Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to address one of the most important issues facing our Nation, the safety of America's food supply. I support the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act that will help reduce the rash of contaminated foods that have recently entered our food supply. Every person should have confidence that their food is fit to eat.

While the FDA has always been the gold standard in maintaining the safety and efficacy of our food and drugs, the salmonella outbreak in eggs over the summer made it painfully clear that we need to do more-- and that the law needs updating. The outbreak resulted in as many as 79,000 illnesses, 30 deaths, and the recall of roughly one half billion eggs. Beyond that, the Centers for Disease Control informs us that 76 million people get sick, and 5,000 die, each year from foodborne illnesses. Just last week the FDA warned Marylanders about a potential outbreak of E. coli in apple cider sold in the State.

I applaud the quick action by the FDA in responding to these food outbreaks, but we can do better. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg has told us that she needs more resources and more authority to oversee the way our food is produced and monitored. That is why, as a committed advocate of food safety nationwide, I support the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

This bipartisan bill would give the FDA authority to order mandatory food recalls for unsafe foods if companies don't do it themselves. It sets FDA safety standards for produce, creates stronger FDA regulations for sanitary food transportation from our producers to our grocery stores, and establishes FDA pilot projects to better track where fruits and vegetables come from.

This bill also emphasizes prevention and taking action to prevent food outbreaks from occurring in the first place. It ensures that facilities have food safety plans in place to identify, evaluate, and address food safety hazards. With the growing amount of food that is imported globally, this bill ensures imported food meets the same safety standards as domestic food by requiring importers to verify the safety of foreign suppliers and imported food. This bill would grant the FDA the authority it needs to protect the health of our families.

It is time we get serious about the safety of our Nation's food. The health of Americans is not something to take a chance with. It is important that we make food safety a top priority. We must pass the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act and empower the FDA to set safety standards and hold food producers accountable.

Mr. President, as dean of the Senate Women, I rise on this day to bring attention to the life and work of fellow Marylander Anna

Ella Carroll, 1815-1893. Our recognition of her achievements is long overdue.

Anna Ellen Carroll was born in Somerset County, the daughter of Maryland Governor Thomas King Carroll. She was one of President Abraham Lincoln's closest advisers and a senior strategist during the Civil War. And though she is nearly absent from history books, Anna was one of the most influential American women of the 19th century.

Anna believed in justice and fairness. She was a free thinker and an abolitionist. In 1853, she freed the slaves she inherited from her father's estate and persuaded her abolitionist friends to accompany the newly freed men and women to Canada, ensuring they would remain free.

Anna's belief in freedom and humanity led her to campaign passionately on behalf of the abolitionist movement. In fact, many believe that Anna's hard work and strong voice helped motivate President Lincoln to end slavery in America.

Anna formally joined the ranks of President Lincoln's top advisers in 1861, after writing a political pamphlet that impressed the President so much that he requested an interview with its author.

After the meeting, President Lincoln sent Anna on a reconnaissance mission to the secessionist South. When she arrived, Anna immediately knew the proposed Union strategy of sending troops down the Mississippi would fail. She recommended an alternative--send troops to divide the South by using the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. The President listened, and ultimately, Anna's strategy helped the Union win the war.

Anna served as a consultant to Lincoln's War Department and, after his assassination in 1865, as an advisor to President Ulysses S. Grant. She also was a recognized political essayist, an avid writer, and an influential member of the Maryland and Washington political circles before and after her role in wartime politics.

During her life, Anna was recognized by her contemporaries as a top adviser to President Lincoln. In the 1864 painting of Lincoln and his Cabinet by Francis B. Carpenter, a chair sits empty. It is surrounded by maps and notes similar to those carried by Anna during her time advising Lincoln, implying her place at the table. Still, despite multiple petitions, she was never formally acknowledged for her contributions.

Anna Ella Carroll was a woman who had a profound impact on the trajectory of our country's reunification, helping make decisions at a crossroads that were critical to America's survival. I am proud to count her among the ranks of Maryland's most influential women. It is time we give her a proper place in our history books.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on paycheck fairness, a bill on which we will be voting on cloture. The paycheck fairness bill picks up where the famous Lilly Ledbetter bill left off. I was so proud to lead the fight on the Senate floor 2 years ago, under a new Congress and a new President, to ensure that we righted the wrong of a Supreme Court decision, where Lilly Ledbetter, on behalf of American women everywhere, would be assured that she could get equal pay for equal or comparable work. The Congress responded well and that legislation is now the law of the land.

The paycheck fairness bill picks up where Ledbetter left off, because Ledbetter left the courthouse door open to sue for discrimination. Paycheck fairness makes it more difficult to discriminate in the first place; it increases penalties for discrimination; prohibits employer retaliation for sharing pay information; it closes the loophole that allows for a broad defense in equal pay cases.

Let me go through this one by one. It improves remedies where discrimination has occurred. Current law now says that women can only sue for back pay and fixed damages. The paycheck fairness bill would allow women to get additional compensatory damage, which makes up for the injury or harm suffered based on discrimination. Ledbetter had no provisions regarding that. Also, so crucial is that it prohibits employer retaliation--and, wow, does this go on in the workplace.

Under current law, employers can sue or actually punish employees for sharing salary statements and information with coworkers. This is usually the way employees find out that they are being discriminated against. In the famous Supreme Court hearing, some of our Supreme Court Justices, who bragged that they don't know what a BlackBerry is, gave women the raspberries when they said women should know they are being discriminated against, but you cannot even talk at the water cooler, or down in the office gym, and say: I get paid this; what are you getting paid for the same job?

