Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Robert Little Ebert, a respected and inspiring Maryland community leader and philanthropist who passed away at age 93 on May 9, 2010. Mr. Ebert served as Allegany County commissioner from 1962 to 1970, and he continued to dedicate himself to the progress and prosperity of the area throughout his lifetime. Mr. Ebert was especially dedicated to eradicating poverty throughout his community, and he demonstrated a consistent willingness to help people through his involvement in various philanthropic and community organizations. Mr. Ebert was born in Parkersburg, WV in 1916, and attended Marietta College in Ohio, graduating in 1938. He later worked as a radio newscaster in the Midwest and served as an Ensign in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Following the war, Mr. Ebert moved to Cumberland, MD, to join his mother in the S.T. Little Jewelry Company, a family business founded by his great-grandfather in 1851. Mr. Ebert eventually became president and general manager of the company, and he devoted himself to the development and success of his business's locale in downtown Cumberland. Mr. Ebert's leadership and business acumen helped shape downtown Cumberland. He served as chairman of the Downtown Cumberland Business Association and the Downtown Development Commission. He served as chairman of the Board of the Allegany County Department of Social Services and as chairman of the Allegany County Chapter of the American Red Cross and was involved with civic organizations such as the Cumberland Cultural Foundation and the Cumberland Rotary Club. While Mr. Ebert often wished for his charitable contributions to remain anonymous and tried to stay behind-the-scenes, his philanthropic endeavors eventually inspired him to become the founding donor of the Community Trust Foundation. The Community Trust Foundation, established in 2006, serves Maryland's Allegany and Garrett Counties as well as West Virginia's Mineral County by providing the administrative services, sophisticated investment management, professional advice, and stewardship that help communities maximize their charitable giving and investing. The Community Trust Foundation served as a stepping stone for Mr. Ebert to establish the Elta Mae and Robert Little Ebert Family Hope Fund. The Family Hope Fund is a leader in fostering cooperation and collaboration among the area's many philanthropic organizations that work to prevent poverty. The fund has made, and will continue to make, enormous achievements thanks to Mr. Ebert's leadership and dedication. Mr. Ebert was immensely successful professionally, and he was also a loving husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. He leaves behind three daughters, five granddaughters, and four great- grandchildren as well as countless friends and admirers. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the many accomplishments of Mr. Robert Little Ebert and in recognizing him as a truly inspiring community leader and humanitarian.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this past Friday I had the opportunity to travel to the Gulf of Mexico along with three of our colleagues, including Senator Mikulski, my colleague from Maryland, Senator Vitter from Louisiana, and Senator Merkley from Florida. All of us know the importance of coasts. We represent coastal States, and we know how important it is to our economy, and we know how important it is to our way of life. I know Senator Vitter represents that area. We wanted to visit and see firsthand the impact the BP oilspill is having on the communities in the Gulf of Mexico. I must tell my colleagues, seeing it firsthand, one can really start to understand the magnitude of this disaster. One can see the horrific impact it is having on the people of that region, and one can see the anger in their eyes and the desperation of people who are no longer working, and one can see the oil. You can see the oil all over. You can see it in the water. You see it in the marshes. You see it on the coast. It is a horrible thing to see. We visited the area known as the Grand Isles. The Grand Isles is a beach area not too far from New Orleans. Grand Isles is a beach community. It is a city. It reminds me a little bit of Ocean City, MD. I was just thinking of how the people of Maryland would be responding if they knew Ocean City would not be open for the season. When we saw the area of Grand Isles, it was empty. No one was on the beaches. There were some people on the beaches working, cleaning up, but no tourists, no people, no children enjoying the water. You couldn't go into the water. The disaster is having a horrible impact on the economy of not just Grand Isles but the entire region. We then had a chance to go by boat to see Queen Bess Island and Pelican or Bird Island, which are two of the major islands that are used by birds for nesting. We saw oil. We saw oil on the booms that had been deployed. We saw oil on the rocks on the island itself, and, more tragically, we saw birds that were covered with oil. This should never have happened. I think it just strengthened our resolve about the priorities we must have in this Senate, the priorities that government must follow. The first, of course, is to stop the flow at the wellhead because oil is gushing out into the Gulf of Mexico. What we saw, of course, is oil that had been in the water for many days, had degraded but was still guck and still deadly to birds and certainly deadly to the economy of the region. But oil is still coming out at the wellhead. Let me remind my colleagues that BP has tried many ways of stopping that oil from coming into the gulf. Of course, as the Presiding Officer knows from the hearings we have had in the Environment and Public Works Committee, BP said they had proven technology to deal with any of these types of spills. Well, that proven technology doesn't exist. They are trying to on the fly determine how to deal