Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control has been studying the evolving counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan and has found that the Taliban has morphed into a hybrid--it is one part terrorist organization, one part global drug trafficking cartel.

The Taliban's terrorist operations are increasingly fueled by its substantial narcotics profits, with as much as $169 million coming from a single heroin trafficker in a 10-month period.

In Afghanistan, the convergence of terrorism and international drug trafficking is strikingly similar to what we have witnessed in Colombia. There, profits from the cocaine trade has kept the Marxist terrorist group known as the FARC going for the past 46 years.

These hybrid organizations are the face of 21st century organized crime.

In just one counternarcotics operation in October 2009, a major laboratory in Kandahar province in Afghanistan was raided. Sixteen Taliban were killed.

Roughly 1.8 metric tons of opium and heroin were seized at the lab-- along with improvised explosive devices, IEDs, IED bomb-making materials, and Taliban training manuals.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, took down 25 heroin processing labs in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2009. All of them had ties to the Taliban.

In December 2009, before the House Armed Services Committee Karl W. Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan testified that:

The cultivation of poppy and the trafficking of opium

without a doubt has the most debilitating effect of Afghan

society, feeding corruption and undermining the legal

economy, while generating funds for the insurgency.

Systemic corruption at all levels of the Afghan government remains a problem fueled by the drug trade.

The two largest income-generators in Afghanistan are estimated to be drugs and bribes, accounting for $2.8 billion and $2.5 billion per year, respectively, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime report: ``Corruption in Afghanistan,'' January 2010.

Together, that is equal to about half of the country's legitimate GDP. This shocking figure clearly identifies the two biggest problems in Afghanistan: drugs and corruption.

Additional resources for the counternarcotics mission are now being developed after it was determined that drug trafficking clearly supports the insurgency.

However, experts agree that it may take many years to get the drug trade in Afghanistan under control.

Meanwhile, as the U.S. military plans to scale back its presence starting in summer 2011, civilian personnel will remain to continue to support Afghans.

So the question comes: Will the civilian counternarcotics forces in Afghanistan have enough personnel and equipment to continue meaningful operations without the U.S. military?

As part of the Drug Caucus review, I asked that we identify which programs and tools work, and which ones don't.

This report makes several recommendations, including: Increasing the capacity of the Afghan counternarcotics forces; continuing U.S. support for alternative livelihood programs and evaluating new program proposals; clarifying U.S. policy on eradication; increasing dedicated assets for air support of counternarcotics missions prior to the U.S. military drawdown; utilizing narcotics investigations as a tool to root out and prosecute corrupt Afghan officials; and suggesting policymakers develop a counternarcotics plan as soon as possible for when the military-to-civilian ratio changes.

Let me highlight one of the report's nine findings and recommendations. This finding involves narco-terrorism investigations.

In addition to hearing testimony, we have spoken to experts from the Departments of Justice, State, and Defense, nonpartisan think tanks, and intelligence community officials.

All agreed that it is essential to remove the leadership of the Afghan narco-cartels from the deadly mix of drug money and terror.

However, the Afghan judicial system is not capable of prosecuting and incarcerating high-value narcotics kingpins.

The good news is that there is a legal vehicle for U.S. law enforcement to remove these high-value targets.

In March 2006, as part of the Patriot Reauthorization Act, the United States enacted title 21 United States Code section 960a.

Known as the Federal narco-terrorism statute, this law gives DEA the authority to pursue narcotics and terrorism crimes committed anywhere in the world--if a link can be established between a drug offense and a terrorist act or group.

This statute can be applied worldwide. It has been particularly effective in combating major drug violators in Afghanistan.

These are the violators who are providing weapons and other substantial resources to the Taliban for use against American and coalition forces, and against the innocent civilian population of Afghanistan.

DEA currently has two 13-agent units--the Bilateral Investigations Unit and the Terrorism Investigations Unit--which address this type of narco-terrorism.

The Bilateral Investigations Unit primarily pursues cases of drugs being exported to the United States, and has been responsible for successfully investigating and convicting major Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers.

The Terrorism Investigations Unit investigates international criminal organizations that use illicit drug proceeds to promote and finance foreign terrorist organizations and acts of terror, pursuant to title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 960a, narco-terrorism.

Agents with the Terrorism Investigations Unit have produced impressive case results, including: obtaining the first conviction under the new narco-terrorism law, against Khan Mohammed. Captured by DEA and Afghan Counternarcotics Police in Nangarhar Province in October 2006, Khan Mohammed was convicted in May 2008 in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. He received two life sentences for selling narcotics and intending to use the proceeds to purchase rockets to attack the U.S. military base in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

Indicting Haji Juma Khan and coordinating his arrest and expulsion from Indonesia on October 23, 2008. He was placed into DEA custody and transported to New York, where he awaits trial. He is one of the world's most significant heroin and opium traffickers, who provided direct support to

the Taliban from his drug trafficking revenue.

The Terrorism Investigations Unit worked in Afghanistan to capture Haji Bashir Noorzai, who was the world's largest heroin trafficker and one of the five original founding members of the Taliban Ruling Shura in Kabul. He was convicted in the Southern District of New York and is now serving a life sentence.

In December 2009, a Terrorism Investigations Unit investigation confirmed that al-Qaida is becoming increasingly involved with the drug trade, when Federal prosecutors in New York charged three people with ties to al-Qaida and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM, in Africa with narco-terrorism for conspiring to transport 500 kilograms of cocaine belonging to the FARC across Africa and into Europe.

This case marks the first time that associates of al-Qaida have been charged with narco-terrorism offenses, as well as the first prosecution of crimes related to drug trafficking in support of terrorism in sub- Saharan Africa.

Based on the success of these investigative units and the conditions in Afghanistan, I believe it is important to stand up a new team to focus directly on Afghanistan.

By providing funding for an Afghanistan team, the existing Terrorism Investigations Unit would be able to continue their work in Africa on al-Qaida-linked organizations.

An Afghanistan team would also expand the Terrorism Investigations Unit's operations--currently focused in the South and East--to throughout the country.

The contacts and leads they discover have produced, and will produce, collateral intelligence for American and coalition forces. I am confident that a new unit will produce additional indictments and convictions of Taliban members and others for narco-terrorism.

Our findings have clearly identified that this is a program that works. Simply put: Narco-terrorism investigations have proven to be an effective tool in Afghanistan. So it should be a priority for funding and action.

There's another area that should be a priority--helicopters. Helicopters are essential to this fight here's why:

After all our efforts--after the recruiting and training of Afghan police, after developing intelligence, after following leads--the times comes to lawfully arrest traffickers and seize their narcotics.

This requires a large force of law-enforcement personnel, supported by troops, and the counternarcotics team must be transported to the target location by helicopter.

Afghanistan is unlike most countries in the world in this respect. It is a vast country, with a challenging geography, and little in the way of passable roads. So helicopters are essential.

Unfortunately, many times there are no helicopters available, so the mission has to be scrubbed.

The Drug Caucus looked into this. We found that it is critical to have dedicated helicopters for counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan. For example, last October Michael Braun, former Chief of Operations for DEA, told the Drug Caucus that:

The DEA's counter narco-terrorism operations and vitally

important intelligence gathering missions are routinely

delayed, often for several days, because the DEA lacks its

own organic helicopter assets in Afghanistan.''

The Government Accountability Office reported to Congress in March of this year that:

Defense and DEA officials stated that airlift requirements

have grown beyond what was originally envisaged for the Air

Interdiction Unit, and they also stated they expected these

requirements to grow further as DEA expands into forward

operating bases

Attorney General Eric Holder told me this when I asked him on March 22, at the Judiciary Committee about the lack of air assets for counternarcotics operations:

The most significant factor we face in Afghanistan is

helicopter lift. DEA must have adequate helicopter lift

capacity that is night capable and flown by veteran pilots.

Recently, the Drug Caucus learned the following:

There are funds available, allocated by Congress and provided to the State Department, for supporting other civilian agencies operating in Afghanistan. These funds can be used for to obtain dedicated helicopters for counternarcotics missions.

There are retired Navy Sikorsky helicopters mothballed at Davis- Monthan Air Force Base and elsewhere available at no cost.

