Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of John S. Pistole to be Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration and talk about collective bargaining for TSA employees.

The TSA has been without a Senate-confirmed leader for a year and a half. During the last 5 months, we have experienced two major transportation security incidents: the unsuccessful December 25 bombing of Northwest flight 253 and the near escape of the failed Times Square bomber. I welcome the President's nomination of a career FBI official with extensive counterterrorism experience, FBI Deputy Director John S. Pistole, to head the TSA. I look forward to the Senate's swift confirmation of Mr. Pistole for this critical position.

During the confirmation hearings for Mr. Pistole, the issue of collective bargaining for TSA employees was raised. Mr. Pistole stated that he is going to study the issue, gather all the information he can from stakeholders, and make a recommendation to Secretary Napolitano.

Some Members of Congress, however, are strongly opposed to collective bargaining for TSA employees. Their opposition is grounded in the concern that we need to adapt quickly and effectively to specific aviation threats. The underlying premise of this argument is that we must choose between protecting the Nation from threats to aviation and collective bargaining. This choice, however, is a false choice because national security and what I call smart collective bargaining are not mutually exclusive. Under smart collective bargaining agreements, if circumstances and true emergencies were to exist, TSA would be fully capable to deploy assets without there being any negative impact from the collective bargaining agreement.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pistole stated that ``we have to be able to surge resources at any time . . . not only nationwide but worldwide.'' I certainly agree. A smart collective bargaining agreement would enable us to do exactly that.

Moreover, a smart collective bargaining agreement would enhance national security because it would enable TSA to recruit and retain veteran employees. Our Nation's history with labor unions teaches us that collective bargaining boosts morale and allows employees to have a voice in their workplace and increases stability and professionalism. On the other hand, poor workforce management can lead directly to high attrition, job dissatisfaction, and increased costs, which lead to gaps in aviation security. There have been reports that TSA has low worker morale, which can undermine the Agency's mission and our national security.

The fact is, DHS, Customs and Border Patrol officers, some of whom work at the same airports as TSA employees, as well as employees of DHS's Federal Protection Services, and the Capitol Police all operate under collective bargaining agreements. Are members of the flying public less safe because the CPB officers, who work side-by-side with TSA employees, work under a collective bargaining agreement? I don't believe so, nor do I think my colleagues believe that. Are Members of Congress less safe because the Capitol Police work under a collective bargaining agreement? I have heard all my colleagues compliment the efficiency of our Capitol Police.

As the late Senator Kennedy noted in August 2009 when he cosponsored a collective bargaining rights bill for public safety officers, tomorrow morning, thousands of State and local public safety officers, police officers, and firefighters will wake up and go to work to protect us. We should be there to help them. They will put their lives on the line responding to emergencies, policing neighborhoods, and protecting us in Maryland and communities all across the Nation. These dedicated public servants will patrol our streets and run into burning buildings to keep us safe. No one believes for a moment that we are less safe because they have secured collective bargaining rights.

If opponents of collective bargaining for TSA employees want to invoke 9/11 to support their views, they will soon discover that the legacy of 9/11 shows clearly that national security will not be compromised by collective bargaining. It shows just the reverse. Those who helped us save lives during 9/11 were covered under collective bargaining rights. Before 9/11, the New York Port Authority police worked 8-hour days, 4 days on and 2 days off. By the end of the day on 9/11, however, vacations and personal time were canceled and workers were switched to 12-hour tours, 7 days a week. Indeed, schedules did not return to normal for 3 years. The union did not file a grievance, and everyone recognized it was a real crisis.

If there is any doubt about whether collective bargaining will enhance our ability to recruit and retain the best TSA employees to protect us, all we need to do is think about Donnie McIntyre, a Port Authority police officer, one of the many selfless heroes killed on 9/ 11, and these memorable words written in the third stanza of ``America the Beautiful'' by Katherine Lee Bates:

O beautiful for heroes proved, in liberating strife. Who

more than self, their country loved, and mercy more than

life.

We learned about the story of Donnie McIntyre from his partner, Paul Nunziato, vice president of the New York Port Authority Police Benevolent Association. He testified before Congress in June of 2007 regarding the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, a bill almost identical to the amendment offered by Senator Reid.

Donnie was one of the 37 port authority police officers who lost their lives on 9/11 at the World Trade Center evacuation effort. He was married with two children, and his wife Jeannie was pregnant with their third child when he died on September 11. While nothing will make up for the loss of Donnie to his family, Jeannie does not have to

worry about paying bills or providing health care for her children, largely because of the benefits the union negotiated for its members.

Collective bargaining for TSA employees will not endanger national security. It will make us more safe. I urge colleagues to support collective bargaining for TSA employees. It will improve our ability to recruit and retain the best employees, like Donnie McIntyre and the countless other American heroes who work every day to protect us and keep us safe under collective bargaining agreements. Moreover, smart collective bargaining for TSA employees will increase stability and professionalism in the workplace and will dramatically reduce attrition rates, job dissatisfaction, and increased costs, which will enhance transportation security.

