Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for laying out so clearly the fact that we are so dependent on foreign oil. If we really want to do something about it--as the Senator has explained by the charts, it is clear that most of the oil that is consumed in America is consumed in the transportation sector and most of the oil that is consumed in the transportation sector is consumed in our personal light vehicles. So if we really want to do something about weaning ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, of which almost 60 percent of our daily consumption of oil is coming from foreign shores, this is where we can make a difference.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Reserving the right to object, I wish to make sure that the Senator from New Jersey and I are protected because I am not quite sure what the distinguished Senator from Virginia has requested. Originally, it was the unanimous consent request that the Democratic leader would have the right to object if a certain determination by the Parliamentarian occurs. That is the protection.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. And further questioning of the Democratic leader, I think Senator Warner said two people, two Senators could speak.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. All right.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise to support the McCain- Lieberman amendment. If anyone does not believe what 99.9 percent of the scientific community believes--that global warming is, in fact, a reality--if anyone does not believe that, then they are living in a cave and not recognizing what is happening to our planet. Whenever I think of global warming, my mind's eye suddenly goes back to 1986, looking out the window of our spacecraft back at planet Earth. There on the rim of the Earth, we could see the thin little film which is the atmosphere which sustains all of life. With the naked eye from orbit, you can actually see how we are starting to mess up the planet. Coming across South America, I could see with the color contrast on the face of the Earth below in the Amazon region the destruction of the rainforests. Then I could look to the east at the mouth of the Amazon River, and I could see the result of the destruction of those trees hundreds of miles upriver by the silt that has discolored the Atlantic Ocean for hundreds of miles. And so, too, in different parts of the Earth, we saw this wonderful creation, and it became apparent to me that I needed to be a better steward of what we have on planet Earth. If we are creating a greenhouse effect, which 99.9 percent of the scientists say we are, and if it is trapping the heat on planet Earth-- the heat that comes from the Sun that cannot radiate out into space-- and if the Earth is heating up, as it is, what is going to be the natural consequence? The oceans are going to rise because ice is going to melt. The temperature of the Earth is going to increase. What does that say for those of us who live on the eastern seaboard, particularly a land known as paradise which is a peninsula that sticks down into the middle of hurricane highway? That is my land. That is the State of Florida. What it says is the seas are going to rise and threaten most of Florida's population, indeed, most of the coastal population of the United States. What it also says is by heat rising, the storms are going to become more ferocious and more frequent. The plagues and pestilence are going to increase and, I say to my colleagues in the Senate, this is not a condition we want to have happen to this beautiful creation that is our home suspended in the middle of nothing and is called planet Earth. Yet that is what is happening. We best get about the process of straightening it out. That is why I support the McCain-Lieberman amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in the remaining time I have, I respond to my dear personal friend and my chairman, the senior Senator from Virginia, to say in approaching your question, how do you perfect this for the future? You eliminate the part of your bill regarding the establishment of seaward lateral boundaries for coastal States. In all of this area in yellow off the gulf coast of Florida that is under moratorium, that seaward lateral boundary would cause that line to come off the coast of Florida. That is what the Senator from New Jersey is concerned about. That, then, establishes drilling off of one State that clearly starts to impinge on the rights of another State for which we have tried to articulate the reasons why that is so important to us and to our people and the States we represent. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Reserving the right to object, if the distinguished Senator from Virginia would please inform the Senate what is the modification.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator. (The amendment No. 972 is printed in today's Record under ``Text of amendments.'')

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the two distinguished Senators, for whom not only do I have a great deal of personal respect but personal affection, especially as my chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee knows of my personal feelings about him. I just want to point out where there is a flaw in the reasoning here for the States that have concerns that do not want the drilling off of their coast. I can give again the arguments I have made ad infinitum on the floor of the Senate of why Florida does not want to do this. In the first place, the geology shows there is not very much oil and gas off Florida. They have had all kinds of dry holes over the last half century. But in everything in life, there are questions of tradeoffs, and is it worth the tradeoff that we would despoil a $50-billion-a-year tourism industry that depends on pristine beaches, not even to speak of the delicate coastline of the environment, such as the Ten Thousand Islands, with the mangroves, the Big Bend area of Florida. I could go on and on. Clearly, as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee knows, we have a unique national resource off our coast called ``restricted airspace,'' where we train our military pilots and where a lot