I wrote about the report earlier today here.

According to an Obama administration statement on the report:

A key recommendation in the report is that Congress dedicates a significant amount of any civil penalties obtained from parties responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into a Gulf Coast Recovery Fund to go toward addressing long-term recovery and restoration efforts in the gulf. The president has decided to follow this recommendation, and congressional action is critical to the overall effort.[...]

The Mabus report recommends continued support for individuals, families, and businesses to help them navigate the claims process, and to give assistance to communities to identify additional needs. It urges a media campaign – paid for by the oil spill’s responsible parties – to help restore public confidence in the seafood industry and promote tourism in the area. The report examines ways that the gulf can take advantage of opportunities in emerging industries. The report also identifies critical needs for health and human services across the region and recommends continued engagement with the nonprofit sector.

Speaking at a national oil spill commission meeting today, Landrieu said it is essential to develop a long-term Gulf restoration plan and she said she agreed that money from the penalties on BP should go to Gulf states.

Landrieu has long argued for sharing revenue from offshore drilling with Gulf coast states. Since states take on the risks associated with drilling off their shores, they should benefit by receiving a percentage of the revenue from that drilling, she argues.

According to the Associated Press, Mabus’ proposal would change the Clean Water Act in order to divert money from spill penalties to Gulf restoration and Gulf states. As it stands now, money from the Clean Water Act penalties go to oil spill cleanup. The Obama administration is supportive of the proposal, the AP reported:

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the announcement was not yet made, said the White House has already endorsed the proposal and President Barack Obama will ask Congress to dedicate “a significant amount” to the region’s recovery.

“We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law,” the memo reads.

First, it addresses the rumor that the administration offered Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy. “The President announced his intent to nominate Ray Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy on March 26, 2009, over a month before Senator Specter announced that he was becoming a member of the Democratic Party in late April. Mabus was confirmed in May. At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy.”

Then, it confirms that, as reported this morning by Greg Sargent, the White House enlisted Bill Clinton to see if Sestak would be interested in an uncompensated advisory role in the executive branch, on top of his congressional duties.

“It has been suggested that discussions of alternatives to the Senate campaign were improperly raised with the Congressman,” the memo continues. “There was no such impropriety. The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House. … There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations — both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals — discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

Full memo here. (h/t Marc Ambinder)

So naturally it attracts the attention of the U.S. Naval Institute’s awesomeblog when The New York Times runs a piece about an embarrassing and messy divorce that Mabus and his ex-wife endured. The White House, rightly, tells the paper’s Jim Rutenberg that Mabus’ divorce is irrelevant to his potential service in the administration. But the Naval Institute’s contrib-blogger Springboared wonders:

Airing dirty laundry is, sadly, a tradition for high-level appointees.  But given how orchestrated anti-nominee media campaigns can be, is this New York Times piece a first salvo in a messy nomination drama?

Springboared also finds a 1971 picture of Mabus as a young Naval officer wearing a seriously righteous beard. If the man’s divorce will be an issue in his hearing, why not get on his case about his facial hair? (Not that Springboared is saying that, but still. Honestly. Let’s grow up as a country, shall we?)