I urge my colleagues to swiftly confirm John S. Pistole to be the TSA Director and to understand the importance of protecting all of our workers, particularly those who put their lives on the line for us, by giving them basic collective bargaining rights.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Scott Glick, a Department of Justice detailee to the Judiciary Committee assigned to my staff, during today's session.

Madam President, this Monday the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. These confirmation hearings will provide an opportunity to the public to see firsthand how important Supreme Court decisions are in their ordinary lives. There are many examples we could give, from schools to consumer issues to personal lives, privacy, religious protections, helping the environment, the workplace.

In recent years, by a sharply divided Court, they have reversed precedent and congressional intent and ruled on the side of big business over individual rights. This is judicial activism, not judicial restraint. I hope all my colleagues will agree that the next Supreme Court Justice should be on the side of individual Americans, following legal precedent and congressional intent.

I wish to give an example--I know my colleagues will give others-- about workplace fairness in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. Let me provide a little background. Lilly Ledbetter worked for 19 years at Goodyear Tire. During that period, she was paid $15,000 a year less than her male counterparts doing the same work. This type of discrimination is prohibited by congressional statute under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Within that legislation, title VII was specifically enacted to protect American workers from undue discrimination, including gender discrimination. When Mrs. Ledbetter found out she was being discriminated against, she did the right thing: she brought a claim against her employer.

The only reason Mrs. Ledbetter knew she was being paid less than her male counterparts was because a colleague finally told her. This is not unusual. In fact, in most employment discrimination cases, employees are unaware of discrimination until an unexpected event occurs or undisclosed information finally comes to light.

Mrs. Ledbetter went to court, stated her claim, and won. After multiple appeals, the case reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 decision, denied her claim. The Court said Mrs. Ledbetter had to file her case within 180 days after the beginning of the discrimination, and since she did not do that, her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. This defies logic. How can a person bring a claim when they don't know they are being discriminated against? It makes no sense.

This decision appalled me and many of our colleagues. Whose side is the Supreme Court on? What happened to protecting American workers and not big business? What happened to following legal precedent? What happened to following congressional intent? What happened to judicial restraint from a majority of the Court that professes that is what they believe is right? If an employee is being discriminated against, there should be effective remedy. If they don't know they were discriminated against, it doesn't make the error any less wrong when they find out about it. The Court is clearly out of touch with the impact they have on everyday Americans.

This case is a perfect example of hurting female workers. As of 2009, women comprised 46.8 percent of the U.S. labor force. As of 2009, 66 million women were employed in the United States; 74 percent were employed full time; 26 percent, part time. Equal pay has been U.S. law for more than four decades. But on average, women today still make just 78 cents for every dollar made by a man in an equivalent position. Women of color are in an even worse position. The average earnings for African-American women were 68 percent of a male's earnings, while Latinos earn just 58 percent of a male's earnings. The Supreme Court ruled against precedent and actually made it more difficult for women to bridge this gap. That is not what we want from the Supreme Court of the United States. That is not what we want as far as the activism of the Supreme Court is concerned.

When the Court turned the law completely on its head and circumvented congressional intent, Congress stepped in. I am proud to say that my senior Senator, Ms. Mikulski, introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, which I cosponsored. This legislation had 54 Senate cosponsors and passed the Senate by a vote of 61 to 36. The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 255 to 177. On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed his first bill into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act.

Under our system of checks and balances, each branch of government has a responsibility to keep the other in check. But we all should be on the side of the American people and workers. As the Judiciary Committee and the Senate convene next week to consider the nomination of Elena Kagan, we need to remember whose side we are on. We need to remember that big business can and will fend for itself, but it is individuals who look to the Court and to Congress to uphold the law and the protections it delivers.

Elena Kagan will be the fourth woman to serve on the Nation's highest Court, and this will be the first time in history we will have three women serving on the Court at the same time. Elena Kagan's record as Solicitor General and her broad legal background give me confidence that she understands the appropriate role of the Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the current situation in the Gaza Strip.

In 2007, Hamas, a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization, forcibly seized control of Gaza. Hamas continues to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and, in fact, has perpetrated terrorist attacks against Israel, launching countless rockets from Gaza into Israel.

Hamas calls for the elimination of Israel and Jews from Islamic holy lands. No Hamas leader has publicly expressed a willingness to disarm or to stop attacks on Israel and Israelis.

Israel, like every other country in the world, has a right to defend itself. With a sworn enemy on its border, Israel must protect her citizens against potential attacks every single day. Under the blockade, Israel directs ships to the port of Ashdod, where they are inspected for arms and other dangerous items before Israel allows off- loading and assists in the delivery of legitimate goods to Gaza.

We know that Israel's concerns about arms transfers to Gaza are legitimate because both weapons and raw materials are smuggled into Gaza through tunnels from the Sinai in Egypt. Thousands of rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza into Israel over the last decade.

Just last week, Israel has shown signs of compromise, announcing its intention to ease the blockade and allow more civilian goods and humanitarian aid to enter the Palestinian territory by land, including construction materials for civilian projects.

It is important to note that Hamas has made no such compromises and continues to maintain its vehement and violent stance against Israel's existence. Hamas also continues to endanger Gaza's civilian population by using hospitals, schools, mosques, and residential neighborhoods as command and operations centers or as weapons storage facilities.