The State Department has a contract with Sikorsky to refurbish up to 110 S-61 helicopters over the next 5 years.

It will take approximately 9 months to refurbish these helicopters and get them to Afghanistan.

When I learned that we have these helicopters, a signed contract with Sikorsky, and funds for the retrofit the helicopters were all available to meet the needs of the counternarcotics mission I thought great, ``When will they be in country?''

Unfortunately, I cannot get an answer to that question because there has been a hold placed on the final decision regarding these helicopters. A hold that has lasted several months. This is unacceptable. Time is of the essence. These funds must be used now to prepare these helicopters to get them to Afghanistan by next spring.

I ask for the President and the Secretary of State's full support on this matter so, for the first time, there will be helicopters dedicated to U.S.-led counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan.

Drug trafficking in Afghanistan provides more than 90 percent of the world's opium.

It fuels the insurgency, corrupts public officials, and undermines political stability and the rule of law.

If we are to protect coalition forces from an influx of weapons now, and leave Afghanistan on firm footing, we must put an end to this relationship between terrorism and drugs.

In September 2009, the executive director of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa had this to say:

Like never before, the fates of counter-narcotics and

counter-insurgency are inextricably linked.

On March 16 of this year at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing General David Petraeus testified that:

Another major component of our strategy is to disrupt

narcotics trafficking, which provides significant funding to

the Taliban insurgency. This drug money has been the `oxygen'

in the air that allows these groups to operate.

What we have learned is that heroin is a weapon for the insurgents and the terrorists.

It kills people. It ruins lives. It leads to criminal behavior.

And it corrupts governments, putting a terrible burden and strain on society.

When he learned that a large shipment of heroin was heading to American cities, convicted Afghan narco-terrorist Khan Mohammed was recorded on a surveillance tape saying:

Good, may God turn all the infidels into dead corpses . . .

whether it is by opium or by shooting, this is our common

goal.

There can be no question that the drug trade in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to terrorism. So, the drug trade there must be met with the same robust response, the same level of resolve, as our efforts against the insurgency.

Bottom line: If we ignore the drug problem in Afghanistan we will fail in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, this report may be found at http:// drugcaucus.Senate.gov.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. Michael J. Sulick, Director of the National Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency, who will retire tomorrow, July 30, 2010. Mr. Sulick's career spans over 30 years in the CIA during which he distinguished himself as a patriot, leader, and friend of the U.S. Senate. Mike Sulick also served as a marine in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969.

It is a rare opportunity to pay tribute publicly to one of the men and women who serve beyond the front lines, working in secret to protect and serve the Nation. Having ``come in from the cold,'' I am pleased to be able to say a few words about Mike.

A New York native, Mr. Sulick graduated from Fordham University in 1971 with a B.A. degree in Russian language/literature and continued at the University to earn a M.A. in Russian language/literature in 1972. In 1977, he received a doctorate in comparative literature from City University of New York, NY.

During his career, Mike served more than 11 years abroad in Asia, Latin America, Poland, and Russia, where he was able to use his language fluency of Spanish, Polish, and Russian. In headquarters assignments, he served as Chief of Liaison in the Office of Congressional Affairs, Chief of Central Eurasia Division, Chief of Counterintelligence, and as the Deputy Director and later as Director of the National Clandestine Service.

Mr. Sulick retired from the CIA as the Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service in 2004. In 2007, Mike heeded the call of service when he was asked by the CIA Director, GEN Michael Hayden, and his Deputy Director, Steve Kappes, to rejoin the Agency. He has been the head of the clandestine service for the past 3 years.

In this capacity, he had frequent interaction with Senators and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. His professionalism, mature judgment, sage advice, and interpersonal skills earned him the respect and confidence of the committee. His sound judgment, courage, and candor also directly contributed to his successful representation of the CIA's interests before the committee and Congress.

Throughout his career, Mike Sulick demonstrated a profound commitment to our Nation, a selfless service to the CIA, a deep concern for Agency officers and their families, and a commitment to excellence. Mike is a consummate professional whose performance, in over 30 years of service, has personified those traits of courage, competency, and integrity that our Nation has come to expect and so desperately needs from its professional intelligence officers.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Mike Sulick for his honorable service to the Central Intelligence Agency and the people of the U.S. and also thanking Mike's wife Shirley for her support and understanding, as well as her sacrifices in allowing Mike to selflessly commit himself to protecting our Nation.

We wish Mike and Shirley Sulick all the best in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Crapo, Udall of Colorado, Bennet of Colorado, and Boxer, to introduce legislation that will help preserve the great tradition of the American family farm.

Our legislation is called the Family Farm Estate Tax Deferral Act.

It is designed to prevent the unintended consequences of the estate tax's disproportionate impact on family farms, by providing relief to families who want to continue their family farming and ranching operations.

This is especially important in California, where high unemployment has devastated many of our state's agricultural communities.

Specifically, this legislation would allow qualifying family operated farms and ranches to defer estate taxes if the farm-related income of the decedent in the three years prior to death does not exceed $750,000 annually, and the non-farm related income does not exceed $500,000 per year; the farm is passed down to a family member who has been materially engaged in its management and operations for at least 5 years; the farm generated more than 50 percent of the farm owner's income, or comprised more than 50 percent of the farm owner's estate at the time of death; the farm was owned by the decedent for at least 5 years and is located within the United States.

The family member inheriting the estate continues to use the land for farming purposes; and, at the time of his or her death, the decedent associated with the estate was a U.S. citizen or legal resident of the United States.

The bill also includes a ``recapture'' provision, to ensure that farm heirs are subject to strict oversight and must pay taxes if at any time they sell the land or cease to use the property for farming.

The bill would also encourage the preservation of land and protect millions of acres of open space and wildlife habitat. It does so by incorporating legislation introduced in the House by Representative Earl Blumenauer to increase the limitation on the estate tax exclusion for conservation easements to $5 million, up from $500,000.

Farm and ranch estates are estimated to be up to 20 times more likely to face an estate tax burden than other estates.

Roughly one in 10 family farms and ranches confronted estate tax bills last year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.

Let me explain why this is cause for concern, and why our legislation is so important.

Most of the financial value of a family farm or ranch operation lies in its land. Assets such as specialized equipment and production tools have limited resale value and are not likely to quickly generate sufficient liquidity.

It is land--not securities or other more-liquid assets--that comprises the lion's share of many farmers' assets. So, many farmers are quite literally land rich, and cash poor.

The property value of fertile farmland can appreciate greatly over time.

For example, in 1997 the average farm real estate value was $926 per acre; today it is $2160 per acre, according to the Land Trust Alliance. This represents a 133 percent increase in the value of farmland in just over a decade.

As this farmland appreciates, the potential estate tax bill grows.

When a farm estate is passed on to an heir, portions of the land are sometimes fragmented, or even sold to developers in order to manage the tax consequences.

The result is that some farms are rendered inoperable, and heirs face difficult choices in these tough economic times.

Let me share the story of a constituent, Hannah Tangeman-Cheney, whose story illustrates the problem.

Hannah's ranch in Susanville, California, has been owned by her family since 1862, and run by women since 1914.

After her mother passed away, Hannah had to deal with the IRS, attorneys, and appraisers, during this difficult period in her life. Her mother had a will and a trust, but there was still a significant tax burden that Hannah and her sister had to deal with.

It took 2 years for Hannah and the IRS to reach agreement on the value of her ranch since their appraisers came up with different numbers.

Eventually, she reached agreement with the IRS to pay the taxes off over a ten-year period.

Facing these difficult circumstances, Hannah and her sister made the painful decision to harvest thousands of trees.

In all, 13,157 trees were cut--far more than they would have ever dreamed of harvesting under any other circumstances.

Some of the trees took more than 100 years to grow, and the property had not been harvested since the 1950's.

Eventually, she was able to pay off the taxes, but this was a very emotional experience for Hannah and her sister.

They are both environmentally conscious, and their ranch was even certified as part of the ``Green Building'' program with the Forest Stewardship Council.

Our legislation is designed to prevent these unintended consequences, and provide relief to families wishing to keep their farms in operation.