of the training, with the shutdown of Vieques in Puerto Rico, is integrated with surface ships, and at the same time there would be oil rigs down there. That is not what I want to speak to. I want to speak to what the two Senators have said. It seems, with all of this area in yellow that is under moratorium, it would be harmless off a State until you get to the specific language of the amendment which talks about the establishment of seaward lateral boundaries for coastal States to be set by the Department of Interior according to a guideline set by a Law of the Sea Treaty which was never ratified by the United States. I want to give an example of what that line would be off the gulf coast of Florida. Here is Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and here is the Alabama-Florida line on a latitude. But under that Law of the Sea Treaty that was never ratified by the U.S. Government, where would that line go for the State of Louisiana? It would come out here off the coast of Florida. That is what we are trying to protect against. That is a major flaw of this amendment. This is what we have in Florida. I have not been able to get an updated photograph, but that is a photograph from Alaska. There is a similar photograph that has not been processed in the photography room of what has just happened off the coast of Louisiana. That could happen right there to what is so precious in our State of Florida. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, if the Senator will yield and if I may comment, all of those red portions, save for the very southern tip of Florida, which is the Everglades, sit mainly along the coast. That is where the population of Florida mainly resides. Why can't the United States insurance industry understand this and get behind this, with the exception of the reinsurance company about which the Senator from Connecticut just spoke? Why can they not understand that it is in their economic interest because it is going to be their insureds who are going to be threatened?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I tell the Senator, the distinguished chairman of the committee, we already know what is out there.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, again, I tell the Senator that we already know what is out there. In fact, the MMS does an inventory every 5 years. Here is the latest one. This is a 2003 update. The new one will come out this summer, in 2005. So we are not doing an inventory here as it is explained. What we are doing under this bill is doing something new. We are doing seismic explosions that could cost the Federal Government, in all of the Outer Continental Shelf, up to a billion dollars. Seismic explosions. These air guns shoot air pressure all the way to the surface of the ocean floor. Now, that is what we are trying to stop. Since we know what is there--and they drilled several dry holes in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, off Florida. We know there is not any oil and gas there. They want to do a new type of exploration. Yet this is in a moratorium. So if it is in a moratorium until the year 2012, why are we going to allow, under this bill, going out and doing seismic explosions in the Outer Continental Shelf all around the United States? It makes no sense. What it is is the first step to drilling. It is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Once he gets his nose under the tent, the camel is going to get in the tent, the tent is going to collapse, and there is going to be drilling all off the coast of Florida, all off the eastern seaboard and all off the western Pacific coastline. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison today in sponsoring a NASA Authorization Act that provides policy guidance for keeping NASA on track to achieve their objectives; and to ensure that there is a good balance between the different activities that NASA performs. As chair and ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science and Space, Senator Hutchison and I believe that through this bill, Congress can provide constructive support to the good work being done by Administrator Michael Griffin, as they begin to implement the President's vision and prepare NASA for the challenges of the future. This is a 5-year bill, authorizing NASA from 2006 through 2010. It authorizes NASA appropriations in excess of the President's Budget Request. For fiscal year 2006, the President requested $16.456 billion, which is a 2.4 percent increase over the fiscal year 2005 NASA operating budget. This bill authorizes $16.556 billion for fiscal year 2006, which is a 3.0 percent increase over the fiscal year 2005 NASA operating budget. This bill authorizes increases at a level of about 3 percent each year, consistently providing more funding than the President's budget projection. Like many of our colleagues, we believe that recent NASA budget requests have been below the levels required for NASA to perform its various missions effectively. Once this bill is enacted, we intend to work with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that adequate funds are provided for NASA to succeed. This legislation authorizes NASA to return humans to the Moon, to explore it, and to maintain a human presence on the Moon. Consistent with the President's vision, it also requires using what we learn and develop on the Moon as a stepping-stone to future exploration of Mars. To carry out these missions, our bill requires NASA to develop an implementation plan for the transition from shuttle to crew exploration vehicle, CEV. The plan will help NASA to make a smooth transition from retirement of the space shuttle orbiters to the replacement spacecraft systems. The implementation plan will help make sure that we can keep the skills and the focus that are needed to assure that each space shuttle flight is safe through retirement of the orbiters, and to retain those personnel needed for the CEV and heavy lift cargo spacecraft. It is essential to our national security that we prevent any hiatus or gap in which the United States cannot send astronauts to space without relying on a foreign country. The Russians have been good partners in construction of the international space station, and the Soyuz