While Hamas claims to be the popular representatives of the Palestinians in Gaza, their actions show that they hardly care for the plight of the average Gazan, as their rule deprives their own people of a transparent democracy, civil rights and freedom.

The best way to ameliorate that and to fix the broader current crisis and prevent future ones, of course, is Israeli-Palestinian peace and the creation of an independent Palestinian state that lives side-by- side with Israel, providing security and economic stability for the Palestinian and the Israeli people.

Today, it is Israel that continues to acknowledge the necessary framework for any peace agreement.

Israel has shown willingness for direct negotiations, but the Palestinians continue to insist on proximity talks. Israel is seeking to make peace with a partner whose parliament is controlled by Hamas, an organization still sworn to the destruction of Israel.

The only way to achieve peace is for Hamas to give up its militancy, forego terrorism and violence against innocent civilians, recognize Israel's right to exist and become a legitimate partner in Palestinian institutions. The more than 1 million Palestinians living in Gaza deserve that, the millions of Israelis who are subject to Hamas rockets and terror deserve that and frankly, the world deserves a stable, secure Middle East.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Wicker for taking this time for this colloquy. He has been a real champion on human rights issues and on bringing out the importance for Russia to move forward on a path of democracy and respect for human rights. He has done that as a Senator from Mississippi. He has done that as a very active member of the Helsinki Commission. I have the honor of chairing the Helsinki Commission, which I think is best known because of its fight on behalf of human rights for the people, particularly in those countries that were behind the Iron Curtain--particularly before the fall of the Soviet Union, where we were regularly being the voices for those who could not have their voices heard otherwise because of the oppressive policies of the former Soviet Union.

So in the 1990s, there was great euphoria that at the end of the Cold War, the reforms that were talked about in Russia--indeed, the privatization of many of its industries--would at last bring the types of rights to the people of Russia that they so needed. But, unfortunately, there was a mixed message, and in the 1990s, I think contrary to Western popular opinion at the time, Russia did not move forward as aggressively as we wanted with freedom and democracy.

It is interesting that Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was part of the Communist elite, led the country into privatization in the right way. He took a company, Yukos Oil Company, and truly made it transparent and truly developed a model of corporate governance that was unheard of at the time in the former Soviet Union and unheard of in the Russian Federation, and he used that as a poster child to try to help the people of Russia. He started making contributions to the general welfare of the country, which is what we would like to see from the business and corporate community. He did that to help his own people. But he ran into trouble in the midst of the shadowy and violent Russian market, and his problems were encouraged many times by the same people who we thought were leading the reform within the Russian Federation.

By 1998, with the collapse of the ruble, the people of Russia were disillusioned; they found their prosperity was only temporary. The cost of imports was going up. The spirit of nationalism, this nationalistic obsession, became much more prominent within the Russian Federation, and the move toward privatization lost a lot of its luster.

The rise of Mr. Putin to power also established what was known as vertical power, and independent companies were inconsistent with that model he was developing to try to keep control of his own country. Therefore, what he did under this new rubric was to encourage nationalization spirit, to the detriment of independent companies and to the detriment of the development of opposition opportunity, democracy, and personal freedom. We started to see the decline of the open and free and independent media.

All of this came about, and a highly successful and independent company such as Yukos under the leadership of Mikhail Khodorkovsky was inconsistent with what Mr. Putin was trying to do in Russia. As a result, there was a demise of the company, and the trials ensued. My friend Senator Wicker talked about what happened in the trial. It was a miscarriage of justice. It was wrong. We have expressed our views on it. And it is still continuing to this day. I thank Senator Wicker for continuing to bring this to the Members' attention and I hope to the people of Russia so they will understand there is still time to correct this miscarriage of justice.

Senator Wicker has pointed out in I think real detail how the dismantling of the Yukos Oil Company was done illegally under any international law; it was returning to the Soviet days rather than moving forward with democratic reform. As Senator Wicker has pointed out, the personal attack on its founders--imprisoning them on charges that were inconsistent with the direction of the country after the fall of the Soviet Union--was another miscarriage of justice, and it is certainly totally inconsistent with the statements made after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The early Putin years were clearly a return to nationalism in Russia and against what was perceived at that time by the popular Western view that Russia was on a path toward democracy. It just did not happen. And it is clearly a theft of a company's assets by the government and persecution, not prosecution, of the individuals who led the company toward privatization, which was a clear message given by the

leaders after the fall of the Soviet Union.

This cannot be just left alone. I understand the individuals involved may have been part of the elite at one time within the former Soviet Union. I understand, in fact, there may have been mixed messages when you have a country that is going through a transition. But clearly what was done here was a violation of their commitments under the Helsinki Commission, under the Helsinki Final Act. It was a violation of Russia's statements about allowing democracy and democratic institutions. It was a violation of Russia's commitments to allow a free market to develop within their own country. All of that was violated by the manner in which they handled Mr. Khodorkovsky as well as his codefendant and the company itself. And it is something we need to continue to point out should never have happened.

