Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the amendment we will be voting on is an amendment that allows the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan enrollees to enroll their children up to age 26 immediately rather than waiting until January 1, which is what the new law provides. Private insurance companies are providing this opportunity now for their individuals.

Let me point out that I understand a point of order might be raised under the Budget Act. This has negligible costs. In fact, it will save some money in that children who reach the age of 22 between now and the end of the year

will be required to disenroll and then reenroll again after January 1, which makes no sense whatsoever.

The Office of Personnel Management wants to implement this plan now. They have the capacity to do it, but they need the legal authority to do it.

For the sake of our 8 million active Federal workers, retirees, and their families, it makes sense for us in an orderly way to allow their children up to age 26 to be part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan now rather than have to wait until January 1.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support the waiver of the budget point of order.

Mr. President, I ask that there be a waiver of all points of order.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I take this time to talk about amendment No. 4304, which I hope I will be able to get cleared by setting aside the pending amendment in order to offer it.

At this time, let me bring to the attention of my colleagues what the amendment would do. This amendment would affect the Federal employees' health benefit plans by allowing the administrator to change the current rules to enroll children up to the age of 26. Currently, the restriction for Federal employees is that they can only enroll unmarried children to age 22.

There are 8 million Federal employees and retirees covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. As I am sure everyone is aware, under the law recently passed and signed by President Obama, we have now extended coverage for children up to the age of 26. However, that becomes effective under the law for plans entered into after September 23, 2010. For most plans, the requirement to include children being able to enroll up to age 26 would begin on January 1 of next year when the plan year begins.

Private insurance companies have responded. They understand that this is not really a cost issue and that it makes sense to allow the children of the plan holders up to the age of 26 to be enrolled immediately. Most of the private insurance companies have responded by opening enrollment now.

OPM Director John Berry would like to do the same. He has stated he would like to begin expanding coverage for enrollee adult children now, rather than wait until January to offer this cost-saving benefit. The problem is, current law prevents him from doing that because of the definition of a dependent child being an unmarried child, age 22.

The purpose of this amendment is to give OPM the authority to start to enroll now children who have not reached their 26th birthday. This is particularly important knowing we are in the graduation season. Many of us are very proud to attend our children's graduations. Many of these children would like to remain on their parents' policy now that they are no longer eligible for insurance at college. Unfortunately, without this change, they will have to wait until January of next year, which will cause a lapse in coverage.

The scoring of this is insignificant. We are not talking about a significant amount of additional cost. In fact, we believe it is really a cost-savings issue.

This amendment was offered as a bill and enjoys bipartisan support. Senators Collins, Lieberman, Akaka, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Bingaman, Johnson, Kaufman, Kerry, Landrieu, Stabenow, Warner, Dodd, Dorgan, Levin, Cantwell, Casey, and Hagan have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. It has the support of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the American Federation of Government

Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, and the list goes on.

This amendment makes abundant sense. Our clear intent is to allow those who are under Federal employees' health benefit plans to take advantage of enrolling their children now. This amendment basically clarifies that law so that OPM can move forward to enroll children up to the age of 26 immediately and not wait until January of next year, causing a lapse in coverage. It is a bipartisan amendment, insignificant cost. I hope it will be cleared so I may offer it, and hopefully we can act on it without too much time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4304.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I took the floor a little earlier today to explain that this amendment allows the members of the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan to be able to enroll their children up to age 26 immediately rather than waiting for the beginning of the year, which would effectively deny those who are graduating from college today, who may not qualify as being under 22 and single, to be able to stay or enroll on their parents' Federal Employee Benefits plan. This is an amendment that the OPM Director supports in that he would like to do this but can't do it under the current law. It has minimal cost.

Private insurance companies are allowing up to 26-year-olds to enroll on their parents' policies today. This allows the government workforce to have those same rights. It would normally take effect at the beginning of the year. It makes sense to do this now. It is bipartisan. It is supported by Democratic and Republican Senators. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The New START Treaty (Treaty Doc. 111-5): The Negotiations.''

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 ``The State of the American Child'' on June 8, 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 the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 8, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Risky Business of Big Oil: Have Recent Court Decisions and Liability Caps Encouraged Irresponsible Corporate Behavior?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2010, at 3 p.m., to hold a Near Eastern subcommittee hearing entitled ``Assessing the Strength of Hezbollah.''

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

Madam President, later we will be taking up an amendment I filed to the supplemental appropriations bill--amendment No. 4191-- and at that time, with an agreement that is reached by all sides, I will not be asking for a vote on that amendment and will be withdrawing it. I wanted to give the reasons why I will be doing so.

I was pleased that President Obama announced today that he would put on hold the lease-sale 220 site that is off the coast of Virginia for offshore drilling. Let me take us back to March, when President Obama made the announcement that certain parts of our coast--previously off limits for offshore drilling--would now be allowed to go forward with drilling. At that time, Senator Mikulski and I sent a letter, issued a statement, making it clear we would resist any efforts to drill off of the Virginia coast 50 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. We thought the risk of these drillings were too great with the amount of oil that may have been there.

The President's announcement today takes that issue off the table, at least temporarily. The amendment I offered to the supplemental appropriations bill which, of course, would have been in effect during the use of the funds in the supplemental appropriations, would have prevented any of those funds from being used for drilling off the Atlantic or the straits of Florida. The President's announcement has now taken care of my immediate concern that there could have been an effort to move forward on drilling off of the Virginia coast.

I want to go over the pluses and minuses of this, because I think it is an interesting dynamic here as to the benefits that could have been involved in drilling off of the Atlantic coast.