By mandating a $750,000 cap on income in order to qualify, we can ensure that this relief goes to those farmers who need it most, not to major agribusinesses.

To be clear, many Americans have suffered tremendously during this very difficult economic downturn.

But, some agricultural communities have been hit especially hard.

Family farms in many of California's most productive agricultural areas are currently struggling just to make ends meet.

I come from the largest agricultural state in the country.

California has suffered a crippling three-year drought, and many growers have had to fallow their fields to cut their losses.

Many have had to lay off employees, and some have left the business entirely.

These hardships can be seen, and I have witnessed them firsthand, in Fresno County where the unemployment rate is 16 percent.

In Kings County unemployment is 15.9 percent. Tulare County unemployment is 15.8 percent.

Imperial County is suffering under unemployment which has reached 27.6

percent. Within these counties, unemployment in some agricultural communities has touched 40 percent.

Farms and ranches are an important source of jobs in these communities.

This legislation aims to protect family farms that intend to hire, while providing more certainty to thousands of workers across the State.

In 2006, I warned that difficult decisions would be required before the estate tax expired in 2010.

Well, 2010 is here and the picture of our nation's fiscal health is not a pretty one.

We are facing a record $1.3 trillion budget deficit.

The national debt has reached a new high at roughly $13 trillion.

The parameters of the estate tax debate have shifted for most, by necessity.

Full estate tax repeal is out of the question, and our number one priority for allocating federal resources has rightly been shifted to job creation and economic recovery.

But, absent Congressional action, the estate tax will return with ferocity next year at a 55 percent rate with an exemption level of $1 million.

I don't think this is something that many in this body would like to see.

So, any estate tax reform must be well-targeted and balanced to ensure it is fiscally responsible.

As we work to develop comprehensive, permanent, and fiscally- responsible estate tax reform this year, I urge my colleagues to remember that the estate tax was never intended to prevent family farms from being passed from generation to generation.

Our legislation resolves this issue for once and for all, and by safeguarding against loopholes for rich farming conglomerates and agribusinesses, it does so at minimal cost.

Moreover, we take steps forward to protect our precious environment and preserve open space and agricultural lands.

There is no doubt that many family farmers are under financial pressure during these difficult times.

We must take steps to bring relief to the very family farmers and ranchers who have devoted their lives to helping feed and sustain this great nation.

This legislation is a fiscally responsible and targeted effort to ensure that we preserve this tradition for legitimate working farms.

Estate tax reform must be addressed soon, and this issue can no longer be delayed.

I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to enact this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Crapo, Udall of Colorado, Bennet of Colorado, and Boxer, to introduce legislation that will help preserve the great tradition of the American family farm.

Our legislation is called the Family Farm Estate Tax Deferral Act.

It is designed to prevent the unintended consequences of the estate tax's disproportionate impact on family farms, by providing relief to families who want to continue their family farming and ranching operations.

This is especially important in California, where high unemployment has devastated many of our state's agricultural communities.

Specifically, this legislation would allow qualifying family operated farms and ranches to defer estate taxes if the farm-related income of the decedent in the three years prior to death does not exceed $750,000 annually, and the non-farm related income does not exceed $500,000 per year; the farm is passed down to a family member who has been materially engaged in its management and operations for at least 5 years; the farm generated more than 50 percent of the farm owner's income, or comprised more than 50 percent of the farm owner's estate at the time of death; the farm was owned by the decedent for at least 5 years and is located within the United States.

The family member inheriting the estate continues to use the land for farming purposes; and, at the time of his or her death, the decedent associated with the estate was a U.S. citizen or legal resident of the United States.

The bill also includes a ``recapture'' provision, to ensure that farm heirs are subject to strict oversight and must pay taxes if at any time they sell the land or cease to use the property for farming.

The bill would also encourage the preservation of land and protect millions of acres of open space and wildlife habitat. It does so by incorporating legislation introduced in the House by Representative Earl Blumenauer to increase the limitation on the estate tax exclusion for conservation easements to $5 million, up from $500,000.

Farm and ranch estates are estimated to be up to 20 times more likely to face an estate tax burden than other estates.

Roughly one in 10 family farms and ranches confronted estate tax bills last year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.

Let me explain why this is cause for concern, and why our legislation is so important.

Most of the financial value of a family farm or ranch operation lies in its land. Assets such as specialized equipment and production tools have limited resale value and are not likely to quickly generate sufficient liquidity.

It is land--not securities or other more-liquid assets--that comprises the lion's share of many farmers' assets. So, many farmers are quite literally land rich, and cash poor.

The property value of fertile farmland can appreciate greatly over time.

For example, in 1997 the average farm real estate value was $926 per acre; today it is $2160 per acre, according to the Land Trust Alliance. This represents a 133 percent increase in the value of farmland in just over a decade.

As this farmland appreciates, the potential estate tax bill grows.

When a farm estate is passed on to an heir, portions of the land are sometimes fragmented, or even sold to developers in order to manage the tax consequences.

The result is that some farms are rendered inoperable, and heirs face difficult choices in these tough economic times.

Let me share the story of a constituent, Hannah Tangeman-Cheney, whose story illustrates the problem.

Hannah's ranch in Susanville, California, has been owned by her family since 1862, and run by women since 1914.

After her mother passed away, Hannah had to deal with the IRS, attorneys, and appraisers, during this difficult period in her life. Her mother had a will and a trust, but there was still a significant tax burden that Hannah and her sister had to deal with.

It took 2 years for Hannah and the IRS to reach agreement on the value of her ranch since their appraisers came up with different numbers.

Eventually, she reached agreement with the IRS to pay the taxes off over a ten-year period.

Facing these difficult circumstances, Hannah and her sister made the painful decision to harvest thousands of trees.

In all, 13,157 trees were cut--far more than they would have ever dreamed of harvesting under any other circumstances.

Some of the trees took more than 100 years to grow, and the property had not been harvested since the 1950's.

Eventually, she was able to pay off the taxes, but this was a very emotional experience for Hannah and her sister.

They are both environmentally conscious, and their ranch was even certified as part of the ``Green Building'' program with the Forest Stewardship Council.

Our legislation is designed to prevent these unintended consequences, and provide relief to families wishing to keep their farms in operation.

By mandating a $750,000 cap on income in order to qualify, we can ensure that this relief goes to those farmers who need it most, not to major agribusinesses.

To be clear, many Americans have suffered tremendously during this very difficult economic downturn.

But, some agricultural communities have been hit especially hard.

Family farms in many of California's most productive agricultural areas are currently struggling just to make ends meet.

I come from the largest agricultural state in the country.

California has suffered a crippling three-year drought, and many growers have had to fallow their fields to cut their losses.

Many have had to lay off employees, and some have left the business entirely.

These hardships can be seen, and I have witnessed them firsthand, in Fresno County where the unemployment rate is 16 percent.

In Kings County unemployment is 15.9 percent. Tulare County unemployment is 15.8 percent.

Imperial County is suffering under unemployment which has reached 27.6

percent. Within these counties, unemployment in some agricultural communities has touched 40 percent.

Farms and ranches are an important source of jobs in these communities.

This legislation aims to protect family farms that intend to hire, while providing more certainty to thousands of workers across the State.

In 2006, I warned that difficult decisions would be required before the estate tax expired in 2010.

Well, 2010 is here and the picture of our nation's fiscal health is not a pretty one.

We are facing a record $1.3 trillion budget deficit.

The national debt has reached a new high at roughly $13 trillion.

The parameters of the estate tax debate have shifted for most, by necessity.

Full estate tax repeal is out of the question, and our number one priority for allocating federal resources has rightly been shifted to job creation and economic recovery.

But, absent Congressional action, the estate tax will return with ferocity next year at a 55 percent rate with an exemption level of $1 million.

I don't think this is something that many in this body would like to see.

So, any estate tax reform must be well-targeted and balanced to ensure it is fiscally responsible.

As we work to develop comprehensive, permanent, and fiscally- responsible estate tax reform this year, I urge my colleagues to remember that the estate tax was never intended to prevent family farms from being passed from generation to generation.