spacecraft has been a reliable vehicle for our astronauts. But with all of the uncertainties in our relationship with Russia, we simply cannot allow ourselves the vulnerability of being totally dependent on the Soyuz. We need to maintain assured access to space by U.S. astronauts on a continuous basis. We therefore require in this legislation, that there not be a hiatus between the retirement of the space shuttle orbiters and the availability of the next generation U.S. human-rated spacecraft. We recognize that NASA has some concerns regarding our position on a hiatus, and we are aware of Dr. Griffin's efforts to reduce the potential for a gap. We will work with NASA as this legislation moves forward to ensure that a compromise is reached that is mutually satisfying. This provision does not unduly tie the Administrator's hands, while still guaranteeing us assured access to space. Our bill directs NASA to plan for and consider a Hubble servicing mission after the 2 space shuttle return to flight missions have been completed. Americans are inspired by the images that Hubble produces. The new instruments to be added during the SM-4 Hubble servicing mission will produce higher quality images; enable us to see further into space; and give scientists a better understanding of our Universe's past, and perhaps of our future. The replacement gyroscopes and batteries that are planned for the mission will extend Hubble's life by 5 or more years. This NASA authorization bill calls for utilization of the international space station for basic science as well as exploration science. It is important that we reap the benefits of our multi-billion dollar investment in the space station. The promise of some basic science research requires a microgravity or a space environment for us to better understand the problem that we are trying to solve. This bill ensures that NASA will maintain a focus on the importance of basic science. This bill directs NASA to improve its safety culture. According to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, CAIB, report, the safety culture at NASA was as much a cause of the Columbia tragedy as the physical cause. Low and mid-level personnel felt that you could not elevate safety concerns without reprisals, or being ignored. NASA has already taken significant steps to address these problems, but we need to assure that the safety culture improves as quickly as possible and that it continues to improve. This legislation proposes that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel monitor and measure NASA's improvements to their safety culture, including employees' fear of reprisals for voicing concerns about safety. It also contains policy regarding NASA's need to consider and implement lessons learned, in order to avoid another preventable tragedy like the Challenger and Columbia disasters. This authorization bill addresses NASA aeronautics and America's pre- eminence in aviation. The Europeans have stated their intent to dominate the airplane market by 2020. This bill directs the President, through the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, to work with NASA and other Federal agencies to develop a national policy for aeronautics. It also directs NASA to evaluate its core aeronautics research. Many people do not realize that NASA does research for improving airplanes. NASA conducts research that makes airplanes safer, quieter, more fuel efficient, and less polluting. This important function of NASA needs to be continued and further developed. Senator Hutchison and I expect to mark this bill up in the Commerce Committee later this week, and hope to have time to consider it on the floor before the August recess. I will urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. NASA has a new direction, and they have outstanding new leadership in Dr. Griffin. We have an opportunity to authorize NASA for: implementing the Vision for Space Exploration; renewing our commitment to U.S. aviation and NASA aeronautics research; retaining or resurrecting very important science activities at NASA; and assuring that America has continuous human access to space. By doing so, we will continue to advance our national security, strengthen our economy, inspire the next generation of explorers, and fulfill our destiny as explorers.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hutchison today in sponsoring a NASA Authorization Act that provides policy guidance for keeping NASA on track to achieve their objectives; and to ensure that there is a good balance between the different activities that NASA performs. As chair and ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science and Space, Senator Hutchison and I believe that through this bill, Congress can provide constructive support to the good work being done by Administrator Michael Griffin, as they begin to implement the President's vision and prepare NASA for the challenges of the future. This is a 5-year bill, authorizing NASA from 2006 through 2010. It authorizes NASA appropriations in excess of the President's Budget Request. For fiscal year 2006, the President requested $16.456 billion, which is a 2.4 percent increase over the fiscal year 2005 NASA operating budget. This bill authorizes $16.556 billion for fiscal year 2006, which is a 3.0 percent increase over the fiscal year 2005 NASA operating budget. This bill authorizes increases at a level of about 3 percent each year, consistently providing more funding than the President's budget projection. Like many of our colleagues, we believe that recent NASA budget requests have been below the levels required for NASA to perform its various missions effectively. Once this bill is enacted, we intend to work with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that adequate funds are provided for NASA to succeed. This legislation authorizes NASA to return humans to the Moon, to explore it, and to maintain a human presence on the Moon. Consistent with the President's vision, it also requires using what we learn and develop on the Moon as a stepping-stone to future exploration of Mars. To carry out these missions, our bill requires NASA to develop an implementation plan for the transition from shuttle to crew exploration