As I said before, the site that was selected is about 50 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake, about 60 miles from Assateague Island. If there had been a spill, the prevailing winds, over 70 percent of the time, come into the coast or along the coast. That means if we had a spill, that spill would have had dramatic impact on the Chesapeake Bay, on Assateague Island, on the beaches of Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, and probably the east coast of the United States, and could have caused irreparable harm.

The potential oil that is in site 220 matches about 1 week of our Nation's needs. So the risk-benefit here clearly dictates that we not drill along the mid-Atlantic. And I would like to add one additional factor, and that is there has been concern expressed by the Department of Defense as to moving forward with drilling off the shores of Virginia, because the Navy does operations within this area, and it would have been an encroachment on the ability of the Department of Defense to move forward with its needs. In a time of war, we certainly don't want to jeopardize the Defense needs.

So for all those reasons, the Senators from this region--Senator Mikulski, myself, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Menendez--have been arguing very strenuously against moving forward, and that is the reason why I filed amendment No. 4191. Fortunately, the President has removed the immediate concern.

Of course, since his March announcement, we have seen the BP Oil episode in the Gulf of Mexico--this horrific event. By the way, the largest spill we had in the United States--the Exxon Valdez accidental spill--was 10.8 million gallons. We now believe the spill in the Gulf of Mexico currently is approaching 40 million gallons. So we are talking about perhaps as much as three to four times the scope of what happened with the Exxon Valdez.

We know the original estimates were wrong. We don't know the exact estimates. Some say it is even larger than that. But we do know that we have now exceeded the Exxon Valdez as far as the amount of oil that has gone into the Gulf of Mexico and, of course, is traveling. It is traveling, as Senator Nelson points out frequently, along the Loop Current that brings it around the Keys up the east coast of the United States. So this is having a catastrophic environmental impact.

As I have said previously on the floor, the permits for the BP Oil site never should have been granted. The exploration plans spelled out very clearly that there was little risk of a spill, and that if they had a spill, it would not affect our coast because they had proven technology to prevent that from happening. Well, they didn't have proven technology. The blowout preventers had failed on numerous occasions previously, and we know that they misrepresented the facts.

The point I am bringing up is that there is a need for significant change in our regulatory system as it relates to going forward with drilling, and the President is recognizing that today. He announced a moratorium on deep water and he also announced a modification on what is happening in the Arctic. I think all that is the right step moving forward. It is the first step forward, to acknowledge we have a problem. But I want to point out that the areas already available for exploration represent over 70 percent of our known reserves--I think over 80 percent on oil. So we are talking about a very little amount in new areas. And we only have less than 3 percent of the world's reserves. We use 25 percent of the world's oil.

As the President said today, what happened in the Gulf of Mexico should be a real awakening call to our Nation to go forward with an energy policy to make us secure. We cannot drill our way out of this problem. We have to develop renewable and alternative energy sources. We need to be serious about conservation, and we need to look at ways that we can be energy secure and improve our economic outlook by creating jobs and also be friendly toward our environment.

For all those reasons, it makes absolutely no sense whatever to move forward with new explorations along the Atlantic coast.

Although I applaud the President's announcement today--it is a step in the right direction--what we need to do is take this site, lease sale 220, off the table permanently and take drilling in the Atlantic permanently off the table. I assure my colleagues I will be looking for a way in which we can speak to this to provide the legislative authority so drilling will not take place off the Atlantic coast. I know Senator Feinstein is also working on amendments to make sure we do not have any new permits issued until we have a regulatory system in place that we all have confidence is independent and will protect the environment and safety of the American people.

The bottom line is that the American people have a right to expect we are going to do what is right for this country, that we are on their side and we are not just going to listen to what the oil industry wants. We are going to make sure we protect our environment and make sure we have an energy policy that makes sense for America.

I think the President took an important step forward today in his announcements concerning taking this lease site, at least for the moment, off the table so we are not threatened by exploration off the Virginia coast. That was the intent of my amendment. I am very pleased he did that. But I hope this will lead this body to pass legislation to permanently protect the Atlantic coast because, frankly, oil spilled anywhere on the Atlantic coast will affect the entire coast.

We need to be mindful that we all are in this together. Let's work on responsible policies for regulation to make sure our regulators are controlling the drilling that is taking place in the proper manner, and let's work together on an energy policy that makes sense for this Nation, that will make us energy secure and provide for America's future.

With that in mind, when the appropriate time comes to consider amendment No. 4191, I want my colleagues to know why I will not be seeking action on that amendment. I believe the President's actions will protect those of us on the east coast of the United States during this immediate time, during 2010, so we will not have any drilling done. I am satisfied that we have been able to protect our communities from drilling. But I urge us to get together to make sure that is permanent and that it is not changed when perhaps people's recollection of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico might not be quite as fresh as it is today, as we see the consequences of this environmental disaster.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I had intended to ask unanimous consent to set aside an amendment in order to offer amendment 4191, but I understand there are certain Senators who want to review that amendment before that request is made. That is certainly a reasonable suggestion. I will withhold my request to offer the amendment. I hope I will have a chance to offer it later. I want to let my colleagues know what I intend to do.

This amendment would reestablish the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, the South Atlantic and the Straits of Florida Planning Areas. As I am sure colleagues are aware, several weeks ago the President indicated he would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling along the Atlantic from the New Jersey- Delaware border south all the way to the Florida Keys, that he would also lift the moratorium on parts of Alaska, but that he would maintain a moratorium on the Pacific coast and on the North Atlantic. Since that announcement has been made we all know what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico. We have seen what happened with the BP oilspill--the loss of life and the horrific impact it has had on the environment.

