Floor Statements

Mr. President, on May 5, 2009, over 14 months ago, I chaired a Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled the Passport Issuance Process: Closing the Door to Fraud. Today we are holding Part II of that hearing. During the hearing last year, we learned about a Government Accountability Office, GAO, undercover investigation that had been requested by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to test the effectiveness of the passport issuance process, and to determine whether malicious individuals such as terrorists, spies, or other criminals could use counterfeit documents to obtain a genuine U.S. passport. What we learned from GAO was that ``terrorists or criminals could steal an American citizen's identity, use basic counterfeiting skills to create fraudulent documents for that identity, and obtain a genuine U.S. passport.'' But that 2009 GAO report was not the first time that problems with the passport issuance process were identified. In 2005 and 2007, GAO also brought these issues to light.

Vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process are very serious because the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. A U.S. passport can be used for many purposes in this country, and it gives an individual the ability to travel internationally, which is an important tool for someone who wants to do us harm, including terrorists, spies, and other criminals. So the integrity and security of the passport issuance process is extremely important because it can have a profound impact on the national security of the United States.

A new GAO undercover investigation that I requested, along with Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Lieberman and Collins, has revealed that while some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport issuance process is still susceptible to fraud.

As a result, today I am introducing, along with Senators Feinstein and Lieberman, the Passport Identity Verification Act. This legislation is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the legal authorities that it needs to access information contained in Federal, State, and other databases that can be used to verify the identity of every passport applicant, and to detect passport fraud, without extending the time that the State Department takes to approve passports. The legislation also requires the State Department to promulgate regulations, procedures, and policies to limit access to this information, and to ensure that personnel involved in the passport issuance process only access this information for authorized purposes. These are very important privacy and security protections in this legislation.

The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to conduct a formal study examining whether biometric information and technology can be used to enhance the ability to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

I understand that the American people can become concerned when their travel plans, whether for leisure or business, are linked to their ability to obtain a passport in a timely fashion. But we have got to get this right, and it is not simply a question of process, techniques, and training. We need to make sure that the agencies that are responsible for processing passport application documents are concerned about national security as well as customer service, and we need to make sure they have the legal authorities, the resources, and the technology they need to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

We simply cannot issue U.S. passports in this country on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. We have the technology and the information to prevent such issuance. The Passport Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State Department's ability to detect passport fraud.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to allow us to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act to deal with campaign finance reform. I thank Senator Schumer for his hard work on this issue to bring forward a bill that I hope can enjoy sufficient support so we can continue to advance campaign finance reform. Election campaign finance reform is difficult to pass in this body for many reasons. First, it requires bipartisanship. We know that. We know we need to bring together Democrats and Republicans to say: Our legacy on fair elections is more important than our own individual elections, and we have a responsibility to the American public to deal with a growing problem in American politics; that is, the influence of money, particularly during election time.

That is why we celebrated in 2002 with passage of a bipartisan campaign reform act. Under the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, we were able to come together, Democrats and Republicans, and advance campaign finance reform to reduce somewhat the influence of special interest corporate money in our political system and to add further disclosures so the American public could know who is trying to influence their vote. That is what campaign finance reform is about, to limit corporate money and provide greater disclosure. Democrats and Republicans came together in 2002 to get that done. The protection of our fair election process has now met a new opponent. That is the Supreme Court or, more specifically, five Justices on the Supreme Court, the so-called conservative Justices. They legislated from the bench, reversing precedent, and ruled on the side of corporate interests over the concerns of ordinary Americans. These were the so- called Justices many of my colleagues look to for judicial restraint. It is not judicial restraint when they legislate from the bench. It is not judicial restraint when they reverse precedent, when they rule on the side of corporate America over ordinary Americans.

Let me quote from Justice Stevens in his comments as they reflect on the decision the Court made:

[E]ssentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited

nature of the case before us so they changed the case to give

themselves an opportunity to change the law. There were

principled, narrow paths that a court that was serious about

judicial restraint could have taken.

Justice Stevens goes on to warn, the majority ``threatens to undermine the integrity of the elected institutions across the Nation. The path that is taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.''

Justice Stevens, in his minority opinion, says:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the

common sense of the American people, who have recognized a

need to prevent corporations from undermining self government

since the founding, and who have fought against the

distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering

since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to

repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is

imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have

thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in

politics.

We tried to do something about that in 2002. We passed a law that said corporations cannot directly try to influence elections. Then we set up how they can do so through a transparent way, collectively, through political action committees. But we stopped undisclosed direct corporate influence in American elections. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that bipartisan action. So how should we in Congress respond? What options do we have? We could amend the Constitution, but that is a matter that requires a great deal more deliberation. I am concerned about amending provisions in the Constitution. We need to think long and hard before we act. We could do something many of us have talked about for a long time--provide incentives for public financing of campaigns to try to reduce dramatically the amount of private money in our campaigns. Senator Durbin has been a leader in this effort. I am proud to be a cosponsor. That is a matter that should be given serious review. But we don't have the opportunity to do that today.

Today we do have an opportunity to act as Senator Schumer has brought forward the DISCLOSE Act which we all profess we support--disclosure. All of us have said we should be serious about giving the public an opportunity to know who is trying to influence their vote.

The minority leader in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, said:

I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full

disclosure, full disclosure of all money we raise and how it

is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

He was, of course, quoting from Justice Brandeis's famous comments in an opinion when he was a Justice on the Supreme Court, about sunshine being the best disinfectant.

Shortly we will have an opportunity to proceed with the DISCLOSE Act. We will have an opportunity to vote.

I understand some of the concerns of my Republican colleagues. They say: Look, corporations generally side with Republicans. Therefore, if we can get corporations to put more money into the election process, won't that be good for Republicans?

Let me counter that by saying we all benefit. Each Member of this body benefits by reducing the influence outside interests have in the independence we can exercise in the Senate. Look at what is going to happen if we don't change this. Karl Rove has indicated he intends to bring forward $52 million to try to influence the 2010 elections by so- called anonymous donors, without disclosing the source of the funds. We know there is the potential of hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to influence votes without disclosing where that money is coming from, under the banner of Citizens United and corporate contributions. We can do something about that.

Our legacy to protect a free and fair election process from undue influence of corporate special interests is more important than even our own individual elections. We were able to come together in 2002. Let's reconfirm what we did. Let's each do what is right for the integrity of the election process. Let's each do what we said we believe in--full disclosure. We can do that with the motion to proceed.

Voting for cloture on this motion does not preclude a Member from offering an amendment. If there is something in the proposal one doesn't like--all of us would wish to see it stronger, or maybe there are other provisions we wish to take a look at--let's proceed to the debate. Let's not be afraid to have the debate on the floor of the Senate, supposedly the greatest debating institution in the world. Let's not be afraid to have the debate on how we can make elections more responsive to the needs of the people, ordinary citizens, so they have a right to know who is trying to influence their vote. Let's have that debate on the floor of the Senate. We will have a chance to do that in a few hours by voting for cloture on the motion to proceed.

I urge my colleagues, give the American people this debate they so richly deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Maes, Cory Mack, and Elizabeth Schwab of the office of Senator Bingaman be granted the privileges of the floor for today.

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.

Mr. President, the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has dominated the headlines since April 20. Because of that tragedy, we are more aware than ever of the important role great water bodies and the rivers that feed them play in our economy, our environment, and even our sense of who we are as a people.

Late last month, the Environment and Public Works Committee reported out a number of bills addressing America's precarious water resources. The committee approved a bill to hold BP accountable for the devastation it has caused to the people and the ecosystem of the gulf.

As all of America has seen in the morning newspapers and nightly news accounts, the current $75 million limit on oilspill liability damages represents a very small fraction of the actual costs of the damage done by BP. Senator Menendez's bill, S. 3305, which the committee adopted, will make sure that BP is legally bound to honor its pledge to pay all legitimate claims. I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I look forward to the adoption of this legislation by the full Senate.

As we do everything we can to make sure the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is not a knife through the heart of the Gulf of Mexico's ecosystem, we know that other great water bodies are also suffering. We are responding to those troubled waters as well. The Puget Sound, Columbia River Basin, Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, and, yes, the Chesapeake Bay, are each special and iconic, yet each is threatened by degraded water quality.

Marylanders know from our experience with the Chesapeake Bay, just as the residents of the gulf are demonstrating for all Americans, that the health of these water bodies is critical to sustaining regional economies, plant and animal species, our cultural heritage, and our treasured way of life that has been passed on from generation to generation. The National Academy of Public Administration has recommended ``making large-scale ecosystem restoration a national priority.''