The real tragedy here is that this is an ongoing matter. As Senator Wicker pointed out, there is now, we believe, an effort to try him on additional charges even though he has suffered so much. And it is a matter that--particularly with the Russian leadership visiting the United States, with direct meetings between our leaders, between Russia and the United States--I hope can get some attention and a chance for the Russian Federation to correct a miscarriage of justice.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Wicker for bringing out the details of this matter. It has clearly been recognized and condemned by the international community as against international law. It is clearly against the commitments Russia had made when the Soviet Union fell. It is clearly of interest to all of the countries of the world. Originally, when Yukos oil was taken over, investors outside of Russia also lost money. So there has been an illegal taking of assets of a private company which have affected investors throughout the world, including in the United States. It has been offensive to all of us to see imprisoned two individuals who never should have been tried and certainly should not be in prison today. All that is offensive to all of us. But I would think it is most offensive to the Russian people.

The Russian people believed their leaders, when the Soviet Union collapsed, that there would be respect for the rule of law; that there would be an independent judiciary, and their citizens could get a fair trial.

We all know--and the international community has already spoken about this--that Mikhail Khodorkovsky did not get a fair trial. So the commitment the Russian leaders made to its own people of an independent and fair judiciary has not been adhered to. This is not an isolated example within Russia. We know investigative reporters routinely are arrested, sometimes arrested with violence against them. We know

opposition parties have virtually no chance to participate in an open system, denying the people a real democracy. But here with justice, Russia has a chance to do so.

I find it remarkable that Mr. Khodorkovsky's spirits are still strong, as Senator Wicker pointed out. Let me read a recent quote from Mr. Khodorkovsky himself, who is in prison:

You know, I really do love my country, my Moscow. It seems

like one huge apathetic and indifferent anthill, but it's got

so much soul. . . . You know, inside I was sure about the

people, and they turned out to be even better than I'd

thought.

I think Senator Wicker and I both believe in the Russian people. We believe in the future of Russia. But the future of Russia must be a nation that embraces its commitments under the Helsinki Final Act. It has to be a country that shows compassion for its citizens and shows justice. Russia can do that today by doing what is right for Mr. Khodorkovsky and his codefendant: release them from prison, respect the private rights and human rights of its citizens, and Russia then will be a nation that will truly live up to its commitment to its people to respect human rights and democratic principles.

Again, I thank Senator Wicker for bringing this matter to the attention of our colleagues. It is a matter that can be dealt with, that should be dealt with, and we hope Russia will show justice in the way it handles this matter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a business meeting on June 21, 2010.

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the 145th anniversary of Juneteenth, the oldest commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States. On June 19, 1865, Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, TX, to inform the slaves that they were free. Although the Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863, it was 2 years later before the message reached slaves in Texas and the Union troops enforced the President's order. Eighty-nine years after America's Independence Day, Africans in America finally obtained their independence from slavery. Juneteenth is a day when all Americans should celebrate Black Americans' freedom and heritage.

In 2008, Congress apologized for the injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws. The congressional resolution acknowledged that African Americans continue to suffer from the complex interplay between slavery and Jim Crow long after both systems were formally abolished. This suffering is both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity.

On Wednesday, Congress honored the African-American slaves who built the U.S. Capitol by dedicating plaques to their memory. Historians have discovered that slaves worked 12-hour days, 6 days a week on the construction of the Capitol. The Federal Government rented over 400 slaves from local slave owners at a rate of $5 per person per month, but the slaves were not paid for their work.

On this day, it is fitting to remember our Nation's painful history. Millions of Africans were torn from their homeland and brought to the Americas as chattel. While it is unknown how many died during the middle passage, it is estimated that 645,000 arrived in the United States. My own State of Maryland had slaves. In 1790, more than 100,000 slaves, which would have been about a third of the State's total population, lived in Maryland. Seventy years later, the 1860 census indicated that there were more than 4 million slaves nationwide.

Despite Maryland's history of slavery, many Marylanders led the fight for abolition. The underground railroad was a secret network that helped enslaved men, women, and children escape to freedom. Its route through Maryland took passengers by boat up the Chesapeake Bay. Ships departed from the many towns located directly on the bay and from cities on rivers that flowed into the bay, including Baltimore. Many ships' pilots hid fugitives and helped them on their way.

Another route led slaves by land up along the eastern shore of Maryland and into Delaware, where they could cross into Pennsylvania and go north to freedom in Massachusetts, New York, and Canada. This was the route used by Harriet Ross Tubman, a native of Dorchester County, MD. Tubman not only guided herself and her family to freedom through the underground railroad, she also made more than 19 trips to the South to lead more than 300 slaves to freedom. She never lost a ``passenger'' along the route.

The abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass was born in Talbot County on Maryland's eastern shore. At age 20 he escaped from slavery and spent the rest of his life advocating racial equality throughout the United States and the United Kingdom. Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, and countless others who led slaves to freedom and fought to abolish slavery are the heroes who inspire us to persevere in the fight for equality and justice in this country and worldwide.