with the oil. So now they have a process of capturing the oil that will bring in 18,000 barrels a day. Remember, BP said originally it was a 1-barrel-a- day incident, and then they increased it to 5,000 barrels a day. We now know it is closer to 40,000 barrels a day. The technology they are deploying will recover about 18,000 barrels. They hope to be able to increase that perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 barrels, still leaving tens of thousands of barrels gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, and it will continue for several months until the relief wells are drilled. That is the current status. Our priority, of course, is to stop the wellhead but also to contain the damages. Oil appears sometimes unexpectedly at different locations. So the game plan has to use the best technologies we have with booms and skimmers to keep the oil from reaching sensitive areas. Admiral Watson, the Coast Guard Command, reviewed the strategy with us. While we think it is important for the command to set performance standards for BP across the board, we also think we have to have the right organizational structure. Let me just mention one point that was troubling to us. Yes, we saw booms that had been deployed, but they were not maintained. If they are not maintained, oil gets to the shore, killing birds and killing our environment. We have to make sure that is corrected. I thank Admiral Watson. He got back to me Saturday night. We had a conversation, along with Senator Boxer, and steps are being changed. That is why we have to have performance standards on BP oil. We have to make sure we are in control, as to making sure all technologies are deployed to protect our environment. Then, yes, we have to hold BP fully accountable for all of the damages. We all talk about how they have to be fully accountable. But let's remind the public that BP, in getting the permit to drill, said they had proven technology to deal with any type of incident. They were not truthful on that statement. They didn't have that. So they have to be held fully accountable. We are talking about criminal investigations that will go where they may. But they clearly have to pay all of the economic and environmental damages. The economic damages are clear. We have talked to fishermen who aren't fishing this season, and they don't know if they will ever go back to fishing. We talked to one fisherman whose family has been in that business for generations. We talked to shop owners where there was nobody in the shop. We saw charter boat owners who cannot operate. BP has to be accountable to these small business owners and the property owners. I strongly support the effort of our majority leader and the President to have BP put money into a trust fund, with independent trustees, so we can expedite the process. It doesn't do a business owner any good if he has a long list of documents he has to fill out to get the help he needs in order to keep his business afloat. Those who were victimized need to be able to get relief as soon as possible. I think an escrow fund makes a lot of sense, and $20 billion seems like a reasonable start. I hope we will move forward. I know the President is meeting with the CEO of BP Oil on Wednesday. Tomorrow, I hope that will lead to the resolution of that issue. Let me point out that BP also has to be held responsible for the environmental damages that will go well beyond the Gulf of Mexico. The Loop Current is bringing the oil around the Keys and to the east coast of the United States. It will affect many regions, including mine in the Mid-Atlantic. Many of our migratory wildlife travel through the gulf. We don't know whether they will be returning to Maryland. We don't know the impact it will have on our wildlife population--those who enjoy hunting and bird watching on the Eastern Shore, those who understand the importance of the diversity of our wildlife--whether we will be endangering different species. We need to document that and mitigate it. I have the honor of chairing the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We are holding hearings, thanks to Senator Boxer, next month to start the accounting process, to make sure there is an independent, objective accounting as to the full damages that BP has caused and its related organization--economic damages and environmental damages. Then, going forward with drilling, we all understand mineral management is a critical part of our energy strategy. We cannot drill unless we have an independent agency issuing the permits. We have to make sure the public's interest is protected as new permits are granted. Yes, there are areas where we don't drill today because they are environmentally too sensitive and there is not enough oil to make it worth the risk. I include in that the area I represent in the Mid- Atlantic, where there was a site they were going to move forward with drilling just 50 miles from Assateague Island, just 60 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake. If we would have had a spill a fraction of the amount that occurred in the gulf, with the prevailing winds and currents, it would have a devastating impact on the Chesapeake Bay and the beaches of Maryland and also Delaware and Virginia. It is not worth the risk. The oil is not significant enough there for that. Lastly, I hope we use this opportunity, as President Obama suggested, to move forward with a new energy policy for our country. We need to rely less on oil and more on alternative and renewable energy sources. I agree we need to do more with nuclear power. We need to consume less energy and improve the way we operate our buildings and the way we manage our transportation systems. We need to become energy independent, and we can do that. But we cannot do it through drilling. We can do it through a comprehensive energy policy so we can protect our national security and create jobs in America rather than exporting those jobs overseas and, yes, so that we can protect our environment from the type of disaster that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. I hope that is how we respond. My trip to the gulf reinforced my efforts, and I hope the efforts of all my colleagues, to say that we can do things better. Let's clean up this mess, let's hold BP responsible, and let's develop an energy policy that will protect America's security, help our economy, and protect our environment. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today I commemorate the 233rd Flag Day in the United States. On June 14, 1777, nearly a year after our Nation declared its independence, the Second Continental Congress approved the design of our national flag. The 13 stripes that alternate red and white and the white stars on a field of blue have proudly stood as a beacon of liberty and justice around the world ever since. Flag Day--the anniversary of the Flag Resolution of 1777--was officially established by the Proclamation of President Woodrow Wilson in 1916. While Flag Day was celebrated in various communities for years after Wilson's proclamation, it was not until 1949 that President Truman signed an act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day and the corresponding week as National Flag Week. My home State of Maryland plays an integral role in the rich history of our flag. The flag was the source of inspiration for Francis Scott Key's ``Star Spangled Banner'' which became our national anthem. That most famous of American flags flew over Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor. It bravely withstood the torrent of British buckshot and still hangs today in the Smithsonian Museum of American History. Each year the National Flag Day Foundation of Baltimore, MD, sponsors a moving ceremony at the Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine which brings our community together in celebration and remembrance of our glorious past. America's flag graces classrooms, statehouses, courtrooms, and churches, serving as a daily reminder of this Nation's past accomplishments and ongoing dedication to safeguarding individual rights. The brave members of our Armed Forces carry ``Old Glory'' with them as they fulfill their mission to defend the blessings of democracy and peace across the globe; our banner flies from public buildings as a sign of our national community; and its folds drape the tombs of our distinguished dead. The flag is a badge of honor to all and a sign of our citizens' common purpose. This week and throughout the year let us do all we can to teach younger generations the significance of our flag. Its 13 red and white stripes represent not only the original colonies but also the courage and purity of our Nation, while its 50 stars stand for the separate but United States of our Union. Let us pledge allegiance to this flag to declare our patriotism and raise its colors high to express our pride and respect for the American way of life.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in recent weeks the issue of polluted stormwater runoff from federal properties has again gained significant attention. I continue to have grave concerns about the failure of the Federal Government to pay localities for reasonable costs associated with the control and abatement of pollution that is originating on its properties. At stake is a fundamental issue of equity: polluters should be financially responsible for the pollution that they cause. That includes the Federal Government. Today I am introducing legislation that makes it clear. Uncle Sam must pay his bills just like every other American. Annually hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants wash off the hardened surfaces in urban areas and into local rivers and streams, threatening the health of our citizens and causing significant environmental degradation. A one-acre parking lot produces about 16 times the volume of runoff that comes from a one-acre meadow. These pollutants include heavy metals, nitrogen and phosphorous, oil and grease, pesticides, bacteria, including deadly e. coli, sediment, toxic chemicals, and debris. Indeed, stormwater runoff is the largest source sector for many imperiled bodies of water across the country. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, stormwater pollution affects all types of water bodies including in order of severity; ocean shoreline, estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes shorelines, lakes and rivers. Degraded aquatic habitats are found everywhere that stormwater enters local waterways. On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued a Federal Executive order on sustainability which set goals for Federal agencies and focused on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance. Among other requirements, the order specifically requires the implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438. I am the author of that provision, which requires the Federal Government to maintain the predevelopment hydrology ``to the maximum extent practicable'' of all new building sites or major renovations. This requirement echoed the provision in the President's Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order issued on May 12, 2009. In the final Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, issued on the one-year anniversary of the Executive Order, each Federal agency is being called upon to implement ``the stormwater requirements for new development and redevelopment in Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. . .'' (pp. 33-34). These parallel Federal stormwater management requirements are explicit recognition of the importance of controlling and managing stormwater pollution from Federal properties. As EPA requires more communities to address stormwater pollution through Clean Water Act required Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permits, these communities are responding with a variety of fee-based management systems that will