Our legislation resolves this issue for once and for all, and by safeguarding against loopholes for rich farming conglomerates and agribusinesses, it does so at minimal cost.

Moreover, we take steps forward to protect our precious environment and preserve open space and agricultural lands.

There is no doubt that many family farmers are under financial pressure during these difficult times.

We must take steps to bring relief to the very family farmers and ranchers who have devoted their lives to helping feed and sustain this great nation.

This legislation is a fiscally responsible and targeted effort to ensure that we preserve this tradition for legitimate working farms.

Estate tax reform must be addressed soon, and this issue can no longer be delayed.

I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to enact this legislation as quickly as possible.

Madam President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senate Resolution 591 recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In 1990, congressional members from both sides of the aisle joined together to denounce disability-based discrimination and demand equal rights for the disabled through the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the 20 years since, this landmark law has stood as a proud marker of our Nation's collective belief that disabled Americans can and should be full participants in our Nation's civic, economic, and social life. That, as one national disability organization proclaims, ``It's ability, not disability that counts.''

The Americans with Disabilities Act has had profound effects on the lives of over 50 million disabled Americans from curb cuts to elevators, Braille displays to voice recognition technology, and voting assistance to expanded employment opportunities, to name just a few examples.

Because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing are now guaranteed the same services that law enforcement provides to anyone else. Law enforcement agencies may not exclude hearing impaired Americans from their services and must make efforts to ensure that their personnel communicate effectively with people whose disability affects their hearing.

Thanks to this landmark law, buses are now equipped with reliable lifts for wheelchair access; drivers announce stops to inform the seeing-impaired of arrival; and paratransit services provide door-to- destination transportation. This increased mobility enables disabled Americans to hold jobs and pursue educational opportunities, to perform day-to-day errands independently, and to access medical and social services.

As one San Francisco resident said, ``We no longer have to rely on the kindness of strangers to shop for us or feel that we can only experience other cities through films, videos and books.''

The Americans with Disabilities Act has enabled disabled Americans to visit and enjoy the grounds of our Nation's cultural and historical treasures such as Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington.

This important law has also improved the quality of life for Americans with impaired sight, by requiring

stores and businesses across the country to accommodate the service animals that guide and assist them. And progress is being made to ensure that the Web sites and online stores that make up the world of e-commerce are accessible as well.

Let me offer yet another example: a veteran fireman like Dennis Bell does not have to quit his job when he loses his leg during a rescue attempt, because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Instead, his employer must provide him with the opportunity to be reassigned. In Mr. Bell's case, he has been given an opportunity to work in a new division instructing children about fire safety.

And because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a gifted man like Chris Lenart, who is unable to talk or walk, can pursue a successful career as a computer programmer and remain economically self- sufficient. Employers can no longer deny a job to a qualified applicant because of a disability.

At least 12 percent of Americans live with a disability, but each and every one of us benefits from the skills and talents of disabled Americans who can now contribute to our country's workforce and public life, and whose abilities are not lost for want of an opportunity to demonstrate them.

I believe that our country has become a stronger and fairer place over the past 20 years because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As the 20th anniversary approaches, I am proud to reflect with my colleagues on the progress that has been made as a result of this law, as well as to acknowledge that there is more work still to be done.

Madam President, I will speak briefly on the resolution.

Madam President, I wish to give just a little history to back up this resolution.

In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation, which required the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma, if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the democratic opposition. In fact, at that time, Secretary Albright met with the ASEAN nations and tried to encourage them to be of help. They were of no help, so the President, by Executive order, then instituted this investment ban.

In 2003, after the regime or some of its quislings attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi when she was on a march in the center of the country, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed 1 year at a time. That is essentially what we are doing today. It was signed into law and has been renewed 1 year at a time since then.

I became involved in this struggle for peace and democracy in no small part due to the courage and valor of this wonderful woman. I think I admire her as much as any woman in the world. Her message of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law continues to inspire not only her fellow citizens but people all over this great world, with her courage and her resolve in the face of constant oppression.

For the past two decades, Burma's despotic military rulers have engaged in a campaign of persecution against Aung San Suu Kyi, tarnishing her image wherever they could, unjustly convicting her of violating an illegitimate house arrest last year, and extending her unlawful detention.

She has spent the better part of 20 years under house arrest. She has not seen her two sons who live in the United Kingdom for years. She was not permitted to visit her husband when he was dying of cancer in the United Kingdom.

Yet Aung San Suu Kyi remains resolute in her dedication to the pursuit of peaceful national reconciliation, as do the members of her political party, the National League for Democracy.

Now, more than ever, the people of Burma need to know that we stand by them and support their vision of a free and democratic Burma.

On May 6, her party, the National League for Democracy, closed its doors. Let me be clear. They did not shut down of their own free will; it was forced to disband by an unjust and undemocratic constitution and election law, both drafted in secret and behind closed doors by the ruling military junta.

Under the terms of the new constitution, 25 percent of the seats must be set aside for the military. Think about that for a moment. Before any vote has been cast, the military is guaranteed one-quarter of the seats in the new 440-member house of representatives.

How will this new institution be any different from the current military regime?

If that isn't enough to raise doubts about the military's commitment to a truly representative government, it should also be pointed out that the regime's Prime Minister, Thein Sein, and 22 Cabinet Ministers resigned from the army to form a new civilian political party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party.

Any seats won by this new party in the upcoming election will be in addition to the 25 percent set aside for active military members.

Does anyone truly believe the regime has embraced democracy and the concept of civilian rule? Unfortunately, it will be business as usual for the people of Burma and the democratic opposition.

What about Suu Kyi and her National League of Democracy--winners of the last free parliamentary election in 1990? First, earlier this year, the regime, which has not allowed the party, the NLD, to assume power, officially annulled its victory in the 1990 parliamentary elections, which would have made Suu Kyi the head of the Burmese Government.

Second, under the new constitution, Suu Kyi is barred from running in any future election.

Why is this? What has she done to deserve this?

Well, in 2009, an American swam across the lake to her house, uninvited, and remained there for 2 days. She did not know this man. She had never communicated with this man. She had nothing to do with him, but he was obviously exhausted after swimming across the lake, and he remained in her house for 2 days. She was then arrested and convicted for allowing him to remain in her house, which, according to the regime, violated the terms of her house arrest.

Because of this conviction, she cannot participate in this or any future election under the new constitution. So here is the only democratically elected leader--elected 20 years ago--under house arrest for the better part of those 20 years. She survived an assassination attempt. She is ostracized and kept from any interaction with her political colleagues or her family and, finally, she can never run for any office again.

As a result, the NLD was faced with a clear choice: either kick Aung San Suu Kyi out of the party and participate in the election or face extinction.

It should come as no surprise that the party refused to turn its back on Suu Kyi and give its stamp of approval to the regime's sham constitution and electoral law.

I applaud their courage and their devotion to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

I am saddened to see the regime close its doors, but the spirit and principles of this party will live on in the hearts and minds of its people. I know that, one day, they will be able to elect a truly representative government.

As Tin Oo, NLD's deputy leader and former political prisoner, said:

We do not feel sad. We have honor. One day, we will come

back; we will be reincarnated by the will of the people.

This is a clear message to the regime that an illegitimate constitution and election law cannot suppress the unyielding democratic aspirations of the people of Burma.

We must send our own signal to the regime that its quest for legitimacy has failed. We must send a signal to the democratic opposition that we stand in solidarity with them, and we will not abandon them.

I also thank former First Lady Laura Bush, who joined with virtually all the women of the Senate to hold a press conference back in 2007. Mrs. Bush was willing to use her First Lady status to support this cause. I think it is a gesture that will not be forgotten by any of us.

Now is the time to renew the import ban on all products from Burma for another year. The regime has taken many steps in the wrong direction.

I live for the time when this military junta will recognize that keeping this brave woman under house arrest, absent any interconnection with any of the people of her party or of her country for 20 years, is an unjust penalty.

Simply put, we still have hope. Hopefully, the military junta, as they are called, will one day recognize that Burma should be a free and democratic nation and that an election should be open to all people and all runners. Then the opportunity for major change and recognition of the people of Burma in the Council of Nations will take place.