vehicle, CEV. The plan will help NASA to make a smooth transition from retirement of the space shuttle orbiters to the replacement spacecraft systems. The implementation plan will help make sure that we can keep the skills and the focus that are needed to assure that each space shuttle flight is safe through retirement of the orbiters, and to retain those personnel needed for the CEV and heavy lift cargo spacecraft. It is essential to our national security that we prevent any hiatus or gap in which the United States cannot send astronauts to space without relying on a foreign country. The Russians have been good partners in construction of the international space station, and the Soyuz spacecraft has been a reliable vehicle for our astronauts. But with all of the uncertainties in our relationship with Russia, we simply cannot allow ourselves the vulnerability of being totally dependent on the Soyuz. We need to maintain assured access to space by U.S. astronauts on a continuous basis. We therefore require in this legislation, that there not be a hiatus between the retirement of the space shuttle orbiters and the availability of the next generation U.S. human-rated spacecraft. We recognize that NASA has some concerns regarding our position on a hiatus, and we are aware of Dr. Griffin's efforts to reduce the potential for a gap. We will work with NASA as this legislation moves forward to ensure that a compromise is reached that is mutually satisfying. This provision does not unduly tie the Administrator's hands, while still guaranteeing us assured access to space. Our bill directs NASA to plan for and consider a Hubble servicing mission after the 2 space shuttle return to flight missions have been completed. Americans are inspired by the images that Hubble produces. The new instruments to be added during the SM-4 Hubble servicing mission will produce higher quality images; enable us to see further into space; and give scientists a better understanding of our Universe's past, and perhaps of our future. The replacement gyroscopes and batteries that are planned for the mission will extend Hubble's life by 5 or more years. This NASA authorization bill calls for utilization of the international space station for basic science as well as exploration science. It is important that we reap the benefits of our multi-billion dollar investment in the space station. The promise of some basic science research requires a microgravity or a space environment for us to better understand the problem that we are trying to solve. This bill ensures that NASA will maintain a focus on the importance of basic science. This bill directs NASA to improve its safety culture. According to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, CAIB, report, the safety culture at NASA was as much a cause of the Columbia tragedy as the physical cause. Low and mid-level personnel felt that you could not elevate safety concerns without reprisals, or being ignored. NASA has already taken significant steps to address these problems, but we need to assure that the safety culture improves as quickly as possible and that it continues to improve. This legislation proposes that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel monitor and measure NASA's improvements to their safety culture, including employees' fear of reprisals for voicing concerns about safety. It also contains policy regarding NASA's need to consider and implement lessons learned, in order to avoid another preventable tragedy like the Challenger and Columbia disasters. This authorization bill addresses NASA aeronautics and America's pre- eminence in aviation. The Europeans have stated their intent to dominate the airplane market by 2020. This bill directs the President, through the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, to work with NASA and other Federal agencies to develop a national policy for aeronautics. It also directs NASA to evaluate its core aeronautics research. Many people do not realize that NASA does research for improving airplanes. NASA conducts research that makes airplanes safer, quieter, more fuel efficient, and less polluting. This important function of NASA needs to be continued and further developed. Senator Hutchison and I expect to mark this bill up in the Commerce Committee later this week, and hope to have time to consider it on the floor before the August recess. I will urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. NASA has a new direction, and they have outstanding new leadership in Dr. Griffin. We have an opportunity to authorize NASA for: implementing the Vision for Space Exploration; renewing our commitment to U.S. aviation and NASA aeronautics research; retaining or resurrecting very important science activities at NASA; and assuring that America has continuous human access to space. By doing so, we will continue to advance our national security, strengthen our economy, inspire the next generation of explorers, and fulfill our destiny as explorers.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Amendment No. 799

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will certainly be willing to have my colleague from Florida speak. I ask unanimous consent that I speak after the Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, who will offer the amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from Florida, as we have introduced this amendment to strike the portion of the Energy bill that would set up an inventory on the Outer Continental Shelf. I want to show how extensive this inventory is going to be. The Outer Continental Shelf is all of the west coast of the United States, the Pacific coast, the area in yellow off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California. All of that area would be subject to the inventory. All of this area in the Gulf of Mexico is presently covered by the moratorium about which Senator Martinez and I fought very hard last week to get an agreement from the two leaders and managers of the bill that they would not come in and support any amendments that would offer drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida. But look at the Outer Continental Shelf. It extends from Maine all the way down to Florida. We are talking