Large ecosystem programs, from Long Island Sound to the Great Lakes to Puget Sound, are addressing some of the Nation's most complex water resource management challenges. For this reason, EPA's strategic plan prioritizes protecting these ecosystems as a complement to their core, national water quality programs.

The Water and Wildlife Subcommittee that I chair has devoted considerable time to the Chesapeake Bay and, more recently, to the other water body bills.

I thank Chairman Boxer for her strong support on these bills, for her

help in shaping the legislation, and for marshaling these bills through the full Environment and Public Works Committee.

Throughout my career in public service, I have had no greater cause than to save the Chesapeake Bay. There has not been one dramatic incident that has killed off our fisheries, oyster beds and crab populations, so we have not seen the same sustained attention to lives and traditions ruined as we are witnessing in the gulf today.

That does not mean it isn't happening, family by family, across my State and my region. I have seen it and I am committed to doing everything I can to make sure the bay and the economy and ways of life it sustains don't die away.

The Chesapeake Bay encompasses 64,000 square miles. Its watershed is home to more than 17 million people, with tributaries in Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama have called it a national treasure.

The Chesapeake is the economic, historic and cultural center of the region, providing commercial waterways, important fisheries, and countless recreational opportunities.

The first English settlers in the New World came here; Captain John Smith's original voyages of discovery in 1607 first mapped its borders. The capital cities of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the United States sit upon its major tributaries.

Since 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Program has undertaken a largely voluntary effort to restore America's largest estuary. This State- Federal partnership program has provided innovative leadership and remarkable scientific understanding of the restoration effort.

In recent years, however, it became apparent that voluntary efforts to restore water quality to the Chesapeake and its tidal segments would be unsuccessful.

The basin States agreed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would be responsible for developing a basin-wide pollution reduction program. The Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, TMDL, would address all segments of the Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries that are identified on the currently applicable lists of impaired waters by nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment of the Chesapeake Bay States under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

It is against that backdrop that I introduced S. 1816, the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act. The purpose of S. 1816 is to amend the Clean Water Act to improve and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program authorized in section 117 of the Act.

The bill has four primary objectives:

1. Establish a deadline of 2025, along with appropriate milestones, for all restoration actions to be implemented throughout the Chesapeake basin that will lead to attainment of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal segments; 2. Assure that the basin States, as delegated authorities under the Clean Water Act, be given maximum authority and flexibility to meet the restoration pollution limits through ``watershed implementation plans'' that each State designs for itself; 3. Require that the Federal Government be an active partner in the restoration effort, by developing the overall pollution reduction targets on a State-by-State basis through the Chesapeake Bay TMDL; implementing the terms of the Presidential Executive Order; paying local stormwater fees; and providing clear and meaningful accountability for the basin States; 4. Provide the States, municipalities, developers, and especially agricultural producers with significant new tools and financial resources to meet the restoration demands within the 15-year time frame contained in the legislation.

The bill authorizes a number of new grants programs, including two to assist local governments manage polluted stormwater and three to assist the agricultural community manage nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution. Grants programs for States are expanded and a number of independent reviews of the program's implementation and progress are required over the next 15 years.

I am proud that the Environment and Public Works Committee reported out this bill on a voice vote, without a single Senator expressing opposition.

In fact, each of the individual great water bodies bills that the committee considered was adopted in a similar nonpartisan fashion.

S. 1311, Gulf of Mexico Restoration and Protection Act, was introduced by Senator Wicker and it addresses the long-standing issues facing the gulf that predate the oil spill disaster that has dominated headlines.

S. 3550, Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010, is a bill jointly developed by the junior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, and the senior Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo. This bipartisan legislation will address one of America's great river systems.

S. 3073, Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act of 2010, has several bipartisan sponsors, including Senator Levin and Senator Voinovich, who have worked for years to protect the Great Lakes, which hold 20 percent of the fresh water on the Earth.

S. 3539, San Francisco Bay Restoration Act, sponsored by California Senators Feinstein and Boxer, will help direct the restoration of that essential estuary.

H.R. 4715, Clean Estuaries Act of 2010. Senators Whitehouse and Vitter worked together on a substitute version of this House bill. It will reauthorize the program that supports the 28 estuaries around the country that are part of the National Estuaries Program.

S. 2739, Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2009, sponsored by the Senators from Washington State, Ms. Cantwell and Mrs. Murray, addresses the restoration of this water body, which borders two nations.

S. 3119, Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act, sponsored by New York Senator Gillibrand, will help with the recovery of this body of water which serves millions of residents of New York and Connecticut.

Each of the restoration efforts takes a somewhat different approach to deal with the specific concerns of that region.

This is as it should be. Each of these great water bodies is unique, and each deserves its own restoration strategy developed by its own set of stakeholders.

I am proud of the work done by dozens of Senators from both parties who have contributed their time and legislative expertise in drafting and supporting these Great Water Body bills.

These bills prove that we can work together on substantive legislation in a constructive, bipartisan fashion. They prove that we can say ``yes'' to bipartisanship, ``yes'' to meeting America's need for clean waters, ``yes'' to locally driven restoration strategies, and ``yes'' to a bright future for some of the most iconic places in America.

Mr. President, I look forward to the opportunity to bring all of these fine bills to the Senate floor for adoption.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010 at 9 a.m. in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Update on the TARP Program.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on foreign relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Treating Rare and Neglected Pediatric Diseases: Promoting the Developent of New Treatments and Cures'' on July 21, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Charting a Path Forward: The Homeland Security Department's Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and Bottom- Up Review.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Second Chance Act: Strengthening Safe and Effective Community Reentry.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions and to applaud new and tougher U.S. sanctions recently passed by Congress.

With both of the sanctions imposed in U.N. Resolution 1929, and the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act becoming law, we are finally poised to inflict real damage to Iran's nuclear program. But only a strong, unified, and forceful implementation of a sanctions regime will stop Iran from continuing on its current dangerous path.

While Iran still clings to the myth that its recent Turkish-Brazilian compromise proposal is an antidote to the global and U.S. sanctions, we must not waste time pretending this is a sign they are halting their nuclear program. Under this proposal, Iran would ship only half of its low enriched uranium out of the country for further enrichment while continuing to violate a multitude of U.N. Security Council resolutions. The international community cannot afford to be fooled by Tehran into slowing the implementation of the sanctions and this is precisely why we should step up pressure on the regime.

Make no mistake: Iran wants to become a world nuclear power, with the ability to threaten Israel, the United States, and the global community.

Containing a nuclear Iran would be virtually impossible and this growing threat looms large in all international diplomacy. If they acquired this capability, it would be an unequivocal ``game changer'' in the Middle East and, indeed, throughout the world. An undeniable threat to Israel and the United States, a nuclear Iran cannot become a reality. We therefore must do all in our power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities.

I am heartened to see the administration embrace both tough global, but more importantly, stringent Congressional sanctions. The enactment of powerful and effective economic sanctions against Iran--and the foreign companies that do business with Tehran--will go a long way in further isolating this rogue nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for voting to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program through November 30, 2010. This vote is long overdue. While we have been debating the issue, families across the country dealing with long- term unemployment have been suffering. While we have been arguing about this extension, they have been struggling to survive. I am pleased that this body has finally taken action to ease the burden they face.

Extension of the emergency unemployment compensation program provides additional weeks of unemployment benefits to out-of-work Americans once regular State unemployment benefits have been exhausted. The number of weeks of benefit is determined by a State's unemployment rate.

The legislation also extends full Federal funding of the extended benefits program. This program provides 13 to 20 weeks of benefits to unemployed workers who have exhausted regular and emergency unemployment compensation benefits in States with threshold unemployment rates.

Thanks in part to some of the actions of this Congress, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we are beginning to see some upturn in what is considered the most severe economic recession this Nation has experienced since the Great Depression. The recovery, though, is not a quick and easy process.

Even though job loss has slowed, unemployment remains high at 9.5 percent. This translates into 14.6 million unemployed Americans. Further, an unprecedented number of Americans have been without jobs for more than 6 months. The average length of unemployment is now stretching to 35 weeks. To put it simply, there are more job seekers than jobs available. For every job, there are five applicants.

Americans want to work and are willing to work but until the job market improves, many rely on unemployment compensation to support themselves and their families. That is why the passage of the extension of emergency unemployment insurance benefits is so crucial; many unemployed Americans quite literally can't survive without this support.

More than 19,000 Marylanders have lost their benefits due to the delay in passing the legislation. The average benefit in Maryland is $312 a week. This isn't ``money in the bank.'' It is food on the table. It is gas in the car. It is medicine and other necessities.