What paycheck fairness will now do is prohibit employers from taking action against employees who simply share information about what they are getting paid. This was not included in the Ledbetter Act. It clarifies that any factor other than a sex offense--right now, an employer can assert a defense that the pay differential is based on a factor other than sex. Courts can interpret this broadly, and a number of factors are limited. What the paycheck fairness bill does is tighten that loophole by requiring that the differential is truly caused by something other than sex or gender or is related to job performance that is necessary for the business. Ledbetter did not address that loophole. By the way, I know that the specter of small business is always raised, but I say to my colleagues that small businesses with revenue of less than $500,000 are exempt from the Equal Pay Act. That means that paycheck fairness maintains that exemption. That is how it takes Ledbetter one step farther. It gives women the tools to begin to know what they are being paid--or people of ethnic minorities, et cetera.

Why is this important? First, it is fundamental fairness. You ought to be paid equal pay for equal or comparable work. It is fundamentally fair. If the same people are doing the job with the same skills and background, they ought to get the same pay. It affects a family's paycheck; it affects their pension; it affects their whole way of life. Right now, equal pay is actually critical to economic recovery. It is one of the ways that we can make sure the family checkbook is increased based on merit.

Some people say: Oh, well, why do you need another bill, Senator Barb? Women already have enough tools to fight discrimination. Well, we haven't fixed everything. And here, I think this bill is simple and achievable with the small business exemption that will do that.

When the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, women earned merely 59 cents on every dollar earned by men. We have made progress. In 47 years, we have now come up to 77 cents for every dollar that men make. It only took us 43 years to get an 18-cent increase. Well, I think times are changing. Women are now more in the workplace, and women are now often the sole or primary source of income. Creating a wage gap is not the way to improve the health of a family or the health of our community.

I could go through a lot of statistics about what that means, but I simply want to say to my colleagues that with many Americans already earning less, we need to make sure that the family budget is based on people being able to get paid for what they do and to make work worth it and make wage compensation fair.

I think the facts speak for themselves as to why this bill is necessary. I think the bill itself is a very specific, achievable, narrowly drawn bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the bill.

I rise to strongly support the pending bill, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act. I do it because it will help small business create jobs in Maryland. I spent much of the last several months visiting worksites in Maryland, and it was an exciting time. Maybe orders and customers are not up, but enthusiasm and entrepreneurship is up, and absolutely, in many areas, consumerism and customers are up.

I visited bakeries, microbreweries, factories of small machine tool companies wanting to retool. During that time I visited Main Street, small streets, rural communities. I talked with small business owners and their employees.

What was loud and clear and visible was that small businesses are stressed and strained. Small businesses said: Hey, Barb, it is sluggish out there. There is uncertainty, but we believe we can expand. We believe we can grow our business, but we need help.

They continually talked about their problems in having access to credit--not because they were not good risks but because there was not good money out there for them to borrow. Even though these businesses are thriving, they could not expand because they could not get the loans they needed to grow.

I visited a startup green energy business whose demand is skyrocketing, but they need credit to expand their business and, I might add, certainty in an energy bill.

I visited a wonderful family bakery which reminded me so much of my own grandmother's bakery. Well, they just do not bake bread, they build community and create jobs. They want to expand. They need access to credit.

I visited a machine tooling business in Baltimore which does precision metal work for many of the components for our military, the space program. They, too, want to retool.

These are ``good guy'' businesses, working hard, playing by the rules. They have jobs right here in the United States of America. They want to expand. They want to hire. They want to upgrade their equipment. They want access to credit. They need a government on their side and at their side.

I believe that is what the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act will do. It will help businesses be able to get that much needed access to credit to be able to strengthen our economy.

I know people are anxious about the economy. Many are worried their middle-class life is slipping away. But in Maryland we know we can count on small businesses to create jobs, to help people who are in the middle class stay there, and those who want to get there be able to do so through hard work.

From beauty shops to biotech, there are family-owned businesses, small businesses in Maryland that need help. What they need is not a guaranteed outcome, but they do need to have access to credit.

I am no Janey come lately on this issue of small business. My grandparents owned a local bakery shop. My father ran a small grocery store, alongside with my mother. I often watched him open very early for local steelworkers and automobile workers, people who worked making the famous National Boh beer right down the street. They would come and buy their lunches before going to the morning shift.

We know what it is like to have a small business and to be able to meet a payroll and to be able to grow. I saw what it means to be able to provide service to the community, lend a helping hand, provide a good customer value for a hard day's work. I believe it is through these small entrepreneurial efforts that we will get our economy going and growing.

We have bailed out banks. We have even bailed out other countries. Now we have to bail out the people who are building the United States of America--the people who are building jobs in the United States of America. That is what I think this bill will do.

What I like about it is, it gets credit flowing to small business. It creates a Small Business Lending Fund at the Department of the Treasury to help those community banks at the local level lend to small businesses. It creates incentives for private businesses to invest by making the capital gains from small business stock tax free. It provides tax breaks that will help small businesses grow by making it less expensive to purchase new equipment. We help small businesses get started by doubling the amount of startup costs small businesses can deduct from their taxes.

So let me repeat. No. 1, we create a Small Business Lending Fund at Treasury that guarantees access to credit. We make capital gains tax free. That will help small business investment. We will help make sure small businesses grow by making it less expensive to purchase new equipment because of the tax breaks we give, and we are going to double the amount of startup costs small businesses can deduct from their taxes to help make sure they can get a jump-start on getting underway. I believe we have practical, affordable solutions.

Some people say: Is this a baby TARP? No, this is not a TARP. We do not bail out Wall Street. We help Main Street. We help all those people with a dream in their heart, with a small business underway, with the grit and determination to be able to create a job for themselves and for others and add a product and add value to the United States of America. These are jobs that will stay in the United States of America.

So let's say goodbye to tax breaks to send jobs overseas, and let's say hello to tax breaks to make sure our small businesses can grow. I hope we pass this bill. I hope we get it done this week. I hope we get our economy rolling in the way we need to do so.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for repealing the 1099 tax form requirement enacted in the Affordable Care Act. This requirement is burdensome for businesses in Maryland, especially small businesses. The 1099 tax provision requires businesses to report information on anyone they pay $600 or more to for goods in a year. Businesses will also have to send copies of the form to their vendors, suppliers and contractors. This requirement is costly and burdensome to businesses.