When the President announced his policy of additional offshore drilling sites, he stated, through the Secretary of the Interior, that there are places in the United States that are environmentally too sensitive to consider for new oil and gas exploration and production. He cited the entire west coast of the continental United States and the North Atlantic. Those who are familiar with the mid-Atlantic know it is also too sensitive an area from an environmental point of view to take the risk on new offshore drilling. I mention this specifically because there is a lease sale site--220--50 miles off the Virginia coast and 50 miles due east of the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay, and just 60 miles from the border of the Assateague Island National Seashore that is actively being considered for oil exploration. Recently, the Department of Defense weighed in with objections to that because naval operations use a large part of that area. It is about 2.9 million acres.

My point is that expected reserves there are minuscule compared to our national needs and the risk factors are significant. If we were to have anywhere near the type of spill that happened in the gulf 50 miles off the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay, it would have a catastrophic impact for generations to come on the Chesapeake Bay and on the beaches not only in Maryland and Virginia but in Delaware and New Jersey. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the prevailing winds in our region blow toward the shore or along the shore 72 percent of the time, making it much more likely that any spill that short a distance from the shore would end up affecting our coastal areas. I say that knowing full well there is not much oil to drill for out there.

It is interesting to point out that 79 percent of our recoverable offshore oil and 82 percent of our recoverable offshore natural gas is already open to drilling. The mineral companies already have significant areas where they can drill. There is only a small amount left. More important, if we go after all of our known oil reserves we have in this country, we have less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, known reserves. But we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. It is clear to all of us that we need to develop an energy policy that makes us energy secure, that helps us create and save jobs in America and is friendly toward the environment. The best investment we can make is in conservation, alternative and renewable energy sources, and safely developing resources on existing leases in order to accomplish that.

For many years, there was a moratorium on offshore drilling. That moratorium was imposed by Congress and by Executive Orders. But we were unable to extend the Congressional moratorium in 2008 and because of the actions of the previous administration, that moratorium no longer exists. The purpose of this amendment is to say that none of the funds made available in this act--and there are funds made available in this bill to deal with the oil spill issue--can be used for pre-leasing, leasing or any other activity off the Atlantic coast or the Straits of Florida. The west coast is protected; the administration did not propose drilling there. So, too, is the North Atlantic. But to be as emphatic as possible, I included the North Atlantic Planning Area in my amendment to send a message that we don't want drilling anywhere from Maine to the Florida Keys. Alaskans have their opinions on the way that they believe drilling should be handled there. We can get to that legislation separately. Certainly, with BP Oil currently under investigation, I hope it will be the unanimous view of this body that we don't want to see any new areas drilled until after we have had a full investigation into what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, to find out why we didn't have the regulatory system in place to protect our environment and protect public safety, to protect small businesses and property owners, and to protect taxpayers, why that regulatory system was not in place.

Before we consider new areas, we certainly want to make sure we have reviewed the regulatory structure that is in place and taken the steps necessary to fix it. This amendment would express our intention that until that is done, we don't want to see any new offshore drilling sites along the Atlantic coast.

I hope we go further. Quite frankly, I hope we go further and say we should

not be doing any new drilling anywhere in this country until we find out what went wrong so that we have corrected that. I am talking about offshore drilling. We should at least be able to correct what was the mistake with regard to BP Oil and the Deepwater Horizon rig. But at a minimum, these areas along the Atlantic coast where we currently don't drill should be off limits until we have completed the full review. That is the purpose of my amendment. I hope the chairman and ranking member will give me an opportunity to offer this amendment. I have heard from the Parliamentarian's Office that it would not be subject to a Rule XVI point of order and I believe it is germane. I believe we have a responsibility to act on this issue on this supplemental appropriations bill, because this truly is an urgent issue that has become much more urgent as a result of the spill in the gulf.

I am glad to yield.

This amendment deals with the three Atlantic Planning Areas (North, Mid, and South) and the Straits of Florida Planning Area only, and it only becomes operational as long as this supplemental appropriations bill is in effect--through the end of the current fiscal year.

No, it is not tied to the investigation.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer amendment No. 4191.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, first, I thank the chairman and ranking member for allowing me the opportunity to offer this amendment. It imposes a moratorium on offshore drilling along the Atlantic coast and the Straits of Florida. I have already talked about the amendment. I thank my colleagues for allowing it to be introduced.

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

Mr. President, I take this time to call to my colleague's attention my pending amendment, amendment No. 4050. This is the amendment that would require the oil companies to disclose the payments that they make to countries for mineral rights.

It is in order to give investors transparency and knowledge about the risks that may be involved in regards to oil companies. This is real if you look at what is happening in Nigeria and other countries.

Investors have a right to know where oil companies are making payments. This amendment would also further good governance. I think most of us are familiar with the mineral curse; that is, countries that have mineral wealth are some of the poorest in the world. It also helps finance corruption because the government leaders are taking these payments for themselves rather than for the people of the country. My amendment would require the SEC to allow for the disclosure of the payments made by oil companies that are regulated by the SEC.

This is mostly foreign companies. These are not U.S. companies by and large. It puts U.S. companies on a level playing field because U.S. companies are prohibited by law from being involved in any part of corruption.

This is a bipartisan amendment. It is cosponsored by Senator Lugar. He has been one of the true leaders on this issue for many years. My cosponsors include Senators Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, Merkley, Johnson, and Whitehouse. It comes out of the work of the Helsinki Commission. We have held hearings on this within the Commission. This is one of the priorities we have on basic human rights. It is supported by the Obama administration.