Unemployment checks contribute to the local economy as they are spent almost immediately on basic goods. For Maryland, the delay in passing the legislation dealt a 6 million dollar blow to the State's economy each week. Nationally, 2.5 million Americans have lost their benefits, costing the economy approximately $775 million a week.

Again, I thank my colleagues for standing up for American workers and families. Workers like 57-year-old Cynthia Allen of Baltimore County, MD. Cynthia was laid off from her data management position in January 2009. Outsourcing has made it difficult to find another job in that field. So, here she is, 19 months later, savings expended, credit cards maxed, and unemployment benefits exhausted. Until

this point, throughout her work history she had never drawn unemployment. Still, Cynthia perseveres. She continues her job search and she hopes something will open up for her soon. Our thoughts go out to Cynthia and to the millions of Americans who are struggling to survive in these difficult times.

It is time to finish the job of extending these desperately needed benefits to people like Cynthia Allen.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to draw the attention of my colleagues to the legacy of the July 20, 1974, invasion of Cyprus by Turkey and its ongoing occupation of that island nation. Thirty-six years later, the human dimension of the conflict and the artificial division of the country is evident in many areas. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am particularly mindful of the violations of human rights stemming from the occupation. I have walked along the U.N.-monitored buffer zone that cuts through the capital city of Nicosia. A visitor to Cyprus need not look far to discover the scars left by the artificial division of a capital and a country.

A year ago this week, the Helsinki Commission held a public briefing, ``Cyprus' Religious Cultural Heritage in Peril,'' to draw attention to this aspect of the legacy of the events of 1974. Experts at that briefing documented the scope of the destruction of sites in the north, including Orthodox churches, chapels and monasteries as well as those of other Christian communities. According to Archbishop Chrysostomos II, leader of the Church of Cyprus, over 500 religious sites in the area have been seriously damaged or destroyed. Subsequent to the briefing that Church of Cyprus filed a formal case with the European Court of Human Rights regarding its religious sites and other property in the north. A report prepared by

the Law Library of Congress, ``Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law'' was released at the briefing.

Helsinki Commission staff traveled throughout the region, visiting numerous churches, each in various stages of deterioration, all plundered, stripped of religious objects, including altars, iconostasis and icons. Other sites have been turned into tourist resorts, storage warehouses or other purposes, including stables, shops, and night clubs. Among photos on display at the briefing were those showing the desecrated ruins of graves with all of the crosses broken off of their bases and smashed. A nearby shed was stacked with broken headstones. A number of Jewish cemeteries in the region, according to reports, have likewise been vandalized and left in shambles. Finally, even the rare occasions when Orthodox services that are allowed to be conducted in the north such exceptional events are occasionally marred by security forces preventing worshipers from crossing into the area or the disruption of religious services.

The Commission recently received an update from Dr. Charalampos Chotzakoglou, one of the experts who testified at our 2009 briefing. He reports a number of disturbing developments over the past year, including road construction through a church yard; transport of grave markers robbed from desecrated cemeteries, reportedly to be recycled as scrap metal; the further looting of artifacts from churches; and the known conversion of another church building into a night club. Dr. Chotzakoglou also reports on the continued difficulties in securing permission to conduct religious services at some of the sites in the north.

The events of 1974 have taken a tremendous toll in so many areas, including Cyprus' rich religious cultural heritage. As we mark this 36th anniversary, let us join in the hope that a resolution of the Cyprus question hammered out, by the Cypriots and for the Cypriots, will be found.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA, on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. NACWA is a dynamic national organization, involved in all facets of water quality protection. As a key stakeholder in the legislative, regulatory, and legal arenas, NACWA has built credible collaborative relationships with Members of Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal courts and other governmental bodies.

The emergence of NACWA as a nationally recognized leader in environmental policy and a sought-after technical resource on water quality and ecosystem protection issues has paralleled the maturation of one of the Nation's most successful environmental laws--the Clean Water Act. NACWA was established in 1970 by a group of individuals representing 22 large municipal sewerage agencies to secure Federal funding for municipal wastewater treatment and serve as a forum to discuss the emerging national interest in improving the quality of the Nation's waters. Based upon the shared goal of effectively representing the interests and priorities of public clean water agencies and the communities they serve, they formed NACWA.

Over the past 40 years, NACWA has expanded its member base and issue platform. It has changed its name, replacing the word ``sewerage'' with ``clean water'' to better reflect the end-product of its members' treatment services--clean water. The organization also partners with diverse stakeholders while always advocating for sound science in advancing water quality protection. Today, as the leading clean water association, NACWA represents nearly 300 member organizations.

Recent years have reflected heightened involvement for the association in a broadening array of complex 21st century water quality issues, including green infrastructure, climate change, watershed-based approaches, and clean water funding and financing. As chairman of the Senate's Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, under the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am in a good position to observe that NACWA has met the goal that its founders established 40 years ago. NACWA continues to pursue every opportunity to develop and implement sound water quality policies that advance clean water and a healthy environment.

It is my sincere pleasure to congratulate NACWA on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. This committee has relied on NACWA's strategic input for decades and will undoubtedly continue to do so as we shape the course of environmental protection for our Nation's waters in the decades to come.

Madam President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and to vote for final passage.

First, I congratulate Senator Dodd for the leadership he has shown in marshaling this legislation through some very difficult challenges in the Congress, getting it through the Senate floor, working out the differences between the House and Senate, so we now are on the verge of passing the most significant reform of Wall Street in many years.

This bill corrects a regulatory structure that today allows reckless gambling on Wall Street; that creates too big to fail, where government bailouts are necessary to keep companies afloat because there are no other options available to our regulators. It ends reckless gambling on Wall Street. It ends the need for government bailouts of institutions that are too big to fail. It provides for strong consumer protection-- protection for many forms of lending but, most importantly, the residential mortgage market.

We saw in this financial crisis that even responsible consumers suffered at the hands of aggressive lenders with dubious intentions. This legislation will create a consumer bureau that will end those types of practices, that will be on the side of the consumer, that is independent, so the consumer is represented in the financial structure.

I want to highlight some provisions that were included in this legislation I worked on with our colleagues to get included in the bill. I am very grateful to Senator Dodd, the leadership of the Banking Committee, and our representatives in conference who were able to include provisions that I think add to the importance of this bill.

The first provision I want to talk about is a provision I worked on with Senator Enzi and Senator Brownback that will make permanent the federally insured deposit limits from $100,000 to $250,000. We did that recently in order to encourage more deposits, to help our economy, to provide capital for businesses. This limit included in this bill is now made permanent at $250,000.

Insured deposits have been the stabilizing force for our Nation's banking system for the past 75 years. They promote public confidence in our banking system and prevent bank runs. They are particularly important to community banks. I know many of us talk about what we can do to help our small businesses, how can we free up more credit to get small businesses the loans they need in order to create the jobs that are needed for our economy. We all know community banks are the most stable source of funds for investments in our communities and small businesses.

Community banks rely more on insured deposits than large banks. Madam President, 85 percent to 90 percent of the funds community banks have are included in insured deposits. So this amendment that will make permanent the $250,000 limit will help provide a more steady source of funds for

our community banks which will allow them to be able to invest in our communities.

Another provision that is included in this conference report is one I worked on with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, dealing with the enhanced supervision for nonbank financial companies. What we are talking about are mutual funds and their advisers, to make sure they are not inadvertently subjected to unworkable standards. Here we are talking about promoting funds necessary for venture capital and equity investments in our communities, to make sure there is a difference between the type of activities of mutual fund operators who rely primarily on risk investment and those that are primarily involved in insured deposits. I appreciate the conference committee clarifying that provision in the conference report, which Senator Mikulski and I encouraged them to do.

Another provision I want to talk about very briefly is one I worked on with Senator Grassley dealing with whistleblower protections at nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSROs as they are known. But I think most people in our country know them as credit rating agencies. These are companies such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's. There are about 10 in our country that are supposed to do independent credit ratings for securities.

As I am sure many people are now aware, they played a significant role in the unrealistic confidence in securities during our recent economic downturn.

We want to make sure our credit rating agencies, in fact, carry out the responsibilities they are supposed to carry out as independent evaluators. But competition, pressure, and inherent conflicts have made that uncertain. The whistleblower protections that are extended in this legislation will allow employees to come forward with information without fear of retribution by their employer. It is a very important provision, and I am glad it was included in the final legislation.

Lastly, let me talk about the extractive industries transparency initiative, an amendment Senator Lugar and I worked very hard on, that is included in the final conference report. I have spoken on the Senate floor previously about this provision, and I particularly thank Senator Leahy for his leadership in the conference on this issue and Senator Dodd for his help in getting it included in the final conference report.