Although I agree that we must ease the hassle faced by businesses, we must be careful about how we pay for this. The Johanns amendment to the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act repeals the new 1099 tax reporting requirement, yet could end up increasing health care costs and cost small businesses even more as a result of higher health expenditures. The Johanns amendment eliminates funding for prevention programs such as providing immunizations and screenings for diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. By catching diseases earlier and reducing the incidence of chronic disease, prevention programs lead to cost savings which lower the cost of health insurance for small businesses.

That is why I support the Nelson amendment which provides a more affordable alternative. The Nelson amendment reduces the burden faced by businesses by eliminating the 1099 reporting requirement all together for businesses with 25 employees or less. It also raises the reporting threshold to anyone paid $5,000 or more for purchased goods in a year in a way that is affordable. This will help over 85 percent of businesses in Maryland.

I am also a cosponsor of Senator Landrieu's Information Reporting Modernization Act. Senator Landrieu chairs the Small Business Committee and her bill would simplify and modernize 1099 reporting requirements so that nothing paid for with credit or debit cards would need to be reported and the $5,000 threshold amount for reporting established in the bill could be adjusted and increased every year for inflation. I will continue to support lessening the burdens faced by small businesses and help lower their costs.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her kind words but also her leadership in terms of a leadership roll on the Judiciary Committee in the usual due diligent way she went about looking at Ms. Kagan's record, becoming an advocate for her and now urging us on the floor to speak on her behalf.

Also on behalf of myself and the people of Maryland, we extend our condolences to her on the passing of her mother. It is a tribute to Senator Klobuchar that she is here today doing her duty. But from what I have heard about her mother, that is exactly where she would want her to be and exactly with those of us who are speaking today.

I come today in strong support of Elena Kagan. I am of the generation when a woman on the Court was going to be viewed as a novelty. I remember very well when Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor and the world and the United States of America was abuzz: Wow, a woman is going to go on the Court. She went to the Court, and I think history, legal scholars, and the American people think she did a great job.

Then came Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and now Kagan. We are at the point now where women are being taken seriously--they are being put forth for high positions in government--and are no longer viewed as a novelty. We never wanted to be novelties. We want to do the job we are either elected to do or we are being recommended to do.

I can tell my colleagues that Elena Kagan brings that right stuff of the women who are currently on the Court, and Sandra Day O'Connor. She wants to be known and respected for what she will bring to the Court.

For us women, the reason we are advocating for her is not about gender but about the legal agenda before this Supreme Court. We want to have a Justice on that Court who is extremely qualified but brings a strong commitment to civil rights, to equal justice--someone who brings not only legal scholarship but an independent voice.

Ms. Kagan is extremely qualified in these areas. Her record demonstrates an understanding of how the Court affects the lives of ordinary Americans. She clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, another distinguished Marylander, someone who served on the Court, a trailblazer in civil rights and a trailblazer on the Court.

Much was made during the Judiciary Committee hearings about her clerking for Marshall and somehow or another that was not a good thing. I thought it was a fantastic thing for us in Maryland who revere Thurgood Marshall for his brilliance, his tell-it-like-it-is legal style, who brought scholarship and yet street corner savvy out from some of the meanest streets in Baltimore to the Court. We thought it was great. We think Justice Thurgood Marshall was a great member of the Supreme Court. And they think it is great Kagan mentored and learned under him.

During her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School, she, again, not only developed the best faculty but made sure there were legal clinics to help the poor, the left out, the marginalized, but she also wanted to make sure that Harvard was to ensure a more diverse student body.

In the face of this current Court that increasingly is on the side of big corporations rather than with the little guy or the little gal, we need a Justice such as Kagan who will understand what is going on in our communities.

I take my advise-and-consent responsibilities very seriously. It is one of the most important jobs we have as Senators, and it is one I approach with thorough deliberation.

I look at three criteria for the Supreme Court: absolute integrity, judicial competence and temperament, and a commitment to core constitutional principles. I want someone who is committed to the whole Constitution, the entire Constitution, the basic body of the Constitution and every single one of its amendments. There is a whole crowd in the Senate who only seems to like the second amendment. I like all of them, and I am particularly devoted to the first one and the 14th one.

Every day, the Supreme Court will make decisions that transcend generations. But today we have a Court that has an increasing willingness to favor corporate interests over the voice of people at the community level.

We also have a Court that seems to be increasingly out of touch with the American people. We want to be able to reassure that we have a member of the Court who understands this.

During this current Court's deliberations, I was appalled by the famous Lilly Ledbetter case, the wonderful woman who worked at Goodyear for 19 years and was a victim of pay discrimination. She sued Goodyear, and the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. In appeal after appeal, she won. But, oh, the big guys with the big guns and the big bucks kept appealing, but she persisted. And then before the Court she was turned down. It was so appalling that Justice Ginsburg from the bench asked Congress to take action. We did. But we should not be the Congress to overturn Supreme Court decisions because they trample on the rights of people, because they trampled on the rights of a woman to get equal pay for equal work, trampled on the rights of a woman not to face retaliation in sexual harassment and humiliation when she tried to speak up for herself on the floor of the factory or on the courtroom floor.

I believe we need someone on the bench who understands the needs of the people but, most of all, understands the laws of the United States of America and loves this Constitution--the entire Constitution of the United States of America.

I am here today because of the Constitution. The first amendment enabled me to speak up and organize and be able to make it here. There was another amendment of the Constitution that enabled the direct election of the Senate. There is this whole other crowd out there in the community that wants to overturn that. I am here because the American people insisted in a constitutional amendment that women have the right to vote. Another constitutional amendment took it away from the State legislature and put it in the hands of the American people.