I say all that knowing full well we are now postcloture. It is unlikely we will get a vote on this amendment. I find that disturbing. We have made the technical changes in order to make sure we adhere to the concerns expressed by Members. Quite frankly, I am not aware of any Senator who objects to the substance of this amendment. I hoped perhaps we could move forward and include this, but I am a realist, and I understand the current circumstances.

I want my colleagues to know I will try to work with the chairman and ranking member in conference to see whether we can get some of these provisions included. We do have a similar provision on disclosure related to the Congo. We do have this subject matter that will be before the conferees.

I am hopeful, after conversations with Senators Dodd and Shelby, that we will be able to continue this discussion as this bill moves forward to conference. I will also look for other opportunities to bring this issue back.

I know Senator Dodd has voiced his support for the amendment. I have talked to Senator Shelby. He has indicated to me that he is sympathetic to the amendment. I hope we will be able to find a way to prevent the citizens of Third World countries from being denied a share of the wealth of their own countries and to give investors the information they need in order to make intelligent decisions as to whether they want to invest in a particular company.

I want my colleagues to know that if we don't get a chance to vote on this amendment tonight, it will not be the end. We will look for other opportunities, whether it is in conference or other bills that move forward.

I thank many of my colleagues who have been supportive. I know we will succeed in protecting the mineral wealth of Third World nations for the people of the country rather than to fund corruption and giving investors the information they should have as to whether they want to invest in a mineral company.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to Baltimore Heritage, Inc. as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. Baltimore Heritage, Inc.--BHI--is beginning its fifth decade of service to Baltimore City. BHI was founded in 1960 by leaders of the Baltimore business and cultural community, including members of the Greater Baltimore Committee, the Maryland Historical Society, the Peale Museum, and the Junior Chamber of Commerce. For decades, the organization has effectively advocated for actions and broader policies that protect the city's irreplaceable historic buildings and neighborhoods.

BHI works in three primary areas: education, planning and advocacy, and technical assistance. Its education programs seek to involve people and promote the city's heritage. To further that effort, it conducts monthly guided tours of historic sites, spring walking tours, a fall history lecture, and a reception to recognize the best historic preservation projects.

Through its planning and advocacy work, BHI has helped preserve city landmarks and develop strategies to use Baltimore's historic buildings and neighborhoods as the basis for economic growth. Some successes include: reversing plans to demolish the historic buildings surrounding Mt. Vernon Place; saving the City Hall dome; and establishing the Baltimore City Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation, CHAP, which has gone on to help designate more than 60 local and national neighborhood historic districts and achieve protected landmark status for more than 100 historic structures, parks, and monuments. BHI was a partner in blocking the extension of I-83 through Fells Point and Canton and in preserving and reusing Camden Station and Camden Warehouse as integrated parts of the new downtown ballpark.

Baltimore Heritage leaders also were partners with Preservation Maryland in crafting and advocating for an alternative proposal for revitalizing the West Side of Baltimore's downtown--an alternative that proved the feasibility and great economic potential of integrating, rather than demolishing, the district's historic structures. This alternative plan now serves as the guideline for the city's official redevelopment plan for this important downtown district.

I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Baltimore Heritage for its dedication to showcasing our rich historic and cultural heritage. Baltimore is one of our Nation's most historic cities, and Baltimore Heritage, Inc. understands the importance of preserving the past while building for the future. To paraphrase Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph, ``If you seek Baltimore Heritage's monument, look around you.''

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak on the Democratic time.

Mr. President, what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico makes one thing very clear; that is, America's energy policy is a disaster. I thank Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Boxer for their leadership in pointing out the need for America to get off its addiction to oil and promote safe and clean energy sources for America so that we can be independent, so that we can achieve the type of economic growth we need and contribute to a cleaner environment. If we do our energy policy right, as Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Boxer have been telling us, we can solve all three problems.

I must tell you, I think one of the most urgent needs for an energy policy is to make America more secure. We spend almost $1 billion a day on imported oil that goes to many countries that disagree with our way of life. Americans are actually helping to fund those who are trying to compromise America's security. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The Department of Defense has pointed out that our energy policy actually contributes to international instability. We spend a lot of money trying to figure out how we can make the world safer. One way we can make the world safer is to develop an energy policy where we are self-sufficient, where we do not have to rely on imported oil.

We can also solve the second problem, and that is economic growth. Take a look at what is happening in China. They are investing heavily in solar and wind power because they know they are going to create jobs. We want to create these clean jobs in America. We want to manufacture the component parts for solar and wind. We want to be able to manufacture component parts for nuclear. We believe we can create jobs in America by having a policy that relies more on clean energy. There are more jobs to be created, much more so than in oil. For the sake of our economy, we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy.

Then, for our environment, I can talk a great deal about why we need to move forward and get the pollutants out of our air and reward those who use clean technologies. Climate change is real. Tell the people on Smith Island, as they see their island disappearing because of the rising sea level, or tell those who see the traditional seafood industry go in decline because of warmer waters. We know climate change is real, and it is causing instability around the world. We need to deal with it.

If we need a reminder, take a look at what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. BP originally told us there was 1,000 barrels a day leaking. Now they tell us it is 5,000. We do not know whether that is accurate. We know one thing: It has caused an environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. We can expect dead zones because of oxygen deprivation. We can expect that our wetlands, which are critically important for our ecosystem and to protect our environment, will be invaded by this oil. As Senator Nelson points out frequently, if it gets into the Loop Current, it could very well go through the Keys and the east coast of the United States.