I regret very much that we have to do this for another year. I am grateful to Senator McConnell for joining me over the years, as annually this has been recognized and a vote has been taken to continue the sanctions.

Yes, it is. The National League for Democracy in March

of this year indicated it could not participate in the elections due to the junta's repressive election law. It therefore declined to register as a political party and consequently under the new law was abolished as a political party in early May.

Yes, it is. The NLD has indicated it will try to continue to help the Burmese people in ways other than as a legally registered political party.

Yes, it is. There are several such references in the legislation as amended.

Yes. It is my view the proper statutory construction given the term ``National League for Democracy'' would be to include any appropriate successor entity, group or subgroups that the NLD may form in the future.

I thank Chairman Lincoln and Chairman Dodd for maintaining section 745 in the conference report accompanying the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which gives authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to prevent the trading of futures and swaps contracts that are contrary to the public interest.

It is very important to restore CFTC's authority to prevent trading that is contrary to the public interest. As you know, the Commodity Exchange Act required CFTC to prevent trading in futures contracts that were ``contrary to the public interest'' from 1974 to 2000. But the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 stripped the CFTC of this authority, at the urging of industry. Since 2000, derivatives traders have bet billions of dollars on derivatives contracts that served no commercial purpose at all and often threaten the public interest.

I am glad the Senator is restoring this authority to the CFTC. I hope it was the Senator's intent, as the author of this provision, to define ``public interest'' broadly so that the CFTC may consider the extent to which a proposed derivative contract would be used predominantly by speculators or participants not having a commercial or hedging interest. Will CFTC have the power to determine that a contract is a gaming contract if the predominant use of the contract is speculative as opposed to a hedging or economic use?

And does the Senator agree that this provision will also empower the Commission to prevent trading in contracts that may serve a limited commercial function but threaten the public good by allowing some to profit from events that threaten our national security?

I thank the Senator for including this provision. No one should profit by speculating on the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Firms facing financial risk posed by threats to our national security may take out insurance, but they should not buy a derivative. A futures market is for hedging. It is not an insurance market.

collateralized investments

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in mourning the loss of one of the Senate's legendary Members--Robert C. Byrd, the honorable senior Senator from the great State of West Virginia.

It wasn't too long ago that I looked right over there and I saw a desk draped in black with roses and it was one titan of the Senate-- Senator Ted Kennedy. Today, I look down here and I see a desk draped in black with white roses and it is a second titan of the Senate.

I had the privilege of serving with Senator Byrd on the Appropriations Committee for some 16 years. I have had occasion to watch him. He could be very tough, he could be very caring, and he could have that twinkle in his eye. He could depart from the present text into Greek tragedy; into old Roman speaking. He had an incredibly curious mind. I think he is going to be greatly missed from this body.

I think of him representing the State of West Virginia for 51 years and serving 6 years in the House of Representatives. During all those 57 years, he served with the kind of devotion and passion that he showed in his last year here in the Senate, when he was very troubled by declining health. He has truly left an indelible imprint on the State of West Virginia and on this body. No one has ever shown more determination or greater love for the United States Senate than Robert C. Byrd. His tenure has been legendary.

He held a number of key leadership positions, including secretary of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Senate majority whip, twice as Senate majority leader, the Senate's minority leader, and three times as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

During the period of 1989 to 2010, Senator Byrd was President pro tempore of the Senate--the most senior Democrat and third in the line of Presidential succession; also as President pro tempore emeritus when the Democrats were in the minority.

Senator Byrd cast more rollcall votes than any other Member of this institution--18,689 in total. That is truly remarkable. Just think about how many of this Nation's laws he helped shape.

He was a veritable expert on the inner workings of the Senate. There was no one who was more well versed in this institution's intricate rules, protocols, and customs than Robert Byrd. He literally wrote one of the most comprehensive books on the Senate. He knew Riddick's ``Rules of Procedure,'' virtually all 1,600 pages.

Many of us in the Senate have also spoken of his ardent devotion and consummate knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. His well-worn, treasured copy of this document was kept in his vest pocket, and year after year I would see him pull it out. The only thing that would change is that his hand, as the years went on, shook a little bit more. But his devotion to that document did not.

He was a staunch defender of the prerogatives of the three equal branches of government, and he was very quick to note that he served alongside, not under, 11 Presidents.

When he first joined the House of Representatives in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was President. His tenure in Congress then followed alongside the Presidencies of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald A. Ford, James Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush, and finally Barack Obama. That is an amazing list of people to have served with.

Bob Byrd was not only one of the Senate's famous power brokers, but I think his fondness for classical history, music, and poetry has impacted every one of us. As I said, he frequently interspersed his Senate remarks with passages from ancient Roman history, philosophy, and often poetic verse. It used to amaze me how, late at night, he could move from his set text and repeat some poem, word for word, verse after verse.

The nine decades of Robert Byrd's lifetime witnessed great change both at the personal level and at the national level. He lived to see and strongly support the inauguration of our country's first African- American President--something I know meant a great deal to him. He was not always on the right side of the civil rights issue at every stage of his life, but he became a champion for equality, a lion for progress. His transformation was truly inspirational.

Senator Byrd was born into very humble beginnings in 1917. He grew up during the Great Depression. He was the adopted son of a coal mining family in a small town in southern West Virginia. He was the valedictorian of his high school class but was not able to afford college at the time. This impoverished childhood might have hindered others, might have stopped a weaker person, but not the indomitable Robert Byrd. His inner thirst for knowledge propelled him throughout his epic career. In fact, he managed to find time during his tenure in the Senate to finally fulfill his bachelor's degree from Marshall University in 1994, at the tender age of 77. That shows something, I think. He previously received a law degree from American University's Washington College of Law in 1963.

The loss of his beloved wife Erma Byrd in 2006, I think, was a dramatic blow to him. I had occasion to talk with him during that time, and there was no question that this was a great love, that it was an enduring love, and that it was a lifetime commitment. I discussed with him how he provided, day after day, week after week, and month after month, the personal care to his wife as she became more infirm and came toward the end of her life. This truly was a major gift of love.

One thing I have learned in my lifetime, there are so many people who, in the end-of-life crises, are not able to give with love to their spouse. This was a man who could do that. I think that develops his importance as you look at life and people in general.

Once again, I offer my sincerest condolences to his two daughters Mona Faterni and Marjorie Moore, his grandchildren and great- grandchildren, and to the people of West Virginia.

This Nation--not only West Virginia, but all of us--owe Senator Robert Byrd a great debt of gratitude for his service.

I know I will very much miss that indomitable spirit, that insightful guidance, and the intense commitment to the Senate.

This man will be missed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Prohibition Act.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore drilling in deep waters.

Over the past decades, Congress has established a number of royalty- relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult places, and before we were ready to deploy large-scale renewable energy production.

But that is no longer the case. The events of the last weeks have shown that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters. I believe taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean, renewable energy, not deepwater drilling for oil.

The disastrous impacts of the leak from the Deepwater Horizon have shown that offshore drilling has enormous environmental and safety risks--particularly in deep waters. Eleven people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. All these weeks later, we continue to watch in horror as the scope of the disaster keeps expanding:

Oil slicks spread inexorably across the Gulf of Mexico;

Pelicans and other wildlife struggle to free themselves from crude oil; tar balls spoil the pristine white sand beaches of Florida; Wetlands are coated with toxic sludge; More than 1/3 of Federal waters in the Gulf have been closed to fishing; The plumes of oil under water may create zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life; The oil may spread into the Atlantic Ocean via the Loop Current; The response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences; and

Upcoming storms may delay or prevent continued containment and response efforts.

The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that regulation, oversight and prevention technologies should be rigorous. But that is clearly not the case.

Regulators failed to ensure appropriate safety and response technologies were in place.

MMS gave BP a categorical exclusion from an environmental impact analysis that in my opinion should never have been allowed.

MMS allowed BP to run a drilling operation without the demonstrated ability to shut off the flow of gas and oil in an emergency.

MMS allowed BP to operate without remote shutoff capability in case the drilling rig became disabled.

MMS did not have an inspector on the rig to settle the heated argument between the BP, Transocean, and Halliburton officials on how they would stop drilling and plug the well.