about a huge area that would be inventoried. That sounds innocent enough, but let me tell you why I oppose it. I oppose it because it is unnecessary unless you are preparing to drill in areas off our coast that are currently subject to this moratorium; otherwise, why would we want to take an inventory if all of this Outer Continental Shelf is now under a moratorium so you cannot drill for oil and gas? I oppose it also because it is harmful to marine life and commercial fish, and the Minerals Management Service already conducts inventories of the economically recoverable oil and gas reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf, including moratoria areas, every 5 years. In fact, the MMS will complete its next inventory this summer. Its last inventory came out in the year 2000. If that is the case, why do we need another inventory? How is the inventory in this bill different from the one that is already in effect? Two words: seismic exploration. What is seismic exploration--in other words, what they call survey? It is an expensive, invasive, and harmful practice used by oil and gas companies to determine where to drill. Why doesn't MMS use seismic exploration currently to complete their inventory? Because it is too costly and it is considered a precursor to drilling. If you are not going to drill, you should not be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to tell you where to put the drill. MMS estimates that these surveys would cost between $75 million and $125 million for each of the planning areas. Remember, in the Outer Continental Shelf, there are nine planning areas. At $75 million to $125 million apiece for seismic exploration, that means we would be having MMS spend $675 million to $1 billion to survey our moratorium areas, areas on our coastline that are under a moratorium until the year 2012, pursuant to a Presidential directive. Let me tell you a little bit about what seismic exploration and surveying is. Oil and gas companies use seismic air guns. They are long, submersible cannons that are towed behind boats in arrays, firing shots of compressed air into the water every 10 seconds. Interestingly, these air guns have replaced dynamite as the industry's primary method of exploration. But they create sound rivaling that of dynamite. A large seismic array can produce peak pressures of sound that are higher than virtually any other manmade source, save for explosives like dynamite--over 250 decibels. The oil and gas industry typically conducts several seismic surveys over the life of their offshore leases. They use these seismic surveys to determine the best placement of oil rigs and pipelines and to track fluid flows within the reservoirs. Seismic surveys are massive, covering vast areas of the ocean, with thousands of blasts going off every few seconds, in some cases over the course of days, weeks, months. The arrays towed by boats consist of 12 to 48 individual air guns, synchronized to create a simultaneous pulse of sound outputting a total of 3,000 to 8,000 cubic inches of air per shot. The sounds are so powerful because the array is attempting to generate echoes from each of several geologic boundary layers at the bottom of the ocean. Echoes produced by these seismic impulses are recorded, and they are analyzed by oil and gas companies to provide information on the subsurface geological features. The noise pollution from these tests can literally be heard across oceans. If the sea floor is hard and rocky, the noise might be heard for thousands of miles. And the sound can mask the calls of whales and other animals that rely on the acoustic environment to breed and survive. Scientists are documenting more and more problems associated with the seismic surveys. Whales, dolphins, fish, sea turtles, and squid have all been impacted adversely by the seismic activity. I sure would not want to be a scuba diver in the water with one of these seismic blasts going off. The 2004 International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee, one of the most well-respected bodies of whale biologists in the world, concluded that increased sound from seismic surveys was a ``cause for concern'' because there is a growing body of evidence that seismic pulses kill, injure, and disturb marine life. The impacts range from strandings to temporary or permanent hearing loss, to abandonment of habitat and disruption of vital behaviors such as mating and feeding. Studies have also shown substantial impacts on commercial species of fish. Fishermen, beware. One series of studies demonstrated that air guns caused extensive and apparently irreversible damage to the inner ears of snapper, and the snapper were several kilometers from the seismic surveys. The scientific community is not the one that is raising the alarm bells. Courts and governments are starting to realize the dangers posed by seismic exploration. In 2002, a California Federal court stopped a geologic research project in the Sea of Cortez, when two beaked whales were found dead with an undeniable link to the seismic activity. The Canadian Government slowed a geologic project off its west coast and is looking closely at an oil and gas seismic survey off Cape Breton as a result of dangers posed by the surveys. The Australian Government refused to issue permits for a survey near a marine park because the proponents of the survey could not prove it would not harm the marine park. And the Bermuda Government refused to issue a permit for seismic geologic surveys off its coast, citing concerns for impacts on marine mammals. Air gun activity associated with seismic surveys must be considered an invasive procedure, inappropriate for sensitive marine areas and economically important commercial fishing grounds. We have to continue to remember that the United States has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Yet the United States uses four times more oil than any other nation, according to the report from the National Commission on Energy Policy. According to Alan Greenspan in a speech he gave in April of this year, the 200 million personal vehicles currently on the U.S. highways consume 11 percent of the total world oil production. We cannot drill our way to energy independence. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on harmful exploration in areas whose economic livelihood depends on their fishing industry and their marine ecosystem could have devastating effects. For these reasons, I must oppose this invasive, duplicative, and harmful exploration on the moratoria areas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The bottom line is, if you have the Outer Continental Shelf under moratoria, why do we need to try to inventory all of that if you are not supposed to have any drilling under Presidential directive at least until the year 2012? Why go in with the risk to Mother Nature with this kind of seismic exploration? I yield to my colleague from Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is an excellent question. If you are going to do the seismic exploration which this bill would allow in the nine areas under the moratoria, it is going to cost between $650 million and $1 billion. In a Congress that is so concerned about budget deficits to the tune of almost half a trillion a year, where are we going to get that kind of money? The Senator's point is well taken. I thank my colleague from Florida for making that point.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is correct. Since a President of the United States established this moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and it is to run to 2012, why do we need to be spending money on seismic surveying on an area that is off limits to drilling, which the moratorium has in place until the year 2012? I thank the Senator for joining to offer this amendment. I ask the Senate to consider helping continue to preserve the moratorium. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is it in order to ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment for the purpose of speaking on an amendment that will be offered by Senator Martinez?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, energy diversification is important to the future of our country; and for that reason, the distinguished ranking member of the Energy Committee has proposed an amendment to require 10 percent of our electricity to be produced from renewable resources by 2020. However, for those regions of the country that do not have the capacity to greatly increase renewable resources in their State, a financial hardship may result through no fault of their own. My State of Florida is one of the States that will have difficulty meeting the standards because the geological, climatic and topographical conditions make it impossible to harness certain forms of renewable energy like wind and hydropower. Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration concludes that Florida's energy technical potential for renewable energy is 8 percent. Currently, Florida has 1.8 percent in existing renewables; and more than 50 percent of that 1.8 percent comes from municipal solid waste, a form of renewable energy not included in the definition of ``new renewable energy'' in the ranking member's amendment. For these reasons, I have expressed my concerns to Senator Bingaman. While I remain supportive of expanding the use of renewable energy supplies, I would prefer an approach that recognizes the regional differences in the ability of States to meet a renewable portfolio standard. An RPS standard cannot be rigid, it must be flexible.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I want to thank Senator Bingaman for his work on this energy bill and his commitment to work in conference to address my concerns with the renewable energy standard specifically. I look forward to working together on this important provision.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator will be glad to yield to my leader, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, under the chairman and ranking member's leadership, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee produced an energy bill that passed out of the committee by a vote of 21 to 1. It is a bill that has a lot going for it. I continue to have concerns about it, including a major concern about a provision that requires an inventory of oil and gas reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf, which my colleague from Florida and I will attempt to remove. And I am aware of other important amendments that will be offered by my colleagues to improve the bill. But I want to indicate to the distinguished chairman that I think he has gotten his bill off to a good start. However, the progress of this bill would be jeopardized if we begin to debate amendments that would change the status quo with respect to the sale of leases for oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. Vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf are under moratoria for oil and gas drilling, and other extremely sensitive areas, such as Lease Sale 181 in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off of Florida, have been made unavailable for leasing by the Department of the Interior. I am aware that there are differences of view among my colleagues on how we should proceed with respect to the Outer Continental Shelf. My good friend and colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, and I have debated our different views on this at length, and have agreed to work together on a plan to increase the flow of revenue to States that currently allow drilling off their coasts, without opening up new areas for drilling. I can tell my colleagues that in Florida, this is a consensus issue. Florida's pristine beaches and clean coastal environment are so important to our State's tourism- based economy that there is no support--zero--for drilling in the waters off Florida in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. For that reason, I am compelled to ask the chairman and ranking member for their commitment that they will oppose, and work to defeat, any amendments to this bill that would change the status quo in the Eastern Planning Area. That commitment would apply to amendments proposing any change in the areas now under moratoria, any additional leasing activity in Lease Sale 181, beyond what was agreed to in 2001, and includes opposing the drawing of lateral seaward boundaries into the Eastern Planning Area.