Oil, gas, and mining companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will be required under this legislation to disclose their payments to governments for access to oil, gas, or minerals. Many of these oil companies or gas companies or mineral companies operate in countries that are autocratic, unstable, or both, and they have to make payments to those countries in order to be able to get access to those mineral rights. This legislation--the amendment that is included in this bill--will require public disclosure of those payments.

Why is that so important? And why was it included in the final conference report? First, transparency encourages and provides for more stable governments. We rely on these energy sources or mineral supplies in countries that are of questionable stability.

If this disclosure will help make those countries more stable, it provides security for the United States in their supply source, whether it is an energy or mineral supply source. So this amendment that is included in the conference report will help with U.S. energy security.

Secondly, investors have a right to know. If you are going to invest in an oil company, you have a right to know where they are doing business, where they are making payments. I would think this is information that may affect your decision as to whether you want to take this risk in investing in that company. So this amendment provides greater disclosure for investors to be able to make intelligent decisions as to whether to invest in an oil or gas or mineral company.

Third, as we know, with the lack of transparency, the payments become a source of corruption for government officials in many of these resource-wealthy countries. It is interesting; it is known as the ``resource curse,'' not the ``resource blessing'' in many countries around the world. It is interesting that some of our most wealthy mineral countries are the poorest countries as far as their people in the world. The citizens of these countries are entitled to have their mineral wealth be used to elevate their personal status. By giving the citizens the information about how payments are made to their country, they have a much better chance to hold their government officials accountable.

So we not only are protecting investors and helping in energy security, we are helping to alleviate poverty internationally by allowing the people of the countries that have mineral wealth to hold their officials accountable, to use those payments to help the people of that nation.

This proposal has been endorsed by the G8, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. With the passage of the conference report, the United States will be the leader internationally on extractive industries transparency, and I think that is a proud moment not only for the Senate but for our Nation.

This is a good bill for many reasons. It is a well-organized, commonsense regulatory structure to protect our Nation from another financial crisis, with strong investor and consumer protection, placing limits on institutions deemed too big to fail, protecting not only investors and consumers but also taxpayers.

Over the past 30 years, our regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation. It was particularly impotent with regard to oversight of the so-called shadow banking system, which evolved in large part simply to avoid regulation.

Decreased regulation led to irresponsible behavior by financiers, investors, lenders, and consumers. Collectively, we failed to mitigate risk and we ignored established principles of finance--prudence, solvency, and accountability. We can shift risk, but we cannot make it magically disappear. Bubbles do burst eventually.

Everyone played a part in the crisis. Together, we suffer the consequences. No man is an island; we are all connected.

Risky mortgage lending--practices including no-doc or stated income loans--no down payments, and subprime lending led to unprecedented foreclosures.

Consumers securing mortgages beyond their means and horrible predatory lending practices permeated our culture.

Even responsible consumers suffered at the hands of aggressive lenders with dubious intentions.

The mortgage lending system was seriously flawed. America got hit by a tidal wave of foreclosures. Declining home values affect everyone in the community.

And problems in mortgage lending became exacerbated when these bad mortgages were packaged into securities and sliced and diced and sold to investors with AAA credit ratings.

Careful underwriting went out the window because the loan originators sold the notes as fast as they could write them.

The bill the Senate is considering goes a long way to restore the order we need in the financial markets, improve oversight of the mortgage industry, and address the numerous other issues that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. This bill holds Wall Street more accountable and provides the strongest consumer protections ever for American families and small businesses.

I know there are partisan disagreements on some parts of this legislation and it was a challenge to get to this point, but the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee did an outstanding job on this bill and are to be commended for their effort. This is a landmark bill, like Sarbanes-Oxley and the original Securities and Exchange Commission Act. The lesson we had to learn, again, is that business--especially big business--cannot regulate itself adequately. I think H.R. 4173 strikes the right balance in reining in the financial services industry without being unduly burdensome.

I would like to review some of the provisions I worked on that have been included in the bill.

As I have said, Senators Enzi and Brownback joined me in proposing changes to the deposit insurance program. The Independent Community Bankers of America, ICBA, the American Bankers Association, ABA, and

the National Credit Union Association, NCUA, all supported our amendment--now found in section 335 of the bill--to make the temporary increase in the federally insured deposit limit from $100,000 to $250,000--a permanent increase. An increase in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, and National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, NCUSIF, limit is significant because deposit insurance has been the stabilizing force of our Nation's banking system for 75 years.

By raising the limit permanently, we provide safe and secure depositories for small businesses and individuals alike. FDIC insurance prevents bank runs and has been proven to increase public confidence in the system. FDIC insurance limits are especially significant to community banks, which rely on deposits much more heavily than larger banks. On average, smaller banks derive 85 percent to 90 percent of their funding from deposits. Ensuring a stable funding source for community banks helps these institutions to continue providing crucially important capital to the small businesses whose growth is at the heart of our economic recovery.

And as I mentioned earlier, during Senate consideration of the bill, I offered an amendment with Senator Mikulski to ensure that mutual funds and their advisers are not inadvertently subjected to unworkable standards in the unlikely event the Financial Stability Oversight Council designates them as systemically risky. In section 115 of the bill, the new council is given the flexibility to consider capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and other factors when determining heightened regulatory standards. This is important for addressing the unique characteristics of companies that are structured differently from banks and bank holding companies.

Further, I am gratified the House and Senate conferees saw fit to retain an amendment, amendment No. 3840, Senator Grassley and I offered to the bill to extend whistleblower protections to employees of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSROs. The provision is section 922(b) of the bill.

NRSROs are the companies, such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's, which issue credit ratings that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, permits other financial firms to use for certain regulatory purposes. There are 10 NRSROs at present, including some privately held firms.

The NRSROs played a large role--by overestimating the safety of residential mortgage-backed securities, RMBS, and collateralized debt obligations, CDOs--in creating the housing bubble and making it bigger. Then, by making tardy but massive simultaneous downgrades of these securities, they contributed to the collapse of the subprime secondary market and the ``fire sale'' of assets, exacerbating the financial crisis.

A Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, PSI, hearing made it quite clear that competitive pressures and inherent conflicts of interest affected the objectivity of the ratings issued by the NRSROs.

Since NRSRO ratings are used for various regulatory purposes, such as determining net capital requirements and the soundness of insurance company reserves, it makes sense to extend whistleblower protections to employees who might come across malfeasance at a credit rating agency.

There are many reasons for the massive failure of the NRSROs. The Wall Street reform bill contains several provisions to improve SEC and congressional oversight of the NRSROs and how they function. Extending whistleblower status to the employees of these firms enhances the provisions already in the underlying bill.

As I have also said, my distinguished colleague, Senator Lugar, and I worked particularly hard on the energy security through transparency provision in this bill, which is section 1504--Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers. I am especially grateful to Senator Leahy, who championed this provision in the conference committee.

The geography and nature of the oil, gas, and mining industry is such that companies often have to operate in countries that are autocratic, unstable, or both. Investors need to know the full extent of a company's exposure when it operates in countries where it is subject to expropriation, political and social turmoil, and reputational risks.

In Nigeria, for example, American companies have had to take oil fields offline because of rebel activity and instability in the Niger Delta. Last year, Nigeria was producing almost a million barrels of oil less than it was able to produce because of conflict and instability. With so much production offline, American oil companies such as Chevron and Exxon have laid off workers and paid higher production costs because of added security.

This bipartisan amendment goes a long way to achieving transparency in this critical sector by requiring all foreign and domestic companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to include in their annual report to the SEC how much they pay each government for access to its oil, gas, and minerals. This amendment is a critical part of the increased transparency and good governance that we are striving to achieve in the financial industry.

Our amendment is vitally important. Transparency helps create more stable governments, which in turn allows U.S. companies to operate more freely--and on a level playing field--in markets that are otherwise too risky or unstable.

Let me point out three key results we expect from this provision:

No. 1, enhancing U.S. energy security. The reliability of oil and gas supplies is undermined by the instability caused when local populations do not receive the benefit of their resource exports. Enhancing openness in revenue flows allows for greater public scrutiny of how revenues are used. Increased transparency can help create more stable, democratic governments, as well as more reliable energy suppliers.

No. 2, strengthening energy markets. The extractive industries are capital-intensive and dependent on long-term stability to generate favorable returns. Leading energy companies recognize that more transparent investment climates are better for their bottom lines.