In 1865, June 19 marked the end of slavery in America, but not the end of de jure racial discrimination. My own State of Maryland passed 15 Jim Crow laws between 1870 and 1957. Maryland's schools, swimming pools, movie houses and other facilities were segregated. Notably, in 1930, the University of Maryland Law School denied admission to Baltimore native Thurgood Marshall, a man who would two decades later argue the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, outlawing legally segregated schools, and who would soon after become the Nation's first Black Supreme Court Justice.

While our Nation has made considerable progress over the past century and a half, many challenges remain. Discrimination, disparities, and racially motivated hate persist. We must confront these issues. We cannot ignore the disparities in health care that result in higher premature birth rates and reduced life expectancy for minority populations. We cannot ignore discriminatory sentencing in our courts or discriminatory lending practices by financial institutions. Racially motivated police brutality and hate crimes cannot stand. We must continue to pursue justice in each of these areas, and for all Americans.

We owe it to the legacy of our predecessors in the battle for racial equality to keep fighting injustice until the Declaration that ``all men are created equal'' rings true. We cannot be complacent. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.''

We must continue to strive toward elimination of inequality so we can truly honor the spirit of Juneteenth.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of debate only until 3:30 p.m., with no amendments or motions in order during this time, and that the time be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that the order for recognition for Senator Baucus remain in effect.

Mr. President, before I suggest the absence of a quorum, I ask that the time be equally divided between the majority and the minority.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this past Friday I had the opportunity to travel to the Gulf of Mexico along with three of our colleagues, including Senator Mikulski, my colleague from Maryland, Senator Vitter from Louisiana, and Senator Merkley from Florida. All of us know the importance of coasts. We represent coastal States, and we know how important it is to our economy, and we know how important it is to our way of life. I know Senator Vitter represents that area.

We wanted to visit and see firsthand the impact the BP oilspill is having on the communities in the Gulf of Mexico. I must tell my colleagues, seeing it firsthand, one can really start to understand the magnitude of this disaster. One can see the horrific impact it is having on the people of that region, and one can see the anger in their eyes and the desperation of people who are no longer working, and one can see the oil. You can see the oil all over. You can see it in the water. You see it in the marshes. You see it on the coast. It is a horrible thing to see.

We visited the area known as the Grand Isles. The Grand Isles is a beach area not too far from New Orleans. Grand Isles is a beach community. It is a city. It reminds me a little bit of Ocean City, MD. I was just thinking of how the people of Maryland would be responding if they knew Ocean City would not be open for the season. When we saw the area of Grand Isles, it was empty. No one was on the beaches. There were some people on the beaches working, cleaning up, but no tourists, no people, no children enjoying the water. You couldn't go into the water. The disaster is having a horrible impact on the economy of not just Grand Isles but the entire region.

We then had a chance to go by boat to see Queen Bess Island and Pelican or Bird Island, which are two of the major islands that are used by birds for nesting. We saw oil. We saw oil on the booms that had been deployed. We saw oil on the rocks on the island itself, and, more tragically, we saw birds that were covered with oil. This should never have happened.

I think it just strengthened our resolve about the priorities we must have in this Senate, the priorities that government must follow. The first, of course, is to stop the flow at the wellhead because oil is gushing out into the Gulf of Mexico. What we saw, of course, is oil that had been in the water for many days, had degraded but was still guck and still deadly to birds and certainly deadly to the economy of the region. But oil is still coming out at the wellhead.

Let me remind my colleagues that BP has tried many ways of stopping that oil from coming into the gulf. Of course, as the Presiding Officer knows from the hearings we have had in the Environment and Public Works Committee, BP said they had proven technology to deal with any of these types of spills. Well, that proven technology doesn't exist. They are trying to on the fly determine how to deal with the oil.

So now they have a process of capturing the oil that will bring in 18,000 barrels a day. Remember, BP said originally it was a 1-barrel-a- day incident, and then they increased it to 5,000 barrels a day. We now know it is closer to 40,000 barrels a day. The technology they are deploying will recover about 18,000 barrels.

They hope to be able to increase that perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 barrels, still leaving tens of thousands of barrels gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, and it will continue for several months until the relief wells are drilled. That is the current status.

Our priority, of course, is to stop the wellhead but also to contain the damages. Oil appears sometimes unexpectedly at different locations. So the game plan has to use the best technologies we have with booms and skimmers to keep the oil from reaching sensitive areas.

Admiral Watson, the Coast Guard Command, reviewed the strategy with us. While we think it is important for the command to set performance standards for BP across the board, we also think we have to have the right organizational structure.

Let me just mention one point that was troubling to us. Yes, we saw booms that had been deployed, but they were not maintained. If they are not maintained, oil gets to the shore, killing birds and killing our environment. We have to make sure that is corrected. I thank Admiral Watson. He got back to me Saturday night. We had a conversation, along with Senator Boxer, and steps are being changed. That is why we have to have performance standards on BP oil. We have to make sure we are in control, as to making sure all technologies are deployed to protect our environment. Then, yes, we have to hold BP fully accountable for all of the damages.