allow them to mitigate, manage and prevent this type of pollution. The EPA requires National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permits for large communities. The President has issued two Executive Orders that directly note the need to address this type of pollution ``to the maximum extent practicable.'' Clearly, these actions demonstrate that the administration recognizes the importance of dealing adequately with stormwater pollution. I believe that this administration recognizes its responsibility to manage the stormwater pollution that comes off Federal properties. But that responsibility needs to translate into payments to the local governments that are forced to deal with this pollution. That commitment needs to be more than an Executive order. Adopting the legislation that I am introducing today will remove all ambiguity about the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay these normal and customary stormwater fees. This is a matter of basic equity. I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple legislative remedy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill he printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in recent weeks the issue of polluted stormwater runoff from federal properties has again gained significant attention. I continue to have grave concerns about the failure of the Federal Government to pay localities for reasonable costs associated with the control and abatement of pollution that is originating on its properties. At stake is a fundamental issue of equity: polluters should be financially responsible for the pollution that they cause. That includes the Federal Government. Today I am introducing legislation that makes it clear. Uncle Sam must pay his bills just like every other American. Annually hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants wash off the hardened surfaces in urban areas and into local rivers and streams, threatening the health of our citizens and causing significant environmental degradation. A one-acre parking lot produces about 16 times the volume of runoff that comes from a one-acre meadow. These pollutants include heavy metals, nitrogen and phosphorous, oil and grease, pesticides, bacteria, including deadly e. coli, sediment, toxic chemicals, and debris. Indeed, stormwater runoff is the largest source sector for many imperiled bodies of water across the country. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, stormwater pollution affects all types of water bodies including in order of severity; ocean shoreline, estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes shorelines, lakes and rivers. Degraded aquatic habitats are found everywhere that stormwater enters local waterways. On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued a Federal Executive order on sustainability which set goals for Federal agencies and focused on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance. Among other requirements, the order specifically requires the implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438. I am the author of that provision, which requires the Federal Government to maintain the predevelopment hydrology ``to the maximum extent practicable'' of all new building sites or major renovations. This requirement echoed the provision in the President's Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order issued on May 12, 2009. In the final Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, issued on the one-year anniversary of the Executive Order, each Federal agency is being called upon to implement ``the stormwater requirements for new development and redevelopment in Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. . .'' (pp. 33-34). These parallel Federal stormwater management requirements are explicit recognition of the importance of controlling and managing stormwater pollution from Federal properties. As EPA requires more communities to address stormwater pollution through Clean Water Act required Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permits, these communities are responding with a variety of fee-based management systems that will allow them to mitigate, manage and prevent this type of pollution. The EPA requires National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permits for large communities. The President has issued two Executive Orders that directly note the need to address this type of pollution ``to the maximum extent practicable.'' Clearly, these actions demonstrate that the administration recognizes the importance of dealing adequately with stormwater pollution. I believe that this administration recognizes its responsibility to manage the stormwater pollution that comes off Federal properties. But that responsibility needs to translate into payments to the local governments that are forced to deal with this pollution. That commitment needs to be more than an Executive order. Adopting the legislation that I am introducing today will remove all ambiguity about the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay these normal and customary stormwater fees. This is a matter of basic equity. I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple legislative remedy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill he printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as the world is looking at the worst oilspill in America's history--it may yet become the worst oilspill ever--everyone is saying: Well, what are we going to do about this? What is our response? Our response needs to be, first, to stop the oil from spilling into the Gulf of Mexico; second, to make sure we clean up this mess and hold BP and its related companies fully responsible for all damages, whether to the businesses that have been put out of business, literally, by what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico or the property owners or the taxpayers. BP has to be held fully accountable. They are looking forward to