MMS did not have--and did not require the industry to have--emergency equipment stationed in the Gulf of Mexico that could respond immediately to an emergency.

MMS did not have a plan for responding to disasters.

MMS did not, in fact, have a real inspection and compliance program. It relied on the expertise and advice of the industry on how and how much they should be inspected.

This is not how things should be done. We expect more from our government.

Prevention and response technologies show similar unacceptable deficits: they are not good enough.

These have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the California coast near Santa Barbara. That too was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

The old technology was not good enough, but now it appears that even the newest safety technology fails to prevent wellhead blowouts.

The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was just completed in 2001.

The drill rig that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days.

The New York Times reports that the blind shear rams in the blowout preventers--the last line of defense to prevent wellhead leaks are ``surprisingly vulnerable'' to failure. One study found that blowout preventers have a failure rate of 45 percent.

These technologies are insufficient, and they are particularly vulnerable in deep waters.

Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at about 400 meters depth. These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, and prevented it from working. When a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again.

Other risks increase too, as explained by the Wall Street Journal:

Drilling in deeper water doesn't change the fundamental

process, but it makes virtually everything harder. Rigs must

be bigger so they can hold more drilling pipe to stretch vast

distances. The pipes themselves must be stronger to withstand

ocean currents. Equipment on the sea floor must be sturdier

to face extreme pressures at depth. Drill bits must be

tougher so they don't melt in the 400-degree temperatures

they encounter deep in the earth. And it is harder for

drillers to exert just the right amount of pressure down the

well bore, enough to keep oil and gas from spurting upwards--

a blowout--but not so much that they crack open the rocks

beneath the surface, which could also lead to a blowout.

It is clear that prevention, containment, and clean-up measures are not sufficient to handle oil leaks, particularly in deep waters.

American taxpayers should not forego revenue to incentivize offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it is not good energy policy either.

We need to move to clearer renewable fuels.

I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, like oil and coal.

Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses potential devastation, but rather should be used to develop and deploy clean energy technologies like wind and solar. I very much believe this.

That is why I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy.

One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve fuel economy

standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate. The good news is that the administration has taken the framework of this law and implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's standard.

The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. Last year, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, or oil, or coal. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go.

It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs creation.

We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to work. Programs like The Recovery Act grant program run by the Treasury Department have been very successful in encouraging private investment in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring 4,250 megawatts of clean power online and is expected to generate more than 143,000 green jobs by the end of the year, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The program, however, is set to expire at the end of year if we don't act. So, I'm working on legislation that will extend this successful program for an additional 2 years.

All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy future, and to move away from fossil fuels.

Let me make one final point clear, I don't believe the oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits.

Last year, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were almost $850 billion. Yet we continue to use money that should come to the U.S. Treasury, to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable.

Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should benefit too.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely, on clean, efficient and safe technologies.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Prohibition Act.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore drilling in deep waters.

Over the past decades, Congress has established a number of royalty- relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult places, and before we were ready to deploy large-scale renewable energy production.

But that is no longer the case. The events of the last weeks have shown that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters. I believe taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean, renewable energy, not deepwater drilling for oil.

The disastrous impacts of the leak from the Deepwater Horizon have shown that offshore drilling has enormous environmental and safety risks--particularly in deep waters. Eleven people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. All these weeks later, we continue to watch in horror as the scope of the disaster keeps expanding:

Oil slicks spread inexorably across the Gulf of Mexico;

Pelicans and other wildlife struggle to free themselves from crude oil; tar balls spoil the pristine white sand beaches of Florida; Wetlands are coated with toxic sludge; More than 1/3 of Federal waters in the Gulf have been closed to fishing; The plumes of oil under water may create zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life; The oil may spread into the Atlantic Ocean via the Loop Current; The response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences; and

Upcoming storms may delay or prevent continued containment and response efforts.

The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that regulation, oversight and prevention technologies should be rigorous. But that is clearly not the case.

Regulators failed to ensure appropriate safety and response technologies were in place.

MMS gave BP a categorical exclusion from an environmental impact analysis that in my opinion should never have been allowed.

MMS allowed BP to run a drilling operation without the demonstrated ability to shut off the flow of gas and oil in an emergency.

MMS allowed BP to operate without remote shutoff capability in case the drilling rig became disabled.

MMS did not have an inspector on the rig to settle the heated argument between the BP, Transocean, and Halliburton officials on how they would stop drilling and plug the well.

MMS did not have--and did not require the industry to have--emergency equipment stationed in the Gulf of Mexico that could respond immediately to an emergency.

MMS did not have a plan for responding to disasters.

MMS did not, in fact, have a real inspection and compliance program. It relied on the expertise and advice of the industry on how and how much they should be inspected.

This is not how things should be done. We expect more from our government.

Prevention and response technologies show similar unacceptable deficits: they are not good enough.

These have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the California coast near Santa Barbara. That too was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

The old technology was not good enough, but now it appears that even the newest safety technology fails to prevent wellhead blowouts.

The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was just completed in 2001.

The drill rig that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days.

The New York Times reports that the blind shear rams in the blowout preventers--the last line of defense to prevent wellhead leaks are ``surprisingly vulnerable'' to failure. One study found that blowout preventers have a failure rate of 45 percent.

These technologies are insufficient, and they are particularly vulnerable in deep waters.

Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at about 400 meters depth. These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, and prevented it from working. When a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again.

Other risks increase too, as explained by the Wall Street Journal:

Drilling in deeper water doesn't change the fundamental

process, but it makes virtually everything harder. Rigs must

be bigger so they can hold more drilling pipe to stretch vast

distances. The pipes themselves must be stronger to withstand

ocean currents. Equipment on the sea floor must be sturdier

to face extreme pressures at depth. Drill bits must be

tougher so they don't melt in the 400-degree temperatures

they encounter deep in the earth. And it is harder for

drillers to exert just the right amount of pressure down the

well bore, enough to keep oil and gas from spurting upwards--

a blowout--but not so much that they crack open the rocks

beneath the surface, which could also lead to a blowout.

It is clear that prevention, containment, and clean-up measures are not sufficient to handle oil leaks, particularly in deep waters.

American taxpayers should not forego revenue to incentivize offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it is not good energy policy either.

We need to move to clearer renewable fuels.

I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, like oil and coal.

Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses potential devastation, but rather should be used to develop and deploy clean energy technologies like wind and solar. I very much believe this.

That is why I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy.

One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve fuel economy

standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate. The good news is that the administration has taken the framework of this law and implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's standard.

The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. Last year, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, or oil, or coal. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go.

It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs creation.

We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to work. Programs like The Recovery Act grant program run by the Treasury Department have been very successful in encouraging private investment in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring 4,250 megawatts of clean power online and is expected to generate more than 143,000 green jobs by the end of the year, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The program, however, is set to expire at the end of year if we don't act. So, I'm working on legislation that will extend this successful program for an additional 2 years.

All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy future, and to move away from fossil fuels.

Let me make one final point clear, I don't believe the oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits.

Last year, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were almost $850 billion. Yet we continue to use money that should come to the U.S. Treasury, to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable.

Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should benefit too.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely, on clean, efficient and safe technologies.

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

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to further the restoration of the San Francisco Bay.

There are many areas in the country in with restoration is done, and I am pleased to introduce an authorization for restoration work in the San Francisco Bay with Senator Boxer, Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and to work with our colleague Representative Speier in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As an appropriator, and Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, I have secured $17 million in Federal funding for ecosystem restoration and water quality work in the San Francisco Bay in the last 3 years. I have also secured $15 million since 2006 for the Fish and Wildlife Service to restore salt ponds to tidal wetlands in the Bay.

It is necessary to ensure that these funds continue to be appropriated and are spent on the most important projects for the ecosystem and public benefit.

To that end, this legislation will prioritize funding for projects that will protect and restore vital estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wildlife; improve and restore water quality and rearing habitat for fish; and ensure public benefits.

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

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to further the restoration of the San Francisco Bay.