The tragedy of this is, we all know we cannot drill our way out of our energy problem. We have less than 3 percent of the oil reserves and we use over 25 percent. We know we cannot drill our way out of our energy problems.

Additional exploration will give us very little as far as energy independence. I will talk about the mid-Atlantic because I am most familiar with the mid-Atlantic. We have been told by recent studies that we may have enough oil in the mid-Atlantic to handle our energy needs for 2 months in the United States. Think about that--the risk factor versus the reward. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If we have a Deepwater Horizon episode in the mid-Atlantic, it will be catastrophic to the Chesapeake Bay. Many of us have invested a lot of energy to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. We know we need to do more. EPA has come out with its game plan. I filed legislation with my colleagues to have a stronger effort in cleaning up the bay. But if we had an oilspill in this region anywhere near what happened down in the Gulf of Mexico, it would set us back for generations.

Some say: Is that a real possibility? Could that really happen? Let me tell you about the lease site 220 off of Virginia which is being primed for offshore drilling. That is 60 miles from Assateague Island and 50 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The prevailing winds are toward the coast, which means a spill is likely to come on the coast a lot quicker than we saw in the Gulf of Mexico.

I have a few suggestions for my colleagues. First, we need to stop any further offshore exploration of gas or oil until we have put in place the regulatory structure to make sure we have done adequate environmental assessments before any new drilling is permitted. That is the least we can do.

We know the exploration plans submitted by BP Oil told us there was virtually no risk, and if there was a spill, they had the proven technology to make sure it did not reach our coastlines. The proven technology was these blowout protectors that we note failed in the past, had very little experience at 5,000 feet of water, and as a result we see the disaster that has unfolded.

The regulatory system is not independent. It needs to be changed. We need to make sure other agencies in the Federal Government that are knowledgeable about wildlife are consulted before permits are granted. At least we need to make sure those regulatory changes are in place.

Secondly, we need to protect, as Secretary Salazar has said, those places in America that are environmentally too sensitive to risk drilling. Secretary Salazar points with pride--and I agree--to the west coast of the United States or to the North Atlantic.

The area off the coast of the Chesapeake Bay is environmentally too sensitive to risk drilling for the little bit of oil that may be there. I urge my colleagues to provide protection--permanent protection--from the offshore drilling in the mid-Atlantic.

Then we need to consider legislation for a comprehensive energy policy in this Nation. I applaud Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman for bringing forward a proposal. It is a good start. I compliment them for the manner in which they handled offshore drilling because they give States, such as Maryland, a veto if the environmental risks are there. To me, that is far better protection than current law and better than what the administration has proposed.

I hope we can do better. There are provisions in the bill I want to strengthen. There are issues I want to make sure are added to it. But unless we get started on energy legislation, unless we bring to the Senate Floor and are willing to debate, as we should, an environmental and energy policy for our country, we won't have a chance to move on these issues.

I can't tell you how many people I have talked to in the State of Maryland who say: Look, we need to be energy independent, we need to create jobs, we need to be sensitive to the environment. But we can't do that unless we have a bill before us.

I want to applaud Senators Kerry and Lieberman for their efforts. I hope we will have a chance to consider that, and I can assure my colleagues that I will have some suggested changes for that legislation in order to strengthen it so we truly can achieve the goals of making America more secure, of creating the jobs we need and being an international leader on preserving our environment to make sure that polluters do not continue to pollute our environment.

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

I thank Senator Menendez for his leadership on S. 3305. I hope his request will be granted. As the other Senators have said, basically whose side are you on? Who should pay for this disaster? Should it be the taxpayers of this country? Should it be the small business owners whose livelihood is now in jeopardy? Should it be the property owners who are going to suffer damage? No. It should be BP Oil and its affiliates.

That is what the Menendez bill does. It places responsibility on the appropriate party. BP should pay, and there are many reasons they should pay. As Senator Menendez points out, their profit was $6 billion in the last quarter. Another reason: BP, in its exploration plan that it presented to the Mineral Management Service, MMS, to get an environmental waiver, stated ``unlikely event of an oil spill as having little risk of contact or impact on the coastlines and associated environmental resources.''

Unlikely event? Little risk of contact? They have relied upon proven response technology--these blowout preventers. They were failsafe, according to BP Oil. Yet MMS showed that the blowout preventers had failed or otherwise played a role in at least 14 accidents. There was little information about the blowout preventers at 5,000 feet of water. That was used to avoid a full environmental review.

We have an environmental disaster, and BP should be held fully accountable for many reasons, not the least of which is they misrepresented the environmental risk to the public and the regulators.

Let's talk about the extent of the damage. BP is continuing to underestimate this damage because they don't want the public to fully understand the extent of the damage. First, they tell us 1,000 barrels a day, and then 5,000 barrels a day. The experts tell us the methodology used by BP is not reliable. They should have given us a range, not a specific barrel amount.

We had people who were prepared to come in and do a real assessment without jeopardizing BP Oil's efforts to stop the flow, and BP doesn't let them do that because they don't want the public to know the status of it, as Senator Nelson pointed out, using dispersants, which is a good option but not the better option. The oil is going to stay in the ocean and give us dead zones, and it is going to cause additional damage.

It starts with the Menendez bill, with holding BP Oil responsible for all of the damages it has caused through its misrepresentations and the way it has handled the spill. I hope it will continue so we can reenact a moratorium, particularly for the area that I represent in the Mid- Atlantic, which is so environmentally sensitive that if we had the spill in our area I would hate to see what it would do to the Chesapeake Bay and Assateague Island.