I love the Constitution. I love every single amendment of the Constitution. And I want somebody on the Supreme Court who feels the way I do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr, President, I support H.R. 5874, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010. This bill gives the Patent and Trademark Office additional funding to tackle the patent backlog, helping innovative businesses protect new ideas faster.

The Patent and Trademark Office is the central hub of an innovation friendly Government. It protects intellectual property in the United States and encourages invention, innovation, and investment. New patents boost America's competitiveness, increase productivity, bring new products and services to market, support entrepreneurs and small businesses, and, most importantly, help to create new jobs.

As chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Patent and Trademark Office, I have been critical of this agency's performance. The Patent and Trademark Office has struggled for years to reduce patent pendency and tackle the overall patent backlog. I have heard from inventors and businesses about how long it takes the Patent and Trademark Office to protect their ideas.

I have also heard from Patent employees about their unrealistic job performance standards which have led to high turnover of patent examiners. Numerous reviews conducted by the Government Accountability Office showed that for every two examiners hired one leaves the agency.

But the good news is that Patent and Trademark Office has new direction, and within the past year, the agency has made some very positive changes. Thanks to Director Kappos, employee management has been reformed, meaning more patent examiners are staying and working. The Patent and Trademark Office has also created a better strategy for approving patents quicker and reducing the patent backlog. We are finally seeing the Patent and Trademark Office make strides in the right direction, and I want to support this momentum.

This year, the Patent and Trademark Office will collect $129 million more fees than originally expected. These extra funds mean that Patent and Trademark Office has the potential to further reduce the backlog even faster. H.R. 5874 allows the Patent and Trademark Office to spend this additional revenue. This amendment is fully offset by rescinding unused funds from the 2010 census.

This bill has the same goals as an amendment I offered this week to H.R. 5297, the small business bill, because improving patent protection is critical to helping innovative small businesses grow. This bill also mirrors the President's request he sent Congress on July 12, 2010, asking for these exact funds for the Patent and Trademark Office, offset by the rescission from the Census.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5874, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010. The Patent and Trademark Office needs to get back on track, and funding within this bill ensures the Patent and Trademark Office has the resources it needs to process applications in a reasonable time and keep critical examiners on board to continue issuing patents. By supporting this

bill, we can give American businesses and inventors a helping hand to stay innovative.

Thank you, Madam President.

I wish to thank the Senator from Illinois for his remarks and his leadership on this topic because I feel the same way.

Finally, finally, finally, we are going to vote and have enough votes to pass the extension of unemployment insurance--unemployment insurance. It is insurance against being unemployed. That is what it is. It is not some grant. It is not some giveaway. It is not an earmark. It is insurance. It is social insurance, created by the United States of America in partnership with the private sector and the people who work every day so that when they hit a speed bump and have to be laid off through no fault of their own, there will be a safety net so they do not fall. It is insurance. It is social insurance. It is a social contract, and it is a social compact.

In my mind, it is like having a treaty with the American people. We don't violate treaties, and we shouldn't violate this social contract. But oh, no, not our Senate. We had to dilly-dally around for month after month with the obstructionist tactics of the other side, using out-of-date procedures of this institution that belong in another century and another economy.

My constituents are frustrated. They are frustrated about their lives, they are frustrated about the direction of the country, and they are sure frustrated with the Senate--and put me in that corner. It is time we not only get the country moving, it is time we get the Senate moving. We have to first look at reform for ourselves, and I want everyone here to know I am on the side and definitely part of the reform movement in this institution to get rid of out-of-date procedures that belong to another century whose only job is not to slow us down so that we do due diligence but that we don't do anything at all.

Right now, we have a compelling need in our country. People who have been laid off through no fault of their own do need that safety net. Our failure to act has brought untold harm to people. When we left for the Fourth of July, I couldn't believe we walked out to carry the flag and say: Let's hear it for the red, white, and blue, and we were going to leave America without income insurance that they themselves had paid into to be able to get. We forget that for part of the insurance, private sector employers pay into it and so do the workers. It is insurance.

When I went around Maryland during the break, whether it was the workers themselves--people who had jobs--and even those who were well off said: Why can't you pass unemployment insurance. If you can't do that, you can't do anything. And they were absolutely right.

When I talked to the workers, I saw in their eyes the loss of energy, the loss of hope, and the loss of hope about a way of life, such as in manufacturing where in some areas it is being challenged. It is terrible to lose a job and then to lose unemployment insurance--no job, no income, no hope. Wow. What a bitter pill.

The Baltimore Sun in an editorial pointed out how unemployment benefits are helping the U.S. economy. This isn't Barb Mikulski, a moderate liberal talking about it. This is hard-nosed analysis saying, in Maryland, why it is good for the Maryland economy. Unemployment compensation would help put $819 million into our economy for the fiscal year ending June 30.

Over 17,000 Marylanders have lost their unemployment insurance. In our State, unemployment insurance certainly isn't lavish. The average is $312 a week. The maximum is $410 a week. In our State, it is only enough to pay electricity or rent or for food, but it is certainly not some big lavish program. This is what the insurance is meant to do. It is meant to be a safety net.

In our country people believe if they work hard and they play by the rules,

the rules should be on their side. Well, hello. We make the rules. We rule. So let's rule out this endless delay.

Today, I want us to pass this extension, and I want us to remember this is social insurance. I have sat here and listened to the debate minimizing and trivializing workers: Oh, unemployment is a way to discourage people to look for work. I don't know who these people talk to. Maybe they are too busy fundraising to talk to people. Maybe they are too busy trying to extend those Bush tax credits that added very little to our economy but added a lot to our debt. Maybe they are too busy. I am not too busy. I enjoy being out there with the people, listening to the stories of their lives. What does it mean to public policy?