No. 3, helping to alleviate poverty. Too many resource-rich countries that should be well off are home to many of the world's poor instead. This is a phenomenon known as the ``resource curse.'' Oil, gas reserves, and minerals don't automatically confer wealth on the people who live in countries where those resources are located. Many resource- rich countries rank at the bottom of most measures of human development, making them a breeding ground for poverty and instability. Revenue transparency will help the citizens of resource-rich countries hold their governments more accountable and ensure that their country's natural resource wealth is used wisely for the benefit of the entire nation and for future generations.

The wave of the future is transparency, and these principles of transparency have been endorsed by the G8, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a number of regional development banks. It is clear to the financial leaders of the world that transparency in natural resource development is vital to holding the rulers in these countries accountable for the needs of their citizens and preventing them from simply building up their personal offshore bank accounts. I am proud to stand here today and say that the United States is now the leader in creating a new standard for revenue transparency in the extractive industries.

These are some of the provisions I worked on, but they are a small part of the overall bill, which is very strong.

Forty years ago, conservative economist Milton Friedman wrote a New York Times Magazine article entitled ``The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.'' In this article, quoting from his earlier book ``Capitalism and Freedom,'' from 1962, he concluded:

There is one and only one social responsibility of

business--to use its resources and engage in activities

designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within

the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and

free competition without deception or fraud.

Even this minimalist position suggests that markets need rules. And yet we embarked on a 30-year path to deregulate financial services, to ease the rules, and remove the watchdogs. We have learned a bitter lesson that markets are not self-correcting--at least

not without catastrophic consequences. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their savings, their homes, and their retirement security. Businesses have been wiped out. We have gone from easy credit to no credit.

Now that the financial hurricane has wreaked its devastation, it is time to rebuild.

H.R. 4173 is part of that process. The bill creates well-organized, commonsense regulatory structures to protect our Nation from another financial crisis. Chairman Dodd and Chairman Frank have produced a bill that addresses the feasibility of our reliance on credit rating agencies, our appetite for systemic risk, and the need to limit the regulatory burden on our small institutions. They have produced a bill that provides strong investor and consumer protections, encourages whistleblowers, reduces interchange fees for small businesses, and places limits on institutions deemed too big to fail. I know that Maryland banks and investment companies appreciate the attention paid in this bill to their concerns regarding bank and thrift oversight, systemic risk regulation, and the effects of the mortgage crisis.

While Members of Congress may not agree on every aspect of this bill, it is worthy of our support. Indeed, given the stakes, it is imperative that we pass H.R. 4173.

I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and support passage.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to report on the activities of a bicameral, bipartisan congressional delegation I had the privilege to lead last week as chairman of the Helsinki Commission. The purpose of the trip was to represent the United States at the 19th Annual Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, otherwise known as the OSCE PA. The annual session this year was held in Oslo, Norway, and the U.S. delegation participated fully in the assembly's standing committee, the plenary sessions, the three general committees and numerous side events that included discussion of integration in multiethnic societies and addressing gender imbalances in society.

Although some last-minute developments at home compelled him to remain behind, our colleague from the other Chamber, Mr. Alcee Hastings of Florida, was present in spirit as the deputy head of the delegation. Mr. Hastings, who cochairs the Helsinki Commission, was very active in the preparations for the trip, and his legacy of leadership in the OSCE PA--for over a decade--is tangible in the respect and goodwill afforded the United States during the proceedings.

Our assistant majority leader, Mr. Durbin of Illinois, joined me on the trip, as he did last year. Our colleague from New Mexico who serves as a fellow Helsinki Commissioner, Mr. Udall, also participated. Helsinki Commissioners from the other Chamber who were on the delegation include Mr. Christopher Smith of New Jersey, serving as the ranking member of the delegation, as well as Mrs. Louise McIntosh Slaughter of New York, and Mr. Robert Aderholt of Alabama. Although not a member of the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Lloyd Doggett of Texas has a longstanding interest in OSCE-related issues and also participated on the delegation.

As many of you know, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly was created within the framework of the OSCE as an independent, consultative body consisting of over 300 Parliamentarians from virtually every country in Europe, including the Caucasus, as well as from Central Asia, and the United States, and Canada. The annual sessions are held in late June/ early July as the chief venue for debating issues of the day and issuing a declaration addressing human rights, democratic development and the rule of law; economic cooperation and environmental protection; and confidence building and security among the participating states and globally.

This active congressional participation helps ensure that matters of interest to the United States are raised and discussed. Robust U.S. engagement has been the hallmark of the Parliamentary Assembly since its inception nearly 20 years ago.

The theme for this year's annual session was ``Rule of Law: Combating Transnational Crime and Corruption.'' In addition to resolutions for each of the three general committees, delegations introduced a total of 35 additional resolutions for consideration, a record number, including 4 by the United States dealing with:

Nuclear security, which followed up directly on the Nuclear Summit here in Washington in April;

The protection of investigative journalists, a critical human rights issue as those who seek to expose corruption are targeted for harassment or worse;

Mediterranean cooperation, building on the OSCE partnerships to engage important countries in North Africa and the Middle East; and

Combating the demand for human trafficking and electronic forms of exploitation, a longstanding Helsinki Commission issue requiring persistence and targeted action.

U.S. drafts on these relevant, important topics received widespread support and were adopted with few if any amendments.

Beyond these resolutions, the United States delegation also undertook initiatives in the form of packages of amendments to other resolutions. These initiatives addressed:

the needs of the people of Afghanistan in light of the smuggling and other criminal activity which takes place there;

the struggle for recovery stability and human rights in Kyrgyzstan, which is an OSCE state in the midst of crisis; and

manifestations of racism and xenophobia that have become particularly prevalent in contemporary Europe.

A critical U.S. amendment allowed us generally to support a French resolution that usefully addressed issues relating to the closure of the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. Still other amendments coming from specific members of the U.S. Delegation covered a wide range of political, environmental and social issues relevant to policymakers. My colleagues and I were also active in the successful countering of amendments that would have steered resolutions on the Middle East and on the future of the OSCE multilateral diplomatic process in directions contrary to U.S. policy.

Beyond the consideration of the resolutions which now comprise the Oslo Declaration, the annual session also handled some important affairs for the OSCE PA itself. These, too, had relevance for U.S. policy interests:

the American serving as OSCE PA Secretary General, Spencer Oliver, was reappointed to a new 5-year term;

a modest--and for the third fiscal year in a row--frozen OSCE PA budget of about $3\1/2\ million was approved that requires continued and unparalleled efficiency in organizing additional conferences, election observation missions, and various other activities that keep the Parliamentary Assembly prominently engaged in European and Central Asian affairs;

in addition to my continued tenure as a vice president in the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr. Aderholt of Alabama was reelected as the vice chair of the general committee dealing with democracy, human rights, and humanitarian questions which ensures strong U.S. representation in OSCE PA decisionmaking; and

a Greek parliamentary leader defeated a prominent Canadian senator in the election of a new OSCE PA president, following a vigorous but friendly campaign that encouraged the assembly to take a fresh look at itself and establish a clearer vision for its future.

While the congressional delegation's work focused heavily on representing the United States at the OSCE PA, we tried to use our presence in Europe to advance U.S. interests and express U.S. concerns more broadly. The meeting took place in Norway, a very close friend and strong, long-time ally of the United States of America. In discussions with Norwegian officials, we expressed our sorrow over the recent deaths of Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan. We also shared our concerns about climate change and particularly the impact global warming has on polar regions

Indeed, on our return we made a well received stop on the archipelago of Svalbard, well north of the Arctic Circle, to learn more about the impact firsthand, from changing commercial shipping lanes to relocated fisheries to ecological imbalance that make far northern flora and fauna increasingly vulnerable. The delegation also visited the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a facility that preserves more than 525,000 types of seeds from all over the world as a safeguard for future crop diversity, and took the opportunity to donate additional U.S. seeds to the collection.

Norway is located close to a newer, but also very strong, ally with close ties to the United States, Estonia. Since last year's delegation to the OSCE PA Annual Session went to Lithuania and included Latvia as a side trip, I believed it was important to utilize the opportunity of returning to northern Europe to visit this Baltic state as well.

While some remained in Oslo to represent the United States, others traveled to Tallinn, where we had meetings with the President, Prime Minister, and other senior government officials, visited the NATO Cooperative Cyber-Defense Center of Excellence and were briefed on electronic networking systems that make parliament and government more transparent, efficient and accessible to the citizen. Estonia has come a long way since it reestablished its independence from the Soviet Union almost 20 years ago, making the visit quite rewarding for those of us on the Helsinki Commission who tried to keep a spotlight on the Baltic States during the dark days of the Cold War.