I urge my colleagues to move forward today on the Menendez bill. Let's get the consent necessary to make sure everyone understands that what BP Oil says it will do, it will do, which is pay for all the damages it has caused. I hope that will not be the last action. I hope we also will reimpose the moratorium for offshore drilling--at least at this point--until we know we can do it safely.

In my area, I hope the moratorium will be permanent.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4050.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to thank Senator Dodd for his extraordinary leadership on this bill. I know he is working through a lot of amendments. I know a lot of us have been urging him to allow us to present amendments. I know he has been challenged by the efforts on trying to schedule votes on amendments. I thank him, on behalf of all his colleagues in the Senate, for his extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill forward. I thank Senator Shelby for working with Senator Dodd. I know we are close to bringing this bill to completion. I am very proud to be a supporter of this bill. It is critically important that we do what we need to do in regulating Wall Street.

This amendment is a bipartisan amendment. Senator Lugar has filed a bill, of which I am a proud cosponsor, that accomplishes basically the same purpose. He has been a real leader in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on transparency in the oil industry and its contracts.

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

In Nigeria, for example, American companies have taken oilfields offline because of rebel activity and instability in the Niger Delta. In 2009, Nigeria was producing almost 1 million barrels less than it is able to produce because of conflict and instability. With so much production offline, American oil companies, such as Chevron and Exxon, have lost jobs and have lost profits and are forced to pay higher production costs because of added security.

This amendment goes a long way in achieving that transparency by requiring all foreign and domestic companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to report, in their annual reports to the SEC, how much they pay each government for access to their oil, gas, and minerals.

In short, this amendment is a critical part of the increased transparency and good governance we have been striving to achieve in the financial industry. We have been working with a lot of groups on perfecting this amendment, and we have made some changes that will give the SEC the utmost flexibility in defining how these reports will be made so that we not get the transparency we need without burdening the companies.

I thank all involved in the modifications that have been made to this amendment from how it was originally filed in order to make it not a burden on the industry but to provide the necessary information to investors.

This amendment also is about creating jobs and preserving jobs. This amendment is important because it will help create and preserve U.S. jobs in the oil, gas, and mining sector by improving the conditions in which oil and mining companies have to work.

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

This is a bipartisan amendment because Democratic and Republican colleagues both know we are creating a new standard of transparency that will apply to the world's extractive industries and is in the best interest of companies in competing on a level playing field. That has been what Senator Lugar has been standing for within the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and I applaud him on his leadership.

In fact, this amendment would apply to all oil, gas, and mining companies required to file periodic reports with the SEC, which includes 90 percent of the major internationally operating oil companies and 8 out of the 10 largest mining companies in the world-- only 2 of which are U.S. companies.

We currently have a voluntary international standard for promoting transparency. A number of countries and companies have joined the Extracted Industries Transparency Initiative, an excellent initiative that has made tremendous strides in changing the cultural secrecy that surrounds extractive industries. But too many countries and too many companies remain outside this voluntary system.

I had the honor of chairing the Helsinki Commission for this Congress. This has been one of our top priorities because it deals with good governance as well as investors knowing whether a company is making payments. The U.S. needs to take a leadership position in regard to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. This amendment, attached to this bill, will go a long way in promoting that leadership for the United States.

The notion of transparency has been endorsed by the G8, the IMF, the World Bank, and a number of regional development banks. It is clear to the financial leaders of the world that transparency in natural resources development is key to holding government leaders accountable for the needs of their citizens and not just building up their personal offshore bank accounts.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for investors and citizens and give them the information they need to hold governments accountable. I urge my colleagues to join me and the other cosponsors of this amendment and support the creation of a historic transparency standard that will pierce the veil of secrecy that fosters so much corruption and instability in resource-rich countries.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Dependent Coverage Extension Act. This bill will allow Federal employees to benefit immediately from an important provision of the new health care law.

FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored group health insurance program in the world, covering more than 8 million Federal employees, retirees, former employees, and their dependents. Currently, FEHBP enrollees with family coverage can keep unmarried, dependent children on their health insurance policies until age 22.

Earlier this year, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which moves us to universal health coverage and lowers health care costs for our Nation and for families. One of the first effective provisions of the legislation requires health plans to allow parents to keep children on their health insurance policies until their 26th birthday. Previously, most plans terminated dependent children's coverage once they tunred 22. While the insurance exchanges created by the new law will enable millions more Americans to access affordable coverage, they will not be operational until 2014. Enabling children of insured parents to stay on their policies until age 26 is an immediate benefit that will begin now to improve our health care system by increasing the number of people with affordable coverage right away.

This provision of the law will take effect on the first day of the new plan year after September 23, 2010. For most plans, that means January 1, 2011. But I am pleased to report that many insurance companies have chosen to implement this provision earlier than required by law.

But unless Congress acts, Federal employees with family coverage will have to wait until next year for this benefit to kick in. This is because FEHBP law prevents the Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry from moving up the effective date. Two sections of the law hinder OPM from taking action now. According to OPM, ``The first section allows OPM to contract with plans to provide health services to employees and their families. The second defines family members to include `an unmarried dependent child under age 22.' Unfortunately, this does now allow flexibility for FEHB plans to provide coverage to other adult children until the provision in the Affordable Care Act becomes effective.'' Director Berry has stated that he would like to begin expanding coverage for enrollees' adult children now, and that he does not want to wait until next January to offer this cost-saving benefit.

The bill we are introducing today would conform FEHBP law with PPACA and ensure that all children of Federal employees can remain on their parents' health insurance policies until their 26th birthday and give OPM the authority to implement the change immediately.