We all talk about how they have to be fully accountable. But let's remind the public that BP, in getting the permit to drill, said they had proven technology to deal with any type of incident. They were not truthful on that statement. They didn't have that. So they have to be held fully accountable. We are talking about criminal investigations that will go where they may. But they clearly have to pay all of the economic and environmental damages. The economic damages are clear. We have talked to fishermen who aren't fishing this season, and they don't know if they will ever go back to fishing. We talked to one fisherman whose family has been in that business for generations. We talked to shop owners where there was nobody in the shop. We saw charter boat owners who cannot operate. BP has to be accountable to these small business owners and the property owners.

I strongly support the effort of our majority leader and the President to have BP put money into a trust fund, with independent trustees, so we can expedite the process. It doesn't do a business owner any good if he has a long list of documents he has to fill out to get the help he needs in order to keep his business afloat. Those who were victimized need to be able to get relief as soon as possible. I think an escrow fund makes a lot of sense, and $20 billion seems like a reasonable start. I hope we will move forward. I know the President is meeting with the CEO of BP Oil on Wednesday. Tomorrow, I hope that will lead to the resolution of that issue.

Let me point out that BP also has to be held responsible for the environmental damages that will go well beyond the Gulf of Mexico. The Loop Current is bringing the oil around the Keys and to the east coast of the United States. It will affect many regions, including mine in the Mid-Atlantic. Many of our migratory wildlife travel through the gulf. We don't know whether they will be returning to Maryland. We don't know the impact it will have on our wildlife population--those who enjoy hunting and bird watching on the Eastern Shore, those who understand the importance of the diversity of our wildlife--whether we will be endangering different species. We need to document that and mitigate it.

I have the honor of chairing the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We are holding hearings, thanks to Senator Boxer, next month to start the accounting process, to make sure there is an independent, objective accounting as to the full damages that BP has caused and its related organization--economic damages and environmental damages. Then, going forward with drilling, we all understand mineral management is a critical part of our energy strategy. We cannot drill unless we have an independent agency issuing the permits. We have to make sure the public's interest is protected as new permits are granted.

Yes, there are areas where we don't drill today because they are environmentally too sensitive and there is not enough oil to make it worth the risk. I include in that the area I represent in the Mid- Atlantic, where there was a site they were going to move forward with drilling just 50 miles from Assateague Island, just 60 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake. If we would have had a spill a fraction of the amount that occurred in the gulf, with the prevailing winds and currents, it would have a devastating impact on the Chesapeake Bay and the beaches of Maryland and also Delaware and Virginia. It is not worth the risk. The oil is not significant enough there for that.

Lastly, I hope we use this opportunity, as President Obama suggested, to move forward with a new energy policy for our country. We need to rely less on oil and more on alternative and renewable energy sources. I agree we need to do more with nuclear power. We need to consume less energy and improve the way we operate our buildings and the way we manage our transportation systems. We need to become energy independent, and we can do that. But we cannot do it through drilling. We can do it through a comprehensive energy policy so we can protect our national security and create jobs in America rather than exporting those jobs overseas and, yes, so that we can protect our environment from the type of disaster that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. I hope that is how we respond.

My trip to the gulf reinforced my efforts, and I hope the efforts of all my colleagues, to say that we can do things better. Let's clean up this mess, let's hold BP responsible, and let's develop an energy policy that will protect America's security, help our economy, and protect our environment.

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

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Robert Little Ebert, a respected and inspiring Maryland community leader and philanthropist who passed away at age 93 on May 9, 2010.

Mr. Ebert served as Allegany County commissioner from 1962 to 1970, and he continued to dedicate himself to the progress and prosperity of the area throughout his lifetime. Mr. Ebert was especially dedicated to eradicating poverty throughout his community, and he demonstrated a consistent willingness to help people through his involvement in various philanthropic and community organizations.

Mr. Ebert was born in Parkersburg, WV in 1916, and attended Marietta College in Ohio, graduating in 1938. He later worked as a radio newscaster in the Midwest and served as an Ensign in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Following the war, Mr. Ebert moved to Cumberland, MD, to join his mother in the S.T. Little Jewelry Company, a family business founded by his great-grandfather in 1851. Mr. Ebert eventually became president and general manager of the company, and he devoted himself to the development and success of his business's locale in downtown Cumberland.

Mr. Ebert's leadership and business acumen helped shape downtown Cumberland. He served as chairman of the Downtown Cumberland Business Association and the Downtown Development Commission. He served as chairman of the Board of the Allegany County Department of Social Services and as chairman of the Allegany County Chapter of the American Red Cross and was involved with civic organizations such as the Cumberland Cultural Foundation and the Cumberland Rotary Club.

While Mr. Ebert often wished for his charitable contributions to remain anonymous and tried to stay behind-the-scenes, his philanthropic endeavors eventually inspired him to become the founding donor of the Community Trust Foundation. The Community Trust Foundation, established in 2006, serves Maryland's Allegany and Garrett Counties as well as West Virginia's Mineral County by providing the administrative services, sophisticated investment management, professional advice, and stewardship that help communities maximize their charitable giving and investing.

The Community Trust Foundation served as a stepping stone for Mr. Ebert to establish the Elta Mae and Robert Little Ebert Family Hope Fund. The Family Hope Fund is a leader in fostering cooperation and collaboration among the area's many philanthropic organizations that work to prevent poverty. The fund has made, and will continue to make, enormous achievements thanks to Mr. Ebert's leadership and dedication.