There are many areas in the country in with restoration is done, and I am pleased to introduce an authorization for restoration work in the San Francisco Bay with Senator Boxer, Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and to work with our colleague Representative Speier in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As an appropriator, and Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, I have secured $17 million in Federal funding for ecosystem restoration and water quality work in the San Francisco Bay in the last 3 years. I have also secured $15 million since 2006 for the Fish and Wildlife Service to restore salt ponds to tidal wetlands in the Bay.

It is necessary to ensure that these funds continue to be appropriated and are spent on the most important projects for the ecosystem and public benefit.

To that end, this legislation will prioritize funding for projects that will protect and restore vital estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wildlife; improve and restore water quality and rearing habitat for fish; and ensure public benefits.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the conference report on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

This conference report expands sanctions authorized by the Iranian Sanctions Act of 1996 to foreign companies who sell Iran refined petroleum, support Iran's domestic refining capacity or sell Iran goods, services, or know-how that assist it in developing its energy sector; bans U.S. banks from engaging in financial transactions with foreign banks who do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or facilitate Iran's nuclear program and its support for terrorism; establishes three new sanctions the President may impose on violators of the Iranian Sanctions Act and requires the President to impose at least three of nine possible sanctions authorized by that act; bans U.S. government procurement contracts to companies that export technology to Iran that inhibits the free flow of information; and authorizes States and local governments to divest from companies involved in Iran's energy sector.

The sanctions will terminate when the President certifies to Congress that Iran is no longer a state-sponsor of terrorism and has ceased efforts to acquire nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles and technology.

Let me be clear: I am deeply concerned about Iran's uranium enrichment program and its refusal to abide by United Nations Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to cease its activities and, once and for all, come clean about its nuclear program.

A nuclear Iran would represent a serious threat to the security of the United States, Israel, and the international community.

The question is, What is the best way to convince Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program?

During the previous administration, the United States sat on the sidelines and refused to talk to Iran.

We let the United Kingdom, France, and Germany do the hard work of negotiating with Tehran as we remained silent.

And it got us nowhere. Iran's uranium enrichment program accelerated and became more advanced.

We had to try a different approach.

I strongly supported the Obama administration's decision to break with this past and pursue a robust, diplomatic initiative with Iran.

I am disappointed we have not made more progress. Indeed, Iran has taken steps in the wrong direction.

A new, secret enrichment facility at Qom was uncovered.

Iran refused to accept a U.S.-Russian proposal to ship its low enriched uranium to Russia and France for further processing for medical isotopes.

And it continues to drag its feet on revealing to the International Atomic Energy Agency the full extent of its nuclear program.

But the commitment this administration made to diplomacy gave us the leverage we needed to secure the backing for a fourth round of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council.

There was no question that China and Russia were skeptical about additional sanctions.

Securing their support and maintaining the support of our allies required principled, sustained, and deft diplomacy and I congratulate the administration for its success.

Yet I recognize that the U.N. resolution could have been stronger and that unilateral action, such as the sanctions included in this legislation, will complement the U.N. efforts.

And that is why I support passage of this legislation.

Nevertheless, I believe it is critical for the United States to continue to pursue the diplomacy track.

We must develop a ``Plan B'' to deal with the possibility that Iran's nuclear ambitions progress.

Iran has been able to withstand previous sanctions initiatives and there is no guarantee that this latest round will be more effective.

We know that China and Russia are unlikely to support tougher measures at this time.

Military action is not a ``Plan B''. A strike would likely only delay, not destroy, Iran's nuclear program and lead to more violence and instability in the region.

In my view, we must use the passage of the latest U.N. Security Council resolution and passage of this legislation as an opportunity to reach out to Tehran again on a fresh diplomatic initiative, not just on the nuclear program but on other issues where we can find some level of common ground and avenues of cooperation.

Two months ago I had lunch with Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazaee, and I was struck by the lack of trust and understanding between our two countries.

If we can find ways to build that trust, we may be able to secure progress on the most intractable issues.

As chair of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I strongly suggest that cooperation on counternarcotics efforts is a good place to start.

For example, Iran has suffered greatly from the influx of Afghan opium:

based on U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime annual assessments, approximately 140 tons of Afghan heroin enter Iran each year from Afghanistan--105 tons--and from Pakistan--35 tons; the estimated heroin user population in Iran is around 400,000 individuals, consuming, at a rate of about 35 grams per year, almost 14 tons of heroin annually; drug trafficking is considered such a major security threat that the government has spent over US$600 million to dig ditches, build barriers and install barbed wire to stop well-armed drug convoys from entering the country; and more than 3,500 Iranian border guards have been killed in the past three decades by drug traffickers.

Given that the Iranian drug use epidemic is providing funding for the insurgency in Afghanistan, it seems logical to begin a cooperative dialogue with Iran on this area of mutual concern to build trust between both sides and promote progress on other matters, particularly Iran's nuclear program.

I am hopeful that the passage of this legislation will not cease efforts on a diplomatic solution, but open the door to finding new ways to build trust and understanding between Iran and the international community.

There is no guarantee that we will be successful in convincing Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program but we have to explore every possible avenue.

I firmly believe that we can still find a solution and work out our differences.

I am hopeful that this legislation will bring us closer to that goal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, tomorrow the President of the United States will address the Nation on the 90-day anniversary of the passage of health care reform, so I have come to the floor at this time to discuss an omission from the health care bill, and that omission is the protection of consumers from unfair medical insurance premium rate increases, which, as I will show in the next 15 minutes, are now taking place virtually all over this Nation.

On March 4, I introduced legislation to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the ability to set up a rate review procedure to provide that insurance premium rate increases are reasonable. Senators Boxer, Burris, Casey, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Reed, Sanders, and Whitehouse have all cosponsored this bill. I originally proposed the amendment during the health care reform debate. We worked with the Administration in putting it together. We worked with the Finance Committee. We worked with Representative Schakowsky in the House, who has introduced the same legislation. President Obama decided to include it in his health care reform proposal, but unfortunately it did not meet the criteria for reconciliation and therefore had to be dropped. On March 4, I introduced a bill to provide this rate review, and on April 20 Senator Harkin was good enough to hold a full hearing in the HELP Committee.

The time has come to take action. The time has come to protect consumers from the egregious abuse of insurance companies that are, in fact, taking place across this very Nation today.

Health insurance premiums have been spiraling upwards at out-of- control rates--10, 20, 30 percent per year--all while big national insurance companies enjoy increasing profits.

Everyone by now is familiar with the increases that Anthem Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint, was set to impose--as much as 39 percent--for 800,000 Californians in the individual market. It turns out that Anthem Blue Cross used flawed data to calculate these health insurance premium increases for hundreds of thousands of California policyholders, resulting in increases that were larger than necessary. The State insurance commissioner ordered an independent actuarial study, and here is what they found: They found that the 25-percent average increase proposed by Anthem should only have been 15.2 percent.

What is most disturbing is that Anthem's case is not an aberration. Far from it. The five major insurers in the small group market in California--Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente, Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, and United Health Care--have just announced rate increases for small businesses that will average 12 to 23 percent. Some will be hit with rate increases as much as 76 percent. That likely means people will lose their insurance. This means that over 1.6 million Californians will shortly see increases in premiums. These premium increases have been going on all along. As a matter of fact, literally hundreds of thousands of Californians have had to lose their insurance because they can't pay these premium increases.

This is not a problem unique to California. The White House reports that premium rates have been rising across the Nation with substantial geographic variation. For employer-sponsored family coverage, premiums have increased 88 percent in Michigan over the past decade compared with a 145-percent increase in Alaska.

A recent report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that WellPoint is pursuing double-digit increases in the individual market for 10 other States in addition to California: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Here are a few examples of those rate increases in the individual market. Average rates in Colorado will increase by 19.9 percent. Some consumers will see increases as high as 24.5 percent. In Maine, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield requested a 23-percent increase in 2010. They then sued the State's insurance commissioner for rejecting an 18.5- percent increase last year on top of it. But in April a Maine court upheld the insurance commissioner's decision. In Indiana, rates are expected to increase 21 percent in 2010.

Other insurance companies are also raising rates. Health Care Service Corporation of New Mexico proposed 24.6 percent increases for about 40,000 individual policies last fall. The school district in Weston, CT, is served by CIGNA, which proposed a 23-percent increase in the district's insurance premiums for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.