Graduation season is upon us, and many college seniors are preparing for new challenges, including moving out on their own, starting graduate studies, finding a job, and other life transitions. They should not have to endure the additional stress that comes from suddenly losing their health insurance coverage. Young adults just starting their careers often lack access to affordable employer-based health insurance and must rely on the prohibitively expensive individual market for coverage. That is why so many private insurers have stepped up to the plate. Permitting Federal employees to benefit from the new law now will ease young adults' transition from college to the workforce and reduce their out-of-pocket expenses.

The independent Congressional Budget Office has issued a preliminary analysis indicating that this legislation has no cost associated with it. So it will save families money, get more young adults insured, and bring greater efficiencies to our health care sooner, all at no cost to the Federal budget.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in this bipartisan effort: Senators Collins, Akaka, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Bingaman, Johnson, Kaufman, Kerry, Landrieu, Stabenow, and Warner. This is the companion bill to H.R. 5200, introduced by my colleague from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, and it has been endorsed by the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, NARFE, the National Federation of Federal Employees, NFFE, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE, and the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to pass it without delay, so that children of Federal employees can have the same coverage option as children of other employees in the private sector.

Madam President, first, let me thank Senator Dodd for bringing forward a strong bill to regulate Wall Street. The bill provides for strict new regulations to stop Wall Street's reckless gambling.

I think one needs to understand the current system and how we got to where we are today. We have eight Federal regulatory entities that oversee

the financial sector. Their authority is different, their powers are different, their ability to respond to a particular problem is different, and the entity that is regulated today can shop for the regulator they want by what they call themselves and the types of activities they try to define themselves as. They can shop and look for the regulatory entity they believe they can circumvent the easiest. They can escape and did escape proper supervision.

Well, this legislation ends that practice by a clear regulatory framework in order to regulate all financial institutions. The regulatory entity that does the regulation is based upon size and jurisdiction. And we have the Financial Stability Oversight Board that provides uniformity. No more gaps in the regulatory system. And it provides the tools for the regulators for early intervention. That means we end, once and for all, too big to fail. By early intervention on takeovers, closing down financial institutions, requiring the sale of financial institutions, we can prevent the need for too big to fail. The risk will be on the investors, not on the taxpayers of this country. The Boxer amendment makes that clear.

Tools that are needed for orderly liquidation to minimize the impact on the financial sector and our economy are provided in this legislation.

It recognizes the need for special attention to our community financial institutions. They were not the cause of the financial crisis we went through. We know it came from Wall Street. Our community banks were very much vulnerable as a result of the financial collapse. We need to streamline the regulatory process as it relates to our community banks. Regulation is cost. We have to have regulation. We need regulation. They need regulation. But we need to make sure it is sensible. This bill streamlines the regulatory structure as it relates to our local financial institutions.

We need strong and adequate regulation, and it provides it. We need to write a balance, and this legislation provides that. I might say, there are amendments we have already considered that I think were the right thing in order to make sure this balance is correct. I am sure there will be other amendments we will consider to make sure we get that balance right between adequate regulation and the cost of regulation to small community financial institutions.

This legislation puts the consumer first, as it should, with a strong consumer bureau. Some say: Why do we need that? Isn't the current regulation adequate? The answer is no. All you need to look to is what happened in the residential mortgage marketplace. All you need to look at are the advertisements that were taking place just 2 years ago for no-doc or stated-income loans or no-down-payment loans--loans that provided over 100 percent of the cost. And look at the subprime lending in each of our communities, where home buyers who could have qualified for traditional home mortgages were steered into the subprime market because the mortgage company or the seller made more money by steering them into subprime loans. Well, those practices have to come to an end. Those housing practices sparked, as we know, the trigger for this recession. These practices helped create that bubble that burst and the damage that was caused when it did burst.

We can take a look at the cost of this recession. The Pew Financial Reform Project estimated that just a slowdown in economic growth will cost every family in America close to $6,000. Well, that is money that will never be made up. We have to make sure it never happens again. The Federal spending, in order to prevent the economic collapse of Wall Street, is estimated to cost $2,000 per household. If you look at just the decline in real estate values, in 9 months, from July 2008 to March 2009, the wealth lost equaled about $30,000 per household in real estate and over $60,000 per household in the stock market. We lost millions of jobs. I could go on and on. We have an obligation to make sure our economy and our people are protected from that type of financial meltdown in the future.

This legislation properly regulates risky gambling by financial institutions by putting in place prohibitions and disclosures. It puts an end to derivatives markets that have no economic value to our economy. It requires disclosure on the derivatives markets, so we can take Justice Brandeis' advice and use sunlight as the best disinfectant. It provides for the Volcker rule, codifying that, by restricting certain types of high-risk financial activities by banks and bank holding companies.

This legislation regulates credit rating companies. We know credit rating companies--their rating will very much affect the price of a security and the viability of the security.

In this recession, many Marylanders and people from every State in this Nation have lost their homes, their jobs, and savings. We have a responsibility to act to end the reckless practices on Wall Street that helped plant the seeds for this recession. This legislation is a giant step forward.

Amendment No. 3732

Madam President, I will now speak briefly about an amendment I intend to offer.

I rise to urge the inclusion of amendment No. 3732 to S. 3217. This amendment is a critical part of the increased transparency and good governance we are striving to achieve in the financial industry.

This is a bipartisan amendment that would require all foreign and domestic companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to report in their annual report to the SEC how much they pay each government for access to their oil, gas, and minerals. Most of the world's extractive industries companies would be covered by this law, setting a new international standard for transparency, for openness.