What they want us to do is get off of our filibuster, pass this extension, and at least let people have a safety net. Then let's continue to concentrate on helping create jobs in the private sector in the United States of America by passing the Landrieu-Snowe small business bill and actually do something of which we can be proud.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to express our deep gratitude for the inspirational leadership and outstanding service to our nation by the U.S. Naval Academy class of 1970. It has been an honor to support the Naval Academy in my capacity as a Senator from Maryland and as a member of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors for over 20 years. The Naval Academy has a proud history of developing excellence in education and personal character of our past and present, and continues to prepare and train the future leaders of our nation. I am so proud of the class of 1970 for exemplifying the high quality standards of the academy.

The Naval Academy class of 1970 started their journey as midshipmen in 1966, during the height of the Vietnam war. They volunteered for the job knowing that after graduation their roles as Navy and Marine Corps officers would be during difficult and demanding times for the U.S. military. That it was such a challenging time for our nation and our military did not deter them, it made them more determined. Their service and extraordinary spirit has enriched and sustained our Nation. I come to the floor today to ensure that their sacrifice and patriotism is remembered and celebrated.

From their graduation day on, the class of 1970 set a very high standard. Their accomplishments and careers are impressive. Members of this class fought valiantly in the Vietnam war, the gulf war and other conflicts during the last 40 years. They served in the air, on land and at sea. Members of the class of 1970 have served at the very highest level of our military. They served as commanding officers of warships, combatant commanders, and as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Twenty-four members of this class achieved flag or general officer rank.

Since their early years as midshipmen, they have given of themselves not just on the battlefield but also in their communities on the home front. Whether volunteering at the Boys Club and Big Brothers programs as midshipmen, teaching at our nation's military colleges or volunteering in their community they have generously contributed to the support of academics, ethics, character development, and leadership of our next generation.

Even more extraordinary than their time in uniform is the amount the members of this class have continued to give back since their military service ended. This remarkable class has continued to lead by example. They have worked to educate our children, support defense agencies, and to promote community services. Their accomplishments and achievements have reached the highest levels of government, industry, science, law, medicine, education, and religious vocations. Many have continued to fight for our freedom in their roles as leaders of corporations that are vital to our national defense. I admire the spirit of service and dedication to making our country and the world a better place.

The U.S. Naval Academy class of 1970 exemplifies the Navy ethos of ``Honor, Courage, and Commitment.'' These values have defined their commitment and dedication to the United States. Like many others before and after them, they have sacrificed long deployments, separation from loved ones, tests and trials that most Americans can't imagine. Some even sacrificed their life doing their duty. I know that new generations of midshipmen and future Naval and Marine Corps officers will be inspired by the rich heritage of service they have passed down to them.

As the U.S. Naval Academy class of 1970 gathers to mark forty years of service to our nation and to the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, and Naval Academy, it is with great pleasure that I offer my gratitude for their service to our country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 5 minutes on the occasion of the passing of Senator Byrd.

Mr. President, I stand today with my colleagues with a very heavy heart to express my condolences to the Byrd family and to the people of West Virginia for losing a great American patriot. It is a very sad day for America, for West Virginia, and for the Senate.

For all of us who knew Senator Byrd, we knew he had five great loves: this country, the Constitution, the Senate, the people of West Virginia, and his beloved wife Erma.

Senator Byrd was my mentor and my teacher. When I arrived in the Senate, I was the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right. He took me under his wing and taught me the rules of the Senate.

He said to me:

Senator Mikulski, he or she who knows the rules will rule.

And you will know how to do it.

His advice to me--when I asked him how to be successful in the Senate--was this:

Senator Mikulski, stay loyal to the Constitution and stay

loyal to your constituents and you will do okay.

From the very first day, he wanted me to succeed. He was so welcoming. He made sure I became a member of the Appropriations Committee, and he helped me learn how to use my position to meet the day-to-day needs of my constituents and the long-term needs of our Nation.

Senator Byrd's career was remarkable. We all know the facts: the longest serving Member of Congress in history, the majority leader in the Senate, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, President pro tempore of the Senate, elected nine times to the Senate. Yet he never, ever forgot where he came from. He represented the people of West Virginia.

Born in poverty in the coalfields of West Virginia, raised by an aunt and uncle, he was born with four great gifts: a deep faith, a love of learning, a strong work ethic, and always saluted the fact that he was born in the United States of America, where someone who was, by all intents and purposes, an orphan could become a U.S. Senator. He worked as a gas station attendant, as a meat butcher, and a welder--I might add, a welder in the Baltimore shipyards. He went to night school for college and law school while he was in the Senate.

Senator Byrd wrote and passed many laws, but most important to him was that he was an appropriator. He used his position to help the people of West Virginia, and he did not apologize for that. He brought jobs, roads, and opportunity to one of the poorest States in the Nation. He did not call it pork; he called it opportunity. And this Senator would certainly agree with him.

But Senator Byrd also voted his conscience and encouraged other Members to do the same. In his 18,000 votes, he was most proud of his vote against the Iraq war. He was one of 23 Senators, and I joined him in that vote. At that time, it was deeply unpopular. Those of us who voted against the war were vilified. But we did the right thing, though it was not easy.

If you love the Senate, you love Bob Byrd. He often reminded us that the legislative branch is a coequal part of the government. He fought hard against those who wanted to give up Senate prerogatives, such as the line-item veto. No one understood Senate procedure better and no one protected Senate traditions more than Senator Bob Byrd.

He wanted to pass it on. With the new Senators, he gave each one of us a lecture on the Constitution and gave us a copy of the Constitution. He wanted us to know it and to love it in the way he did. He also taught us the decorum of the Senate--yes, the decorum of the Senate--and how, through our processes and procedures, it was meant to promote civility among us.

