate on this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.