During the course of the meeting, the U.S. delegation also had bilateral

meetings with the delegation of the Russian Federation and a visiting delegation from Kyrgyzstan to discuss issues of mutual concern and interest.

U.S. engagement in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly sends a clear message to those who are our friends and to those who are not that we will defend U.S. interests and advance the causes of peace and prosperity around the world.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation that will help prevent millions of gallons of pollution from entering our Nation's precious water resources. The season we are in makes my legislation particularly timely. Spring is one of the wettest times of year, and with every Spring shower polluted stormwater runoff washes a myriad of chemicals pollutants, sediment, debris, oil and grease, and other contaminates from our Nation's roads and highways into our lakes, rivers, streams, bays, and coastal waters.

Stormwater is the nation's largest source of water pollution. While rain itself contains air pollution particulates that are deposited in every drop, most stormwater pollution is picked up on the surface and carried off as runoff. Stormwater washes contaminants like oil, grease, heavy metals, nutrients, asbestos, sediments, road salts and other de- icing agents, brake dust, and road debris from the millions of miles of America's roads and into storm drains that discharge into nearby waters. Almost all of this polluted stormwater is discharged without any treatment.

When rain falls on these hard, impervious surfaces it often has no where to go but down the channels created by curbs and retaining walls, into storm drains and into the nearest natural water body. According to research compiled by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's, NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, the U.S. is covered by more than 112,600 square kilometers of impervious surfaces. That is a space larger than the State of Ohio. With 985,139 miles of federal aid highways stretching from every corner of the country, polluted highway runoff is no small problem facing our nation's waters.

The effects of polluted stormwater runoff are real. For example, the Anacostia River--Washington's ``other'' and often forgotten river--can be seen from the Capitol Dome as it flows out of Prince George's County, Maryland, and into the District and on to its confluence with the Potomac. Runoff from within the 176 square mile watershed of the Anacostia, most of which is in Maryland, but also includes the east side of DC and the entire Capitol complex, all makes its way into the Anacostia. The stormwater that enters the Anacostia is extremely polluted from the thousands of acres of road surfaces that cover the watershed, which exacerbates the incidence of combined sewer overflows and has impaired the Anacostia for many years. It is no coincidence that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has found the Anacostia's bottom- feeder catfish to have the highest incidence of liver tumors than any other population of catfish in the country. The cause of the tumors are the high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a by-product of fuel combustion, that come from vehicle tailpipe emissions and are deposited on the road and in the air and then washed into the river with every shower or thunderstorm.

This is not a problem unique to Maryland or the Chesapeake Bay region, nor is it a problem unique to urban environments as opposed to rural environments. Polluted runoff is a problem that affects any watershed where impervious paved road and highway surfaces have altered the natural hydrology of a watershed. Over time, Federal highway policy has come to recognize the drastic impacts highways and surface transportation can have on the environment and on water quality. Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of ``context sensitive solutions.'' The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, authorized using transportation enhancement funds for ``environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff.'' It's important to note, however, that this is just one of 12 types of eligible enhancement projects and only 1.1 percent of enhancement project funds have gone toward environmental mitigation projects since 1992.

In 2008, at the request of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, the Government Accountability Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that need to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy and the environment. Taking a policy approach to require that the planning, design, and construction of highways are done in an environmentally responsible manner, with an eye toward mitigating the water quality impacts highways have on our Nation's water resources, will help address this issue and better meet our Nation's transportation goals. This legislation also helps advance the October 5, 2009, Executive Order affirming that Federal policy and Federal agencies shall ``conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and stormwater management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; and leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products and services.''

The approach my legislation takes to mitigate polluted highway runoff is through the implementation of a minimum design standard, developed by the United States Department of Transportation, that requires the maintenance or restoration of the pre-development hydrology of a Federal-aid highway project site. This same approach was made law by the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 for the development of new Federal buildings and facilities.

My bill would require that all significant Federal highway projects must be planned and designed ``to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the project site with regard to the temperature, rate, chemical composition, volume and duration of flow'' of stormwater. This would be achieved by approaches that avoid and minimize alteration of natural features and hydrology and maximize the use of onsite pollution control measures using existing terrain and natural features.

My bill also recognizes that geography and other physical characteristics of the land may not always allow on-site treatment of polluted highway runoff. When conditions are impracticable my legislation would allow for an ``appropriate off-site runoff pollution mitigation program'' within the watershed of a Federal-aid highway project site that can protect against the water quality impacts of the project.

The Clean Water Act requires that we protect the waters of the United States. As with most pollution abatement strategies, preventing stormwater pollution is cheaper, more effective, and easier to implement than trying to clean up and remediate the problem after the contamination has occurred.

Not addressing stormwater pollution at its source just kicks the proverbial

can down the road for someone else's attention. When water resources are contaminated by polluted highway runoff, mitigating the pollution, which is a preventable discharge in the first place, should not be the responsibility of local governments, wastewater treatment facilities, or drinking water utilities.

Water pollution has many sources and our Nation's highways produce a tremendous volume of contaminated stormwater. Time and time again, experience has taught us that addressing pollution at its source is the most effective means of abating pollution. It is time we applied this principle to our Nation's Federal-aid highways. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and help move our country closer to meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act and the goals of our national transportation policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation that will help prevent millions of gallons of pollution from entering our Nation's precious water resources. The season we are in makes my legislation particularly timely. Spring is one of the wettest times of year, and with every Spring shower polluted stormwater runoff washes a myriad of chemicals pollutants, sediment, debris, oil and grease, and other contaminates from our Nation's roads and highways into our lakes, rivers, streams, bays, and coastal waters.

Stormwater is the nation's largest source of water pollution. While rain itself contains air pollution particulates that are deposited in every drop, most stormwater pollution is picked up on the surface and carried off as runoff. Stormwater washes contaminants like oil, grease, heavy metals, nutrients, asbestos, sediments, road salts and other de- icing agents, brake dust, and road debris from the millions of miles of America's roads and into storm drains that discharge into nearby waters. Almost all of this polluted stormwater is discharged without any treatment.

When rain falls on these hard, impervious surfaces it often has no where to go but down the channels created by curbs and retaining walls, into storm drains and into the nearest natural water body. According to research compiled by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's, NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, the U.S. is covered by more than 112,600 square kilometers of impervious surfaces. That is a space larger than the State of Ohio. With 985,139 miles of federal aid highways stretching from every corner of the country, polluted highway runoff is no small problem facing our nation's waters.

The effects of polluted stormwater runoff are real. For example, the Anacostia River--Washington's ``other'' and often forgotten river--can be seen from the Capitol Dome as it flows out of Prince George's County, Maryland, and into the District and on to its confluence with the Potomac. Runoff from within the 176 square mile watershed of the Anacostia, most of which is in Maryland, but also includes the east side of DC and the entire Capitol complex, all makes its way into the Anacostia. The stormwater that enters the Anacostia is extremely polluted from the thousands of acres of road surfaces that cover the watershed, which exacerbates the incidence of combined sewer overflows and has impaired the Anacostia for many years. It is no coincidence that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has found the Anacostia's bottom- feeder catfish to have the highest incidence of liver tumors than any other population of catfish in the country. The cause of the tumors are the high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a by-product of fuel combustion, that come from vehicle tailpipe emissions and are deposited on the road and in the air and then washed into the river with every shower or thunderstorm.

This is not a problem unique to Maryland or the Chesapeake Bay region, nor is it a problem unique to urban environments as opposed to rural environments. Polluted runoff is a problem that affects any watershed where impervious paved road and highway surfaces have altered the natural hydrology of a watershed. Over time, Federal highway policy has come to recognize the drastic impacts highways and surface transportation can have on the environment and on water quality. Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of ``context sensitive solutions.'' The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, authorized using transportation enhancement funds for ``environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff.'' It's important to note, however, that this is just one of 12 types of eligible enhancement projects and only 1.1 percent of enhancement project funds have gone toward environmental mitigation projects since 1992.

In 2008, at the request of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, the Government Accountability Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that need to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy and the environment. Taking a policy approach to require that the planning, design, and construction of highways are done in an environmentally responsible manner, with an eye toward mitigating the water quality impacts highways have on our Nation's water resources, will help address this issue and better meet our Nation's transportation goals. This legislation also helps advance the October 5, 2009, Executive Order affirming that Federal policy and Federal agencies shall ``conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and stormwater management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; and leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products and services.''

The approach my legislation takes to mitigate polluted highway runoff is through the implementation of a minimum design standard, developed by the United States Department of Transportation, that requires the maintenance or restoration of the pre-development hydrology of a Federal-aid highway project site. This same approach was made law by the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 for the development of new Federal buildings and facilities.