In a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 77 percent of people purchasing insurance in the individual market report being asked for premium increases. That is over three-fourths. These increases are averaging 20 percent. We don't know the extent of the problem nationwide, but the reporting requirements in the health reform law will improve the information available. However, right now, until changes go into effect, there is a glaring loophole which allows for private for-profit medical insurance companies--the big ones--to increase rates as much as they possibly want to and possibly can.

The recently signed health care bill does require insurance companies to provide justification for unreasonable premium increases to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They must also post these justifications on their Web sites. This provides transparency, granted, but it leaves the loophole. Simply stated, the Secretary has no authority to do anything about these rate increases. So an insurance company can argue the large increase is justified, but in some States there is no review to see that it is. In other States, officials may not have the authority to block an increase that is not justified. We need to close this loophole.

The bill we have introduced will do just that. This legislation gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to block premium or other rate increases that are unreasonable. In some States, insurance commissioners already have that authority, and that is fine. The bill doesn't touch them. In Maine, for example, the State superintendent of insurance was able to block Anthem's proposed 18.5- percent increase last year. She approved only a 10.9-percent increase.

In 23 States, including my own--California--companies are not required to receive approval for rate increases before they take effect.

So this legislation we have introduced simply creates a Federal fallback, allowing the Secretary to conduct reviews of potentially unreasonable rates in States where the insurance commissioner does not--and I repeat, does not--already have the authority or the capability to do so. That is in 23 States.

The Secretary would review potentially unreasonable premium increases and take corrective action. This could include blocking an increase, providing rebates to consumers, or adjusting an increase.

Under this proposal, the Secretary would work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to implement the rate review process. She would identify States that have the authority and capability to review rates. States already doing this work will continue to do so unabated and unfettered. The legislation would not affect

them. However, for the consumers in the other 23 States with no authority, such as California, protection from unfair rate hikes would be provided.

This proposal would also create a Rate Authority, a seven-member advisory body to assist the Secretary with these responsibilities. A wide range of interests would be represented, including consumers, the insurance industry, medical practitioners, and other experts.

I think this proposal strikes the right balance. There is no need for involvement in States with insurance commissioners that are able to protect consumers. So the legislation I have introduced simply provides Federal protection for consumers who are currently at the mercy of large health insurance companies whose top priority is their bottom line.

We, in fact, are the only industrialized country in the world that relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care. As T.R. Reid says in his book ``The Healing of America'': No country with a large for-profit medical insurance industry has been able to really reform health care costs.

So what we have in America today are multiple large, for-profit insurance companies. They are public companies. They are focused on profits. They are heavily concentrated. They leave consumers with few alternatives when their premiums increase. They have merged over the years and they have gained market concentration in a way that no other business or industry is allowed to do in the United States because they have an antitrust exemption. Major League Baseball has that exemption. The health insurance industry is one of only a few industries with this exemption.

The Judiciary Committee has passed out legislation which would remove that antitrust exemption, and that legislation should be passed as soon as possible. In 2007, just two carriers--WellPoint and United Health Group--gained control of 35 percent of the national market for commercial health insurance. That is because they have merged and acquired using that antitrust exemption.

According to a study by the American Medical Association, more than 94 percent of American health insurance markets have a highly concentrated market share. This means these companies could raise premiums or reduce benefits with little fear that consumers will end their contracts or move to a more competitive carrier because they have bought up the more competitive carriers.

In my State of California, just two companies--WellPoint and Kaiser Permanente--control more than 58 percent of the market. In Los Angeles, these two carriers controlled 62 percent of the market in 2008. Before health care reform, these companies had little incentive to be efficient with the premium dollars they collected. These large insurance companies have large and substantial profit margins while continuing to raise premiums for consumers.

According to Health Care for America Now!, four of the five largest health insurance companies--WellPoint, United Health, Humana, CIGNA-- saw profits increase 56 percent from 2008 to 2009; that is, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion. Only Aetna saw their profits decrease.

In the first 3 months of 2010, the five largest for-profit medical health insurance companies--WellPoint Inc., United Health Group, Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and CIGNA Corp.--recorded a combined net income of $3.2 billion. That is in the first 3 months of this year.

Here is the significance: That is a 31-percent jump over the first 3 months of 2009. So just in the first 3 months of this year, through premium increases they now have a $3.2 billion or 31-percent increase in profits.

Here are the company profits for the first quarter of 2010:

WellPoint, $876.8 million; that is a 51-percent increase over the same quarter in 2009. Humana, $258.8 million; that is a 26-percent increase in the first quarter 2010 over first quarter 2009. Aetna, a $562.6 million profit; that is a 29-percent increase for the first quarter 2010 over first quarter 2009. UnitedHealth, $1.19 billion; that is a 21-percent increase first quarter 2010 over first quarter of 2009. Cigna, $283 million; that is a 36-percent increase first quarter over first quarter of last year.

See, this is amazing. They receive these huge profit margins, then they turn around and raise premiums on consumers, many of whom are struggling to keep their insurance because they have lost their jobs, and many of whom have had a double-digit increase last year and even the year before.

In 2009, despite the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, these insurers set a full-year profit record. This caps a decade of enormous profit growth in the industry. Between 2000 and 2007, profits at 10 of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies soared 428 percent--from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $12.9 billion in 2007.

The rapidly increasing insurance premiums are a piece of a larger problem. Multiple factors, including the large profit sustained by many hospitals, now are contributing to the cost of health care in the United States. So what we are seeing is an increase in costs charged by major hospitals.

But it is important to note that while the cost of medical care is increasing, premiums are rising much faster than the cost of medical inflation. I must say, there are predictions that we will build into our budget deficit a structural deficit, and that structural deficit will come from these very rising health care costs. Mr. President, we must do something about it.

From 2000 to 2008, premiums for employer-sponsored health plans increased 97 percent for families and 90 percent for individuals. At the same time, the payments that private insurers made to health care providers increased 72 percent, medical inflation increased 39 percent, wages increased 29 percent, and overall inflation increased 21 percent. So figure inflation increased 21 percent, wages 29, medical inflation 39, and payments to health care providers increased 72 percent, yet insurance premiums increased 97 percent. Much more than the increase in medical costs. That is the problem. If we let it happen, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Meanwhile, consumers struggle to afford these continued rate hikes. Between December 31, 2008, and March 31, 2010, the combined commercial enrollment of these five companies fell by 2.8 million Americans. So insurers make increasing profits by increasing rates and, at the same time, they push 2.8 million Americans off of medical insurance because of those increasing rates. This is very real. It is happening out there every day, every week, every month. We must do something about it.

Let me give you one personal story. Laurel Kaufer is a 48-year-old single mother of two sons. She lives in Woodland Hills in my State. She is a self-employed mediator and lawyer. She has had Blue Cross for 25 years. Her son, Brandon, is 21 and he attends the University of Arizona. Her son, Zack, is 19 and goes to USC.

Anthem Blue Cross has raised her health insurance rates 550 percent over the last 10 years. Between February of 2001 and March of 2010, Ms. Kaufer has spent $52,128 on health insurance premiums alone. That doesn't include deductibles.

She has no choice but to pay the increases. With her two sons in college, she doesn't have any disposable income. She seeks medical treatment only when she has to. She and her son do their annual checkups, but as Ms. Kaufer says:

Sometimes I don't get a test that a doctor says I should

have, because it costs me money, and I wait it out to see if

I can do without it.

This is a family with insurance, passing up tests because they already spend over $52,000 on premiums.

There are numerous stories like these. Individuals and families have to choose whether to buy groceries, pay their mortgage, or purchase health insurance.

As I pointed out, in the last few years, 2.8 million Americans who were previously insured by for-profit insurance companies have severed their policies or lost their insurance because they can't pay the bill.

I strongly believe we need to take action on this and soon because it is going to continue and it is going to spiral. These companies are going to take every advantage of a loophole in the law to raise premiums, to be able to increase their profit margin and push more people off of insurance.

This bill is very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, the Health Insurance Rate Authority of 2010, which will close this loophole.