We have seen the devastating effects of a lack of transparency in this country, what happens when Wall Street is left unchecked and barons cloaked in secrecy make off with millions while others lose their homes. This is why we are addressing openness and transparency in the underlying legislation today. We would be remiss to create this sweeping reform of our financial sector without addressing the need for adding a new layer of transparency to a set of companies already under the SEC's jurisdiction--the oil, gas, and mining companies that make up the extractive industries.

This amendment would create an environment of transparency to reassure investors, help stabilize global energy markets, and thus support goals of energy security.

Current Federal Accounting Standards Board standards require reports of tax, royalty, and bonus payments to host governments, but the numbers need only be reported in aggregated categories, such as ``production costs excluding taxes'' and ``taxes other than income.'' These payments are reported on a country level where a company's operations are very substantial, but otherwise they are reported on such a broad basis that a company can simply report on which continent it was operating. Such disclosure is not useful in determining the extent of a company's operations in or its ongoing financial arrangements with a country.

In terms of energy security, the oil, gas, and mining revenues are critically important economic sectors in about 60 developing and transition countries which are paradoxically home to more than two- thirds of the world's poorest people. Despite receiving billions of dollars per year from extractive revenue, these countries rank among the lowest in the world on poverty, economic growth, authoritarian governance, conflict, and political instability. Unaccountable management of natural resource revenues by foreign governments leads to corruption and mismanagement, which in turn creates unstable and high- cost operating environments for multinational companies and threatens the security of the energy supply of the United States and other industrialized nations. So we are talking about in these countries where mineral wealth becomes a mineral curse. It becomes a source of revenue for corruption rather that a source of revenue for economic growth so a country can grow. It runs counter to our foreign policy objectives of good governance and economic growth for the developing world. Transparency will help make sure the mineral wealth goes to the people of that nation.

The provisions of this amendment would apply to all oil, gas, and mining companies required to file periodic reports with the SEC; namely, 90 percent

of the major internationally operating oil companies and 8 out of the 10 largest mining companies in the world--only 2 of which are U.S. companies. We are talking about foreign-owned companies, not U.S. companies, by and large. Of the top 50 largest oil and gas companies by proven oil reserves, 20 are national oil companies that do not usually operate internationally. These companies are not registered with the SEC or any other exchange and only operate within their own country, which means these national oil companies do not compete with internationally operating companies. Of the remaining 30 companies that do operate internationally, 27 would be covered by this legislation--27 of the 30. These include Canadian, European, Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, and other international companies.

We currently have a voluntary international standard to promote transparency. A number of countries and companies have joined the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the EITI, an excellent initiative that has made tremendous strides in changing the culture of secrecy that surrounds the extractive industries. But too many countries and companies remain outside this voluntary system.

The notion of transparency has been endorsed by the G8, the IMF, the World Bank, and a number of regional development banks. It is clear to the financial leaders of the world that transparency in natural resources development is key to holding government leaders accountable to the needs of their citizens and not just building up their personal offshore bank accounts.

It is now time to create in law an international standard for transparency. It will only happen if the United States is in the leadership. The international community looks to us to be a leader on this issue.

Investors need to be able to assess the risks of their investments. Investors need to know where, in what amount, and on what terms their money is being spent in what are often very high-risk operating environments. These environments are often poor developing countries that may be politically unstable, have lots of corruption, and have a history of civil unrest. The investor has a right to know about the payments. Secrecy of payments carries real bottom-line risks for investors.

Creating a reporting requirement with the SEC will capture a larger portion of the international extractive industries corporations than any other single mechanism, thereby setting a global standard for transparency and promoting a level playing field.

Investors should be able to know how much money is being invested up front in oil, gas, and mining projects. For example, oil companies often pay very large signature payments to secure the rights for an oilfield, long before the first drop of oil is produced. Such payments are in addition to the capital investment required. In Angola, for example, $500 million is not an unusual signature bonus that has to be paid for a single field, and a single field can cost more than $2 billion to develop. Such costs take years for companies to recoup through their production-sharing arrangements with host companies. For this reason, it is in the interest of the investors to know the amount and timing of payments of high-risk operating environments.

When a company they have invested in becomes targeted by a campaign of misinformation, only the transparency of their financial information will help the investor. Disclosure of payments is one way to address risk, helping companies protect themselves from false or unfair accusations and blame-shifting by host governments that can tarnish their image in the investor community and the general public.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the creation of a historic transparency standard that will pierce the veil of secrecy that fosters so much corruption and instability in resource-rich countries around the world.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, I call up amendment No. 3840.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the Cardin-Grassley amendment extends whistleblower protections to employees of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSROs. NRSROs are the companies-- such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's--which issue credit ratings that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 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 and collateralized debt obligations--in creating the housing bubble and making it bigger.

Then, by marking 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.

In the wake of the Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco corporate scandals, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in July of 2002. One of the provisions in the act was extended whistleblower protections to employees of any company that is registered under the SEC Act of 1934 or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the same act. The whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act protect employees of the publicly traded companies from retaliation by giving victims of such treatment a cause of action which can be brought in Federal court.

Section 1514(a) delineates which companies are covered by that act and what actions are prohibited. The Cardin-Grassley amendment expands the provision to include employees of the rating companies.

I think it is important we have the whistleblower protection. S. 3217 contains several provisions to improve SEC and congressional oversight of the functioning of the NRSROs. So the underlying bill does provide for the regulatory framework for the rating agencies.

What the Cardin-Grassley amendment does is extend the whistleblowing provisions--that protect employees--to all of the rating agencies. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.