Mr. Ebert was immensely successful professionally, and he was also a loving husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. He leaves behind three daughters, five granddaughters, and four great- grandchildren as well as countless friends and admirers.

I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the many accomplishments of Mr. Robert Little Ebert and in recognizing him as a truly inspiring community leader and humanitarian.

Madam President, today I commemorate the 233rd Flag Day in the United States. On June 14, 1777, nearly a year after our Nation declared its independence, the Second Continental Congress approved the design of our national flag. The 13 stripes that alternate red and white and the white stars on a field of blue have proudly stood as a beacon of liberty and justice around the world ever since.

Flag Day--the anniversary of the Flag Resolution of 1777--was officially established by the Proclamation of President Woodrow Wilson in 1916. While Flag Day was celebrated in various communities for years after Wilson's proclamation, it was not until 1949 that President Truman signed an act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day and the corresponding week as National Flag Week.

My home State of Maryland plays an integral role in the rich history of our flag. The flag was the source of inspiration for Francis Scott Key's ``Star Spangled Banner'' which became our national anthem. That most famous of American flags flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor. It bravely withstood the torrent of British buckshot and still hangs today in the Smithsonian Museum of American History. Each year the National Flag Day Foundation of Baltimore, MD, sponsors a moving ceremony at the Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine which brings our community together in celebration and remembrance of our glorious past.

America's flag graces classrooms, statehouses, courtrooms, and churches, serving as a daily reminder of this Nation's past accomplishments and ongoing dedication to safeguarding individual rights. The brave members of our Armed Forces carry ``Old Glory'' with them as they fulfill their mission to defend the blessings of democracy and peace across the globe; our banner flies from public buildings as a sign of our national community; and its folds drape the tombs of our distinguished dead. The flag is a badge of honor to all and a sign of our citizens' common purpose.

This week and throughout the year let us do all we can to teach younger generations the significance of our flag. Its 13 red and white stripes represent not only the original colonies

but also the courage and purity of our Nation, while its 50 stars stand for the separate but United States of our Union. Let us pledge allegiance to this flag to declare our patriotism and raise its colors high to express our pride and respect for the American way of life.

Madam President, as the world is looking at the worst oilspill in America's history--it may yet become the worst oilspill ever--everyone is saying: Well, what are we going to do about this? What is our response? Our response needs to be, first, to stop the oil from spilling into the Gulf of Mexico; second, to make sure we clean up this mess and hold BP and its related companies fully responsible for all damages, whether to the businesses that have been put out of business, literally, by what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico or the property owners or the taxpayers. BP has to be held fully accountable.

They are looking forward to us making sure that future drilling in this country is done in a safe way; that we have a regulatory system in place that protects the public, that is independent, and that will protect environmentally sensitive areas where there is currently no drilling, such as the Mid-Atlantic, from any drilling. But they are also looking for us to have an energy policy--an energy policy that makes sense for America; that we invest in alternative and renewable energy sources; that we conserve energy; and that, yes, we manage our mineral resources as best we can and use less oil.

Well, the Murkowski resolution does just the opposite. It is very strange, the timing of this resolution, that we are taking up what would prevent the EPA regulations and would require us to use more oil rather than less oil. That makes no sense at all. It stops dead in its tracks efforts to cut the oil consumption of cars and trucks sold in America. You may ask why this resolution is being considered. Well, it is clearly supported by big oil. But whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the American consumers or on the side of big oil?

On April 1, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation completed standards to decrease the oil consumption in model years 2012 through 2016 cars and light trucks sold in the United States. Those standards will result in vehicles that will use almost 2 billion barrels less than current models. That is what we should be doing: using less oil. That needs to be part of our future.

On May 21, President Obama directed EPA and DOT to follow up over the next 2 years with standards for trucks and buses starting with model year 2014 and for cars and light trucks starting with model year 2017. Those follow-on standards will further reduce U.S. oil consumption by billions of barrels.

But the Murkowski resolution would compel EPA to rescind its portion of the completed standard and prevent the Agency from taking part in the follow-on ones--in other words, stopping us from improving the efficiency of our fleets, causing us to use more oil.

Not surprisingly, big oil is trying to disguise their resolution as something other than what it is. They claim it is necessary to prevent EPA from regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of small businesses and even homes and farms. Nothing could be further from the truth. As every Senator knows, EPA has already issued a final rule to shield small businesses, to shield homes, to shield farms, and to shield all other small sources from regulation for at least the next 6 years. Six years is more than enough time to pass a law making the exemption for small sources permanent.

The resolution of disapproval has just one certain outcome: that America's dangerous dependence on oil will continue. We cannot allow this resolution to be approved. It would eliminate the legal foundation of the EPA oil-savings standards that are essential to breaking our addiction to oil.