To me, as I said, he was a wonderful teacher. I remember going to him when I was ready to offer my first amendment on the floor, and I asked for his advice on how I could present it and how I could not, quite frankly, be rolled. He gave me good, concrete advice. On the day I offered my first amendment, there was Senator Byrd in the background. He was always there. As I said, Senator Byrd always had my back. I was so grateful for having his advice and having his encouragement.

He lived an extraordinary life and left an extraordinary legacy. He stood for citizenship, not partisanship. And maybe that is what we should all do. Follow the Constitution. Stay loyal to our Constitution. Stay loyal to our Constitution and our constituents. Use the rules of the Senate to promote civility and good government. And also make sure that at the end of the day,

we respect the opportunity and greatness of the United States of America.

I mourn the passing of Senator Byrd, but his legacy will live on in the rules and the traditions and the many bills he sponsored.

The people of West Virginia have had great Senators. Senator Rockefeller is a great Senator. And Senator Byrd will always be remembered, that he built a ``bridge to somewhere'' for all of the people of West Virginia.

Mr. President, I rise to support the passage of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions conference report.

Mr. President, you know me. I am a plain and a straight talker, so I am not going to use the flowery language of diplomacy or Senate speak on a lot of the language. I am going to say this in plain English.

Today, if you want to improve the safety and security of the United States of America, you want to pass this bill. If you want to make sure we ensure the safety and security of our allies in the Middle East, you want to pass this bill. If you want to identify who is one of the major enemies of the United States and our allies, it is Iran.

If one looks at the world, peace in the Middle East lies not through Jerusalem but lies through Tehran. What does Tehran do? Tehran funds Hamas, which is causing untold heartbreak and bloodshed in Gaza. No. 2, it funds Hezbollah, funding untold terrorist activity in the north of Israel and in Lebanon. No. 3, it is also working to develop nuclear weapons. We do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

What has Iran been doing over the last several years? They have had a record of denial and deception in developing nuclear weapons, in processing weapons-grade uranium. They have also been developing the method for delivering nuclear weapons, the so-called Shahab-3 ballistic missile. It is capable of striking Israel, U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even parts of Europe. We do not want Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

We have been down this road before. And people say: Right, let's stop them, let's go to the U.N., hoo-ha for the U.N. We have done hoo-ha with the U.N. We have had several sanctions. We had one most recently passed that our administration worked very hard on, and we thank our allies for that. But the U.N. sanctions, though a good first step, are quite tepid. They are tepid because there are other members of the Security Council who want to keep doing that business with Iran. You might want to do business with Iran, but Iran has no business developing nuclear weapons.

The United States, therefore, has to pass these unilateral sanctions. That is why I support them. It is the United States, the indispensable Nation, that can come up with the muscle to be able to do this.

This is a very serious matter. If Iran continues to develop these weapons, it is going to destabilize the world. First of all, it emboldens the regime that is currently in power. That regime is no friend to peace, it is no friend to stability, it is no friend to us or our allies.

Second, a nuclear Iran would destabilize pro-western Arab states. Those states with strong ties to the United States are apprehensive about Iran continuing to develop nuclear weapons capability.

Also, nuclear arms and missiles could pose a major threat to the United States. A nuclear Iran would spur in the region a nuclear arms race, and it would end a lot of our antiproliferation efforts.

These sanctions are absolutely important. I think they are very creative, and I think they go right to the heart of the Iranian leadership's pocketbook.

One of the most creative aspects of this legislation is the sanctions on Iran's petroleum industry. Iran has oil wells, but it does not have a major refining capacity. It imports over 40 percent of its gasoline.

This legislation in this bill that targets refined petroleum products I believe could have a crippling effect. With its importation of 40 percent gasoline and the need for them to have enormous subsidies to keep gasoline low with their population will be very effective.

It also targets Iran's banking system. Essentially, it says it requires foreign financial institutions to choose between doing business with Iran or doing business with U.S. banks. Make your choice. If you think the future lies with doing business with Iran, that is one view. But if you see your future doing business with U.S. banks, I think the path is clear, and they will choose the safety and security and reliability of doing business in the United States. I also like the fact that it strengthens the prohibitions on activities on the nuclear program.

What was also spoken about--and I salute my colleague from Arizona for also insisting on this--is the support for human rights in Iran.

We all remember that awful day when this wonderful, heroic young woman who wanted to engage in the civic activities in her own country-- Neda--was gunned down in her own country by her own people. Recently, I watched a very telling and poignant documentary about Neda and the dissidents in Iran. What a wonderful group of young people there is in that country. Wow, wouldn't we like to see them flourish? Wouldn't we like to see a modern Iran that joins the community of nations, promoting peace, stability, increased literacy, and opportunity in that country?

I am for those human rights' people. I am not only going to mourn Neda as a symbol, but I think the way we can mourn Neda is to back the people like her in Iran. And I really do support this human rights activity by imposing travel restrictions and financial penalties on those who crack down on human rights in Iran.

Some countries on the Security Council, as I said, are more concerned about their relationships with Iran for investment purposes. We have to start thinking about investing in the safety and stability of the world.

I urge the passage of this Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act, and I say this is a good and important step. And those who vote for it--and we are going to do it on a bipartisan basis because when we do that, we govern the best--are also going to have to stand ready to really have a very muscular and aggressive approach to the enforcement of these sanctions.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to minimize the opportunity for Iran to continue to get its nuclear weapons and to practice its denial and deception, to promote a free and open Iran, to stand with the dissidents, and to promote human rights. Let's look for a more modern Iran in the 21st century. They have a great history. I want them to have a great future and to join the community of nations in a nonproliferation environment and work for the good of us all.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

What morning business this is. For those of us in the National Capital region, this is indeed a very solemn day. One year ago today, nine people died on Washington's

Metro. We were shocked and horrified when a red line Metro train struck another train. Eight passengers were killed, including one Marylander from Hyattsville. A train operator also died, and over 50 passengers were injured.