My bill would require that all significant Federal highway projects must be planned and designed ``to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the project site with regard to the temperature, rate, chemical composition, volume and duration of flow'' of stormwater. This would be achieved by approaches that avoid and minimize alteration of natural features and hydrology and maximize the use of onsite pollution control measures using existing terrain and natural features.

My bill also recognizes that geography and other physical characteristics of the land may not always allow on-site treatment of polluted highway runoff. When conditions are impracticable my legislation would allow for an ``appropriate off-site runoff pollution mitigation program'' within the watershed of a Federal-aid highway project site that can protect against the water quality impacts of the project.

The Clean Water Act requires that we protect the waters of the United States. As with most pollution abatement strategies, preventing stormwater pollution is cheaper, more effective, and easier to implement than trying to clean up and remediate the problem after the contamination has occurred.

Not addressing stormwater pollution at its source just kicks the proverbial

can down the road for someone else's attention. When water resources are contaminated by polluted highway runoff, mitigating the pollution, which is a preventable discharge in the first place, should not be the responsibility of local governments, wastewater treatment facilities, or drinking water utilities.

Water pollution has many sources and our Nation's highways produce a tremendous volume of contaminated stormwater. Time and time again, experience has taught us that addressing pollution at its source is the most effective means of abating pollution. It is time we applied this principle to our Nation's Federal-aid highways. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and help move our country closer to meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act and the goals of our national transportation policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be voting on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. This vote in the Judiciary Committee follows 4 days of hearings on her nomination. As the Acting President pro tempore knows, she is currently the Solicitor General of the United States. We not only had 4 days of hearings, every member of the Judiciary Committee had ample opportunity to ask questions and get responses from Ms. Kagan. We heard from outside witnesses, some who were directly affected by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. We reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents.

I pointed out during these hearings why Americans should be so concerned about who the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court will be because the decisions of the Supreme Court affect your life. If you work, if you are a woman, if you vote, if you care about the air you breathe or the water you drink, if you are a consumer, you need to be concerned about the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Constitution protects us from the abuses of power, whether those powers are generated by government or powerful special interests. The Supreme Court was designed to be the protector of our constitutional rights.

We the people of the United States--

``We the people''--

in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,

insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,

promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of

Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and

establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The authors of the Constitution understood the timeless idea that justice was paramount. After questioning Solicitor General Kagan and listening to her testimony for a week, I am convinced she has a clear understanding of how profound an impact her future decisions may have on the lives of everyday Americans.

Based on the hearing and the conversations I have had with her, I am confident she will put the interests of the American people and justice for the American people first, above popular opinion or politics.

As Solicitor General Kagan said in her opening statement to the committee, equal justice under law ``means that everyone who comes before the Court--regardless of wealth or power or station--receives the same process and protections. . . . What it promises is nothing less than a fair shake for every American.''

During the confirmation hearings, I asked Solicitor General Kagan about civil rights, campaign financing, and our environment. I used those three areas to demonstrate how important the decisions of the Supreme Court can be in the lives of everyday Americans. My concerns about recent Supreme Court decisions were an activist court that, by the narrowest margins--usually 5-to-4 decisions--reversed precedent, legislated from the bench, and ruled on the side of businesses over individual rights.

In civil rights, I think the importance of the Supreme Court was underscored by the decision of Brown v. Board of Education which opened educational opportunity for the people of this Nation. I pointed out during the hearings before the Judiciary Committee that it was Thurgood Marshall, a young attorney from Baltimore, who argued that case before the Supreme Court and then became, as the Presiding Officer knows, the first African-American Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, and one of his law clerks was Elena Kagan.

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court underscore my concern as to

whether the Supreme Court is following legal precedent to protect the civil rights of the people of our Nation. The Ledbetter decision dealt with gender equity. Here the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 decision, reversed precedent and the clear intent of Congress to deny women the opportunity to effectively enforce their rights for equal pay by saying to Ms. Ledbetter that she had to bring her case on pay discrimination within 180 days of the discrimination, although it was impossible for her to discover she was being discriminated against during that period of time. Now we have taken action in the Senate to reverse that, and President Obama signed legislation to reverse it, but the Supreme Court never should have ruled against American workers and women in the Ledbetter decision.

I also mentioned the Gross decision which deals with age discrimination where the Supreme Court reversed its own precedent and clear congressional intent to deny an effective remedy on age discrimination, changing the standards in order for a person to be able to bring a case.

I talked about campaign finance and the Citizens United case where the Supreme Court, again by a 5-to-4 decision, reversed precedent, reversed congressional action, and allowed more corporate money into our election system. Corporations don't have enough power already? The Supreme Court gave corporations even more influence in our Federal election process.

I was impressed, and I think the members of the Judiciary Committee were impressed, that the first case Solicitor General Kagan decided to argue before the Supreme Court was to try to uphold our action in Congress regarding campaign finance reform. I think Justice Stevens got it right when he said:

Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited

nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to

give themselves an opportunity to change the law . . . there

were principled, narrower paths that a Court that was serious

about judicial restraint could have taken.

Then, in the environmental arena, I mentioned the Rapanos case where the Supreme Court, once again by a 5-to-4 decision, reversed the clear intent of Congress and legal precedent to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect the clean waters of our Nation under the Clean Water Act. Then, once again, in Exxon v. Baker, the Supreme Court just very recently restricted the amount of claims that can be brought in regards to polluters in the Exxon Valdez issue. That is of particular concern to all of us who are trying to make sure those who have been victimized by the BP oilspill have an effective remedy and that taxpayers don't have to provide bailout for the damages caused by BP Oil.

Solicitor General Kagan stated, in answer to questions before us:

Congress certainly has broad authority under the

Constitution to enact legislation involving the protection of

our environment. When Congress enacts such legislation, the

job of the courts is to construe it consistent with

Congressional intent.

Well, that is the type of person I would like to see, and I hope all of us would like to see, on the Supreme Court of the United States, giving due deference to Congress as the legislative body under the Constitution. She said: The job of the courts is to construe the laws consistent with congressional intent.

I am puzzled by those who have defended these Supreme Court decisions that have taken away our citizens' rights for civil liberties and civil rights and who say that corporations don't have enough power in this country so they need more power; who have jeopardized our environment and have supported those decisions, even though it reverses previous precedent and even though it is legislating from the courts, reversing congressional action. Those who profess to be against judicial activism have supported those decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States.

I am confident Elena Kagan will follow legal precedent. She will respect the rights of the Congress of the United States to legislate. She will protect our rights against the abuses of power, whether it is from the government or from powerful corporate special interests. She will respect the rights of the people of this Nation that the Constitution was so well designed to deal with.

Lastly, let me say she is well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. She was the dean at Harvard Law School, Solicitor General of the United States, commonly referred to as the 10th justice because of how closely she has worked with the Supreme Court. She has received bipartisan support from those who know her best. Former Solicitors General of the United States, appointed by both Democrats and Republicans, support her nomination to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. When we confirm her appointment, she will be one of three women to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, the first time in the history of America and a proud moment for this body to confirm her nomination.

Next Tuesday, I will vote to confirm Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I look forward to when each Member of the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on her confirmation, and I hope it will be an overwhelming confirmation for her to serve the American people on the Supreme Court of the United States.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss my support for the Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010 and how I plan to continue to work with the sponsors to improve the bill to meet health standards for Maryland and the States of the Northeast.

First, I want to commend Senator Carper for his years of hard work and dedication to clean air policy issues. I know these issues are very near and dear to Senator Carper and his perseverance is admirable. I feel the same way about water quality protection in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. When this bill received a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee in March I expressed my support for the goals of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010 and what the bill aims to achieve. Because I believe this legislation is the right framework to protect public health, I have added my name as a cosponsor of this bill.

The strong limits the legislation sets on mercury emissions is important. Air pollution, primarily from powerplants, is the main source of the mercury that contaminates the fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay Mid-Atlantic. We have fish consumption advisories throughout Maryland because of the high levels of mercury found in fish tissue.

A large part of my motivation for restoring the Chesapeake Bay is to restore a healthy fishery for Maryland watermen to make a sound living on and for recreational anglers to enjoy. I am pleased with the effects this bill would have on the health of our fishery and the people who rely on healthy fish from a healthy bay.

The cap on sulfur dioxide, SO2, levels in the Clean Air Act Amendments of

2010 is strong as well. SO2 is a harmful particulate that is a major component of acid rain which does serious damage to plants and trees. States in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast see the worst of acid rain's effects on our forests and croplands. EPA's acid rain program has yielded tremendous success and the SO2 reductions that the bill calls for would help us achieve greater SO2 reductions.