It is time to decide whose side you are on. I choose the side of the American consumer, and I ask my colleagues to stand with me and reject the Murkowski resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in recent weeks the issue of polluted stormwater runoff from federal properties has again gained significant attention. I continue to have grave concerns about the failure of the Federal Government to pay localities for reasonable costs associated with the control and abatement of pollution that is originating on its properties. At stake is a fundamental issue of equity: polluters should be financially responsible for the pollution that they cause. That includes the Federal Government.

Today I am introducing legislation that makes it clear. Uncle Sam must pay his bills just like every other American.

Annually hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants wash off the hardened surfaces in urban areas and into local rivers and streams, threatening the health of our citizens and causing significant environmental degradation. A one-acre parking lot produces about 16 times the volume of runoff that comes from a one-acre meadow. These pollutants include heavy metals, nitrogen and phosphorous, oil and grease, pesticides, bacteria, including deadly e. coli, sediment, toxic chemicals, and debris. Indeed, stormwater runoff is the largest source sector for many imperiled bodies of water across the country. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, stormwater pollution affects all types of water bodies including in order of severity; ocean shoreline, estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes shorelines, lakes and rivers. Degraded aquatic habitats are found everywhere that stormwater enters local waterways.

On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued a Federal Executive order on sustainability which set goals for Federal agencies and focused on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance.

Among other requirements, the order specifically requires the implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438.

I am the author of that provision, which requires the Federal Government to maintain the predevelopment hydrology ``to the maximum extent practicable'' of all new building sites or major renovations. This requirement echoed the provision in the President's Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order issued on May 12, 2009. In the final Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, issued on the one-year anniversary of the Executive Order, each Federal agency is being called upon to implement ``the stormwater requirements for new development and redevelopment in Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. . .'' (pp. 33-34). These parallel Federal stormwater management requirements are explicit recognition of the importance of controlling and managing stormwater pollution from Federal properties.

As EPA requires more communities to address stormwater pollution through Clean Water Act required Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permits, these communities are responding with a variety of fee-based management systems that will allow them to mitigate, manage and prevent this type of pollution.

The EPA requires National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permits for large communities. The President has issued two Executive Orders that directly note the need to address this type of pollution ``to the maximum extent practicable.'' Clearly, these actions demonstrate that the administration recognizes the importance of dealing adequately with stormwater pollution.

I believe that this administration recognizes its responsibility to manage the stormwater pollution that comes off Federal properties. But that responsibility needs to translate into payments to the local governments that are forced to deal with this pollution. That commitment needs to be more than an Executive order. Adopting the legislation that I am introducing today will remove all ambiguity about the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay these normal and customary stormwater fees.

This is a matter of basic equity. I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple legislative remedy.

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

Mr. President, in recent weeks the issue of polluted stormwater runoff from federal properties has again gained significant attention. I continue to have grave concerns about the failure of the Federal Government to pay localities for reasonable costs associated with the control and abatement of pollution that is originating on its properties. At stake is a fundamental issue of equity: polluters should be financially responsible for the pollution that they cause. That includes the Federal Government.

Today I am introducing legislation that makes it clear. Uncle Sam must pay his bills just like every other American.

Annually hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants wash off the hardened surfaces in urban areas and into local rivers and streams, threatening the health of our citizens and causing significant environmental degradation. A one-acre parking lot produces about 16 times the volume of runoff that comes from a one-acre meadow. These pollutants include heavy metals, nitrogen and phosphorous, oil and grease, pesticides, bacteria, including deadly e. coli, sediment, toxic chemicals, and debris. Indeed, stormwater runoff is the largest source sector for many imperiled bodies of water across the country. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, stormwater pollution affects all types of water bodies including in order of severity; ocean shoreline, estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes shorelines, lakes and rivers. Degraded aquatic habitats are found everywhere that stormwater enters local waterways.

On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued a Federal Executive order on sustainability which set goals for Federal agencies and focused on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance.

Among other requirements, the order specifically requires the implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438.

I am the author of that provision, which requires the Federal Government to maintain the predevelopment hydrology ``to the maximum extent practicable'' of all new building sites or major renovations. This requirement echoed the provision in the President's Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order issued on May 12, 2009. In the final Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, issued on the one-year anniversary of the Executive Order, each Federal agency is being called upon to implement ``the stormwater requirements for new development and redevelopment in Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. . .'' (pp. 33-34). These parallel Federal stormwater management requirements are explicit recognition of the importance of controlling and managing stormwater pollution from Federal properties.

As EPA requires more communities to address stormwater pollution through Clean Water Act required Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permits, these communities are responding with a variety of fee-based management systems that will allow them to mitigate, manage and prevent this type of pollution.

The EPA requires National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permits for large communities. The President has issued two Executive Orders that directly note the need to address this type of pollution ``to the maximum extent practicable.'' Clearly, these actions demonstrate that the administration recognizes the importance of dealing adequately with stormwater pollution.

I believe that this administration recognizes its responsibility to manage the stormwater pollution that comes off Federal properties. But that responsibility needs to translate into payments to the local governments that are forced to deal with this pollution. That commitment needs to be more than an Executive order. Adopting the legislation that I am introducing today will remove all ambiguity about the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay these normal and customary stormwater fees.

This is a matter of basic equity. I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple legislative remedy.

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