Those men and women died not as a result of a terrorist attack or of sabotage, these deaths happened because of Metro. It was a failure of management, it was a failure of technology, and it was a failure of the culture of safety at Metro.

Today our hearts go out to those families, those who lost loved ones and those who bear the permanent injuries of that fateful day. Since that day there have been 4 more deaths at Metro. This brings the total to 13 deaths in the last year. Let me repeat that--13 people died by Metro in the last 12 months.

After that June 22 crash 1 year ago, four Metro employees died on the job. One last August was a track repairman from Silver Spring who was hit by maintenance equipment. In September, another employee died. A communications technician was hit by a train. In January, two more Metro employees died. They were automatic train control technicians when they, too, were struck by a maintenance truck.

Well, in December, I said enough is enough. We always say a grateful nation will never forget after a terrible accident and we go to a memorial service. Well, for me what happened at Metro was not a memorial service, it was a call to service and for action by us. The best way we can honor the memory of those who died and those who were injured is to reform Metro.

I have called for that reform. In December during my testimony on rail safety legislation I introduced, I spoke out and said it was time for change at Metro. They needed new leadership. They needed a fresh approach. They needed to adopt a culture of safety that was unrelenting in terms of their focus on the details to protect the people who work on the Metro and the people who ride the Metro.

I was shocked to learn there are no Federal safety standards for any Metro. So whether we are talking about the National Capital region Metro or New York's subway system or California's subway system, there are no Federal safety standards.

That is why I worked with NTSB and the Federal Transit Administration to develop legislation that would do two things: give our own U.S. Department of Transportation the authority to establish and enforce Federal safety standards so we would have uniformity, conformity, and metrics for measuring safety on the Metro that we help fund. It also would require the U.S. Department of Transportation to implement the National Transportation Safety Board's recommendation list which includes requiring that railcars have crashworthy standards, emergency entry and evacuation standards, and regulations for train operator shifts.

We have safety standards for commercial airplanes. We have safety standards for buses that carry passengers. But we do not have safety standards for railcars that are used in subways. I think that is wrong.

What we also found was that safety inspectors that are part of a unique governing system were denied access to the Metro tracks. That is when we said we needed to find out what was going on. I called for a Federal audit of Metro, a Federal investigation of just what was going on there.

Thanks to Secretary LaHood and FTA leader Peter Rogoff, well known to those of us in the Senate, they did an outstanding audit which was indeed an outstanding service for us all. Their findings were shocking, hair-raising, and chilling. What did we find out?

Supervisors and train operators did not exactly know where Metro workers might be doing maintenance on the tracks until they actually saw them. Can you imagine? People driving the train had to see with their own eyes their workers to make sure they did not hit them.

There was no technological warning system. Operators weren't given the exact location of workers on the tracks. Information was generalized and workers were often in different locations than what operators were told. So the Metro itself was a lethal tool. Metro did not have the manpower to implement its own safety programs. It did not have a list of the top ten safety hazards and concerns. The list goes on and on about the audit.

I held a very vigorous oversight hearing, both Senator Cardin and myself. We pushed Metro to come up with a checklist for change. We insisted that they come up with this checklist. I demanded that they give it to us right then and there.

They told me they were going to be working on it, and I said: Look, tell me what you are going to do. Well, listen to how ground shaking it was: Replace the oldest railcars on the fleet, develop a realtime automatic train control redundancy system, strengthen the expertise of the safety department, complete the roadway worker protection program, develop a training and certification program for bus and rail personnel, strengthen employee knowledge of rules and rules compliance, develop an accident and investigation database, create a strong internal training tracking database, fill vacancies in the safety department, and improve the agency's safety culture.

Imagine, it took a Senator holding a public hearing to get a must-do list on the safety list for change. This is unacceptable. We have to make sure we have Federal legislation. We need to do two things: We need to have Federal legislation, and we need to have Federal funding.

I want to make sure we save lives on the Metro. This is why I introduced safety reform legislation. I understand the Banking Committee is considering it. Well, the Banking Committee needs to pass it, and the Banking Committee needs to pass it before the July 4 work break.

I know the Banking Committee has a lot on their plate. I know they are trying to regulate Wall Street. Good for them. Three cheers for them. We want that. But while we are making sure people do not lose their money on Wall Street, we have to make sure they do not lose their lives on Metro. So I ask our friends on the Banking Committee, could we kind of get this done this week, next week, before the July 4 break?

The bill does three things: It gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to establish and enforce safety standards, including those standards for railcars and making sure there is an employee safety certification training program; it also requires oversight of the agencies monitoring safety to be independent; it funds federally approved State oversight agencies to make sure they have the rules of the road and the resources to do it because we regulate so much of this at the State level.

I am pretty worked up about this. I hope we move the bill. I hope we move it before the break.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, America is facing a catastrophe in the gulf. I rise today to speak about the President's address to our Nation last night and my recent trip to the gulf.

I agree with the President that BP must stop the leak, clean up the oil, and end the economic hurricane they have caused on the gulf coast. I agree that BP--not the taxpayers--must be liable for costs of cleaning up the mess, for compensating businesses, fisherman and families, and for their economic losses. BP must set aside a fund of $20 billion or more today that they don't control to pay all economic claims in a fair and timely way.

I like that the President focused on the Nation's long range energy needs. We do need to move our energy policy forward. And I am so pleased the President picked Dr. Don Boesch for the new National Commission to prevent and respond to future spills like this one. Dr. Boesch has strong ties to Maryland. He has been president of UMD Center for Environmental Science since 1990 and serves as Governor O'Malley's science adviser. He's also a man of Louisiana, born in New Orleans and a graduate of Tulane. He knows the issues of Louisiana and he's got a special place in his heart in looking out for Maryland.

I also agree with Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, LA. He believes we should bring every asset we have to fight this thing. The people of Louisiana need to see more action on the ground and we can't just rely on BP's word to get the job done.