These important limits on two harmful air pollutants are very important measures to protect the public health and the environment.

Nitrogen Oxide, NOX, is a dangerous air pollutant that contributes to haze, water nitrification, and ground level ozone during the summer months which is extremely dangerous to breathe particularly for people who suffer from respiratory diseases like asthma and emphysema. Maryland, and Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States struggle to achieve attainment of healthy air standards because of NOX emissions. The Federal Government must do what it can to help these States achieve healthy air through reductions in NOX.

I am committed to working with Senators Carper and Alexander to make the bill achieve the goal of NOX reductions to protect the public health of citizens of all States including Maryland.

Maryland's experience as a downwind State motivated the Maryland legislature and our Governor to take firm and decisive action to reduce mercury, SO2 and NOX emissions in the State by implementing the toughest powerplant emissions law on the east coast. The Healthy Air Act, enacted in July 2007, established an ambitious timetable of 3 years for Maryland's powerplants to meet a new set of robust clean air standards.

Using 2002 as its emissions baseline, Maryland's Healthy Air Act has the State well on its way to reducing NOX emissions in Maryland by 75 percent by 2012, after already achieving an interim goal of 70 percent reduction target for NOX in 2009. SO2 emissions will be reduced by 80 percent this year with a second phase of controls in 2013 to achieve 85 percent SO2 emission reductions. The Healthy Air Act also sets a 90 percent reduction in mercury by 2013.

Maryland's powerplants quickly met this challenge by immediately installing and operating pollution emission reductions technologies. In less than 3 years Maryland's State electricity generators began achieving significant mercury, SO2 and NOX emissions reductions. The Maryland Department of Environment tells me that all of our power generators are either meeting or are on schedule to meet the near term targets of Maryland's Healthy Air Act.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010 supports Maryland's mercury and SO2 reductions goals. Because Maryland has taken positive steps to also reduce NOX emissions I must work to ensure that any national standard supports Maryland's healthy air attainment limits for NOX as well.

Being a downwind State that must mitigate or offset pollution that travels in from other States has made it especially challenging for Maryland to be in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, NAAQS, for ozone and fine particulate matter by the Federal deadline of 2010. Maryland is doing its part.

I mention all of this so that my colleagues understand how important strong clean air requirements are to me and to Maryland. I support the goal of cleaner air and I think the approach the Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010 takes is correct. I very much want to save lives by cleaning up our air and I want to work with Senator Carper, Senator Alexander and the other sponsors of this bill to make it stronger. Specifically, I want to ensure that EPA will review its air quality standards. Should the agency's analysis of the ozone standard indicate that additional NOX emissions reductions are necessary to protect public health it is important that the EPA has a congressional mandate to act to strengthen the emission reduction requirement on NOX to address this public health threat.

In a matter of days, EPA will issue its revised Clean Air Interstate Rule, CAIR, following the DC Circuit's determination that CAIR did not adequately address transport. Later this summer EPA will also propose new National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These landmark policies ought to guide what steps need to be taken to better protect public health and inform us about the congressional authority needed.

Mr. President, I rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to our friend and colleague who died early this morning, Senator Robert C. Byrd, the longest serving Member in the illustrious history of the U.S. Congress, the longest serving Senator, and the only Senator in U.S. history elected to nine full terms. Considering that Senator Byrd won his first election, to the West Virginia House of Delegates, in 1946, it may be that he was the longest serving elected official in history. His passing is a profound loss to all Americans, to his beloved constituents in West Virginia, and particularly to the institution of the U.S. Senate and those of us who serve here. The Senate had no greater champion than Robert Byrd, no one with his understanding of the Senate's unique character, role, promise, history, and parliamentary procedures.

When Robert Byrd was elected to the Senate in 1958, after serving in the House for 6 years, he was part of a large, distinguished class that included such future giants as Hugh Scott, Gene McCarthy, Edmund Muskie, and Philip Hart. He surpassed them all.

According to the Senate Historical Office, Robert Byrd was the 1,579th person to become a U.S. Senator. Since he was elected to the Senate, another 335 individuals have become U.S. Senators. All in all, Robert Byrd served with over 400 other Senators. And I am certain that each one of them held their colleague, as I do, in the highest esteem.

Senator Byrd's modest beginnings in the hard-scrabble coal fields of Appalachia are well known. After his mother died during the 1918 flu pandemic, Senator Byrd went to live with an aunt and uncle who adopted him and raised him in a house without running water or electricity. He pumped gas and butchered hogs. During World War II, he was a welder and built cargo ships in Baltimore and Tampa Bay. After the war, he successfully ran for the West Virginia House of Delegates and, 4 years later, the State's senate, before entering Congress in 1953. All in all, he ran for and was elected to office 15 times--not counting primaries--without suffering a single defeat. Suffice it to say that his life is the quintessential American success story. I think every young American should learn about Senator Byrd's life as an example of what hard work and persistence and devotion can accomplish in this country. He understood better than most people the importance of being educated, not just for embarking on a successful career, but as an end to itself. He was well-read and could recite from memory long passages from the Bible, and from great poets and authors. He was a fine historian, not just of the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Senate, but of ancient Greece and Rome and England.

Senator Byrd married his high school sweetheart, Erma Ora James, shortly after they both graduated from Mark Twain High School--where he was valedictorian--in 1937. He was too poor to afford college right away and wouldn't receive his degree from Marshall University until 60 years later--when he was 77. In between, he did something no other Member of Congress has ever done: he enrolled in law school--at American University--and in 10 years of part-time study while serving as a Member of Congress, he completed his law degree, which President John Kennedy presented to him. Senator Byrd was married to his beloved Erma for nearly 69 years, and was blessed with two daughters, six grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren.

During his Senate tenure, Robert Byrd was elected to more leadership positions than any other Senator in history, including majority and minority leader, whip, and President pro tempore. He cast 18,689 rollcall votes. Only 29 other Senators in the history of the Republic have cast more than 10,000 votes; Strom Thurmond is the only other Senator to cast more than 16,000 votes. Senator Byrd's attendance record over five decades--97 percent--is as impressive as the sheer number of votes he cast.

Senator Byrd's legislative accomplishments, from economic development and transportation to education and health care, are legendary. He steered the Panama Canal Treaty through the Senate and waged a lonely battle against the war in Iraq, leading an unsuccessful filibuster against the resolution granting President George W. Bush broad power to wage a preemptive war against Iraq. He claimed that his vote against the Iraq war resolution was the vote of which he was most proud for having cast over the course of his career. When U.S. military strikes on Iraq commenced on March 19, 2003, he stated:

Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of

recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image

of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The

image of America has changed. Around the globe, our

friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions

are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom

we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten

recrimination.

Senator Byrd was unabashedly determined to use his power as a Senator and as the chairman or ranking member of the Appropriations Committee to help lift his State out of grinding poverty. And he delivered for his constituents. It is no surprise, then, that he won 100 percent of the vote of West Virginians in one election--1976--or frequently carried all 55 of West Virginia's counties. And while he fervently supported the coal industry, he recognized the devastating environmental and social impact of mountaintop removal mining techniques and he called for an end to that practice.

In the meantime, he wrote five books, including the definitive history of the U.S. Senate.

Perhaps the highest tribute to Senator Byrd can be found in his biographical section of the Almanac of American Politics, which states: ``Robert Byrd . . . may come closest to the kind of senator the Founding Fathers had in mind than any other.'' His fealty to the U.S. Senate and to the Constitution has served as an inspiration, a lesson, and a guiding light to all of us who have been privileged to follow him in this Chamber.

In the last 10 months, we have lost two towering figures here in the Senate: Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd--one of the Senate's greatest legislators and without doubt its greatest defender. Former Senator Paul Sarbanes, whose seat I am privileged to hold, remarked that Senator Byrd liked to say that he never served under any President, but was honored to serve with many Presidents. We can honor these twin giants by carrying on their legacies, by fighting to make America a better place for all Americans, and by defending the Senate's role as a co-equal, not subservient, branch of government.

When Senator Byrd became the longest serving Member of Congress last November, I quoted Robert E. Lee in my floor statement. Lee said:

Duty is the most sublime word in our language. Do your duty

in all things.

You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.

Senator Robert C. Byrd has done his duty in all things--to the Senate, to himself, to his family, to his State, to his Nation, and to God.

I am honored to join his and my colleagues here in the Senate, West Virginians, and all Americans in mourning the death, celebrating the life, and paying tribute to this great Senator and this great man.