Pollution Accountability Act of 2011

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act. This legislation will ensure that regular process under Federal law is followed when Native American tribes take land into trust for operating gaming facilities.

Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act in 2000, which included a provision to re-recognize the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians and allow them to acquire trust land in the San Francisco Bay area.

The Lytton Band has had a long and difficult history in my state, and by all accounts the Tribe deserved to be recognized and have a homeland.

But the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act did so in a way that was both controversial and unfair in how it granted an individual tribe an unprecedented exemption to the law.

The land taken into trust for the Lytton Band was miles away from their historical homeland and it treated the acquisition as if it was completed before 1988.

Why would something like that matter?

The answer is simple: the land the tribe acquired was home to an existing casino and 1988 is the year that Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Therefore, by treating the land as if it were taken into trust before 1988, the Tribe is able to operate the casino outside the framework set up by Congress to govern how and where tribes may open casinos.

The Omnibus Indian Advancement Act set aside well-established rules and procedures, and left the government with little ability to regulate the Lytton Band's gaming operation.

The result: the Lytton Band acquired land and a casino without having to go through the normal oversight process. No local input. No community feedback and no consideration for the best interest of the region.

The Lytton Gaming Oversight Act would implement a reasonable solution to this problem.

It does so by taking two simple steps.

It protects the sovereignty of the Tribe by allowing

continued operation of existing gaming activities, provided

the tribe follows standards established by the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act for gaming on newly-acquired lands in the

future.

Secondly it protects the interest of the surrounding

community by precluding any physical or operational expansion

of the Tribe's current gaming facility unless the Tribe

consults with locals and obtains the consent of the Governor

and the Secretary of the Interior as required by current law.

The bill does not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal recognition status. It does not alter the trust status of the Tribe's land. It does not take away the Tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the standard process prescribed by current law.

Circumventing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act process deprives local and tribal governments the ability to weigh in on this incredibly important issue.

A 2006 report entitled Gambling in the Golden State found serious problems associated with gambling establishments; casinos are associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime, a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates, and a per capita increase of $15.34 for law enforcement.

If this bill is not approved, the Lytton Tribe could take the existing casino that serves as their reservation and turn it into a large Nevada-style gambling complex. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004. I am pleased that the tribe has abandoned the plan seeking a sizable Class III casino, but without this legislation the tribe could reverse their decision at any time.

Identical legislation passed this body in the past two Congresses. It had unanimous approval from both Democrats and Republicans. This is in large part because I have worked and negotiated with the Tribe to ensure that this legislation is fair and balanced.

The bill is simple, straightforward, and reasonable. It restores the intent of Congress and preserves the sovereignty of the Lytton Band.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and look forward to working with you to ensure its passage again in the coming year.

Mr. President, on April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire destroyed BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig, killing 11 workers and causing the largest oil spill in American history.

A year later, the well is capped and Americans who live near and rely on the Gulf of Mexico are still struggling with the ramifications of the Deepwater Horizon spill, while facing destruction from unprecedented storms ripping across the region. Meantime, BP, the second largest oil company in the United States who just reported 7.1 billion dollars in profits last quarter, is attempting to skirt their fines for this unprecedented disaster.

In early April, BP indicated it is exploring wording in the Federal Water Pollution Prevention Act or the Clean Water Act which allows the court to determine the fines by either the number of days of the incident, or by the number of barrels of oil spilled. Current law leaves the determination of which metric to use up to the court. In this case, the difference between these two metrics is enormous. At the low end, using the per-day charge of $32,500, BP could pay less than $3 million for the whole incident. This amount of money isn't sufficient to change BP's safety culture and improve its workplace and environmental safety.

Per barrel fines range from $1,000 to $4,300 per barrel. Under this metric, BP's fines would total between $5 billion and $18 billion, which is a much more appropriate fine for the environmental damage that was done.

We must address this outrageous loophole to prevent corporate polluters from skirting accountability and responsibility if they wreak havoc on our land and in our water. We must speak the only language that corporations understand and that is profit. These fines, which are the only penalties the corporation cannot write off on their taxes, are critically important to sending a message that pollution doesn't profit; that corporations act responsibly to protect workers and the resources they use. If we accept minimal fines, we are condoning this irresponsible behavior.

Many will argue that we don't need this legislation, because the court will fine them accordingly. But to date, the largest Clean Water Act fine ever levied was $13 million. $13 million is less than BP spent in 2009 on lobbying.

That is why I am introducing the Pollution Accountability Act of 2011, which requires the court to fine violators of the Clean Water Act whichever fine is higher, per day or per barrel. If you pollute, there will be consequences. There will be accountability. We will demand responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and expeditiously passing it into law.

Mr. President, on April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire destroyed BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig, killing 11 workers and causing the largest oil spill in American history.

A year later, the well is capped and Americans who live near and rely on the Gulf of Mexico are still struggling with the ramifications of the Deepwater Horizon spill, while facing destruction from unprecedented storms ripping across the region. Meantime, BP, the second largest oil company in the United States who just reported 7.1 billion dollars in profits last quarter, is attempting to skirt their fines for this unprecedented disaster.

In early April, BP indicated it is exploring wording in the Federal Water Pollution Prevention Act or the Clean Water Act which allows the court to determine the fines by either the number of days of the incident, or by the number of barrels of oil spilled. Current law leaves the determination of which metric to use up to the court. In this case, the difference between these two metrics is enormous. At the low end, using the per-day charge of $32,500, BP could pay less than $3 million for the whole incident. This amount of money isn't sufficient to change BP's safety culture and improve its workplace and environmental safety.

Per barrel fines range from $1,000 to $4,300 per barrel. Under this metric, BP's fines would total between $5 billion and $18 billion, which is a much more appropriate fine for the environmental damage that was done.

We must address this outrageous loophole to prevent corporate polluters from skirting accountability and responsibility if they wreak havoc on our land and in our water. We must speak the only language that corporations understand and that is profit. These fines, which are the only penalties the corporation cannot write off on their taxes, are critically important to sending a message that pollution doesn't profit; that corporations act responsibly to protect workers and the resources they use. If we accept minimal fines, we are condoning this irresponsible behavior.

Many will argue that we don't need this legislation, because the court will fine them accordingly. But to date, the largest Clean Water Act fine ever levied was $13 million. $13 million is less than BP spent in 2009 on lobbying.

That is why I am introducing the Pollution Accountability Act of 2011, which requires the court to fine violators of the Clean Water Act whichever fine is higher, per day or per barrel. If you pollute, there will be consequences. There will be accountability. We will demand responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and expeditiously passing it into law.