We need to organize and mobilize our own government. Right now we are acting like a bureaucracy rather than a fighting force to protect the beaches and the people from the consequences of the oilspill. I hope in the coming days, the President will insist on defining what success is.

This administration needs goals and metrics for shore clean up that will be adequate. They must establish a mechanism for monitoring, oversight and relentless follow-through. Right now, no one but BP knows what is going on. There has been a lot of reporting on inputs--but not enough on outcomes. We need structure for oversight and we need to know the outcomes of our actions.

The President also needs to insist on expediting permits. When I was on the gulf coast last week, I heard from locals that their ideas on how to protect coasts are stuck in bureaucracy. We need to unstick the bureaucracy. This is a national emergency that needs an aggressive national response. We are all in this together.

I went to the gulf coast as chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. NOAA is in the gulf right now telling us where this oil is going, helping to cleanup the shores and marshes and assisting fishermen who are hurting.

I also went as the Senator from Maryland. I wanted to talk to scientists first hand to find out how the spill could impact Maryland. Will it affect our beaches and treasured Chesapeake Bay?

Last week, I saw the catastrophe in the gulf. We met the people, we saw the beaches, and we saw the impact on the wildlife. And everywhere we went, we saw oil and the consequences of oil. I spoke to people whose livelihoods depend on the gulf. When we talk about what we saw-- words like ``Louisiana,'' ``Grand Isle'' and ``Pelican Island''--I also think of words like ``Ocean City'' and ``Assateague,'' Maryland's own barrier island. What we saw was the good, the bad, and the ugly.

First, we met with the people, and I saw just how resilient they are. They have real grit and are determined to do something to save their communities. We coastal people need to be on their side. We saw communities where they would ordinarily have thousands of visitors with busy fishing charters.

Now, it's like a ghost land. The beach looked more like a military base than an ocean resort, with trucks going up and down, carrying booms and all kinds of response equipment. And when you go out to sea, on a boat or in a helicopter, you see this oil creeping closer and closer to the shoreline. We are concerned about the environmental impact, but we are also concerned about the human impact on lives, livelihoods, and safety.

Next, we asked--is the oil going to come up the east coast in this so-called ``loop current or loop stream?'' We were told the beaches of Ocean City will be safe. Even in the worst case scenario, the oil won't get beyond the Carolinas. Second, we were told that the seafood is safe. It is being inspected locally by NOAA and the FDA, so what is coming to the American marketplace is safe. That's what we were told, but I believe what Ronald Reagan said: ``Trust, but verify.''

Maryland's economy is tied to the Louisiana economy. Our seafood restaurants and markets rely on what's caught in the gulf. I am holding a Maryland delegation meeting to make sure that we bring in ocean scientists and seafood inspectors to verify that our Atlantic coast beaches and our Chesapeake Bay will stay oil free and our seafood will be safe to eat.

That was the good news. The bad news is BP. The BP people have to fix this. BP is cutting corners, minimizing the situation, and now here we are. The oil will continue to gush, and it will gush until August. But the oil coming out of the well will take 6 weeks to get to shore, so we are going to feel all of this well into September. And that is the best case scenario.

I support our President in calling for an escrow account for BP to put $20 billion aside for economic damages. I fear the hoarders will take charge. I fear BP will file for bankruptcy and will want the taxpayers to bail them out. The American taxpayer will not bail out the oil companies. The oil companies must put aside the money to pay damages and cleanup costs.

Our own bureaucracy needs reform. We saw the can-do spirit there among the people, but the permit process is slow--whether it is the EPA, Corps of Engineers or NOAA. This needs to be reformed. And this stuff, called dispersant sounds like if you pour chemicals on the oil the oil will disburse and everything's fine. I am concerned that dispersants could be causing more problems than they are solving. I am concerned about the toxic impact on human beings and marine life creating dead zones off the coast of Louisiana.

That is why I plan to hold a hearing. To learn more about the effects of these dispersants--what do we already know, what do we need to know, and what research needs to be done--because I don't want dispersants to turn out to be the DDT or Agent Orange of the oilspill. It is our job in Congress to push the bureaucracy, to push BP to get the job done and protect the American people.

Then, we saw the ugly. The so-called protective booms were dysfunctional and in disarray, saturated with sticky smelly oil that had been there for days and no one had come to pick them up or clean them up. They were breaking loose and some washed up in marshes, causing far more damage than the oil. If they couldn't protect the few miles around the pelicans areas, how can they protect the beaches? They have got to do a lot better job. It took four Senators going to Louisiana to get the booms cleaned up near Grand Isle.

There are no performance standards to make sure BP or the government are doing what they say they are doing and that it is working. There must be relentless follow-through by the government. The Coast Guard is treating BP as if it were another government agency, when the Coast Guard needs to take BP to task. They need to make sure that they have performance standards and they need to make sure that there is follow- through.

After witnessing the catastrophe in the gulf and seeing the way the oil is impacting the people, the communities, and the environment, I am so glad that we in Maryland opposed offshore drilling. No matter what is the energy policy I will always oppose offshore drilling off of the Mid-Atlantic coast. We can never let what's happening in the gulf happen to any other communities.

Our first responsibility will be to the Nation's taxpayers, not to the oil companies. Our second responsibility is to the people of the gulf, to do all we can to protect them. We need to make sure that we contain the oil and can clean it up so they can get on with their lives and their livelihoods.

I was honored to be able to go and represent Marylanders there because we are coastal people too. When I talked to the people down there who fish and crab, we talked about how we use the same kind of bait, we use the same kind of line, the same kind of ways. We cook them a little bit different--but we eat them all the same. And when they held our hands, they said when you go back to Maryland and Washington, don't ever forget us. And we won't. We are all Americans, we are all coastal people, and we are all in this together.