us making sure that future drilling in this country is done in a safe way; that we have a regulatory system in place that protects the public, that is independent, and that will protect environmentally sensitive areas where there is currently no drilling, such as the Mid-Atlantic, from any drilling. But they are also looking for us to have an energy policy--an energy policy that makes sense for America; that we invest in alternative and renewable energy sources; that we conserve energy; and that, yes, we manage our mineral resources as best we can and use less oil. Well, the Murkowski resolution does just the opposite. It is very strange, the timing of this resolution, that we are taking up what would prevent the EPA regulations and would require us to use more oil rather than less oil. That makes no sense at all. It stops dead in its tracks efforts to cut the oil consumption of cars and trucks sold in America. You may ask why this resolution is being considered. Well, it is clearly supported by big oil. But whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the American consumers or on the side of big oil? On April 1, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation completed standards to decrease the oil consumption in model years 2012 through 2016 cars and light trucks sold in the United States. Those standards will result in vehicles that will use almost 2 billion barrels less than current models. That is what we should be doing: using less oil. That needs to be part of our future. On May 21, President Obama directed EPA and DOT to follow up over the next 2 years with standards for trucks and buses starting with model year 2014 and for cars and light trucks starting with model year 2017. Those follow-on standards will further reduce U.S. oil consumption by billions of barrels. But the Murkowski resolution would compel EPA to rescind its portion of the completed standard and prevent the Agency from taking part in the follow-on ones--in other words, stopping us from improving the efficiency of our fleets, causing us to use more oil. Not surprisingly, big oil is trying to disguise their resolution as something other than what it is. They claim it is necessary to prevent EPA from regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of small businesses and even homes and farms. Nothing could be further from the truth. As every Senator knows, EPA has already issued a final rule to shield small businesses, to shield homes, to shield farms, and to shield all other small sources from regulation for at least the next 6 years. Six years is more than enough time to pass a law making the exemption for small sources permanent. The resolution of disapproval has just one certain outcome: that America's dangerous dependence on oil will continue. We cannot allow this resolution to be approved. It would eliminate the legal foundation of the EPA oil-savings standards that are essential to breaking our addiction to oil. It is time to decide whose side you are on. I choose the side of the American consumer, and I ask my colleagues to stand with me and reject the Murkowski resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the amendment we will be voting on is an amendment that allows the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan enrollees to enroll their children up to age 26 immediately rather than waiting until January 1, which is what the new law provides. Private insurance companies are providing this opportunity now for their individuals. Let me point out that I understand a point of order might be raised under the Budget Act. This has negligible costs. In fact, it will save some money in that children who reach the age of 22 between now and the end of the year will be required to disenroll and then reenroll again after January 1, which makes no sense whatsoever. The Office of Personnel Management wants to implement this plan now. They have the capacity to do it, but they need the legal authority to do it. For the sake of our 8 million active Federal workers, retirees, and their families, it makes sense for us in an orderly way to allow their children up to age 26 to be part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan now rather than have to wait until January 1. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support the waiver of the budget point of order.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask that there be a waiver of all points of order. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of the American Child'' on June 8, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I took the floor a little earlier today to explain that this amendment allows the members of the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan to be able to enroll their children up to age 26 immediately rather than waiting for the beginning of the year, which would effectively deny those who are graduating from college today, who may not qualify as being under 22 and single, to be able to stay or enroll on their parents' Federal Employee Benefits plan. This is an amendment that the OPM Director supports in that he would like to do this but can't do it under the current law. It has minimal cost. Private insurance companies are allowing up to 26-year-olds to enroll on their parents' policies today. This allows the government workforce to have those same rights. It would normally take effect at the beginning of the year. It makes sense to do this now. It is bipartisan. It is supported by Democratic and Republican Senators. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about amendment No. 4304, which I hope I will be able to get cleared by setting aside the pending amendment in order to offer it. At this time, let me bring to the attention of my colleagues what the amendment would do. This amendment would affect the Federal employees' health benefit plans by allowing the administrator to change the current rules to enroll children up to the age of 26. Currently, the restriction for Federal employees is that they can only enroll unmarried children to age 22. There are 8 million Federal employees and retirees covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. As I am sure everyone is aware, under the law recently passed and signed by President Obama, we have now extended coverage for children up to the age of 26. However, that becomes effective under the law for plans entered into after September 23, 2010. For most plans, the requirement to include children being able to enroll up to age 26 would begin on January 1 of next year when the plan year begins. Private insurance companies have responded. They understand that this is not really a cost issue and that it makes sense to allow the children of the plan holders up to the age of 26 to be enrolled immediately. Most of the private insurance companies have responded by opening enrollment now. OPM Director John Berry would like to do the same. He has stated he would like to begin expanding coverage for enrollee adult children now, rather than wait until January to offer this cost-saving benefit. The problem is, current law prevents him from doing that because of the definition of a dependent child being an unmarried child, age 22. The purpose of this amendment is to give OPM the authority to start to enroll now children who have not reached their 26th birthday. This is particularly important knowing we are in the graduation season. Many of us are very proud to attend our children's graduations. Many of these children would like to remain on their parents' policy now that they are no longer eligible for insurance at college. Unfortunately, without this change, they will have to wait until January of next year, which will cause a lapse in coverage. The scoring of this is insignificant. We are not talking about a significant amount of additional cost. In fact, we believe it is really a cost-savings issue. This amendment was offered as a bill and enjoys bipartisan support. Senators Collins, Lieberman, Akaka, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Bingaman, Johnson, Kaufman, Kerry, Landrieu, Stabenow, Warner, Dodd, Dorgan, Levin, Cantwell, Casey, and Hagan have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. It has the support of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, and the list goes on. This amendment makes abundant sense. Our clear intent is to allow those who are under Federal employees' health benefit plans to take advantage of enrolling their children now. This amendment basically clarifies that law so that OPM can move forward to enroll children up to the age of 26 immediately and not wait until January of next year, causing a lapse in coverage. It is a bipartisan amendment, insignificant cost. I hope it will be cleared so I may offer it, and hopefully we can act on it without too much time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, later we will be taking up an amendment I filed to the supplemental appropriations bill--amendment No. 4191-- and at that time, with an agreement that is reached by all sides, I will not be asking for a vote on that amendment and will be withdrawing it. I wanted to give the reasons why I will be doing so. I was pleased that President Obama announced today that he would put on hold the lease-sale 220 site that is off the coast of Virginia for offshore drilling. Let me take us back to March, when President Obama made the announcement that certain parts of our coast--previously off limits for offshore drilling--would now be allowed to go forward with drilling. At that time, Senator Mikulski and I sent a letter, issued a statement, making it clear we would resist any efforts to drill off of the Virginia coast 50 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. We thought the risk of these drillings were too great with the amount of oil that may have been there. The President's announcement today takes that issue off the table, at least temporarily. The amendment I offered to the supplemental appropriations bill which, of course, would have been in effect during the use of the funds in the supplemental appropriations, would have prevented any of those funds from being used for drilling off the Atlantic or the straits of Florida. The President's announcement has now taken care of my immediate concern that there could have been an effort to move forward on drilling off of the Virginia coast. I want to go over the pluses and minuses of this, because I think it is an interesting dynamic here as to the benefits that could have been involved in drilling off of the Atlantic coast. As I said before, the site that was selected is about 50 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake, about 60 miles from Assateague Island. If there had been a spill, the prevailing winds, over 70 percent of the time, come into the coast or along the coast. That means if we had a spill, that spill would have had dramatic impact on the Chesapeake Bay, on Assateague Island, on the beaches of Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, and probably the east coast of the United States, and could have caused irreparable harm. The potential oil that is in site 220 matches about 1 week of our Nation's needs. So the risk-benefit here clearly dictates that we not drill along the mid-Atlantic. And I would like to add one additional factor, and that is there has been concern expressed by the Department of Defense as to moving forward with drilling off the shores of Virginia, because the Navy does operations within this area, and it would have been an encroachment on the ability of the Department of Defense to move forward with its needs. In a time of war, we certainly don't want to jeopardize the Defense needs. So for all those reasons, the Senators from this region--Senator Mikulski, myself, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Menendez--have been arguing very strenuously against moving forward, and that is the reason why I filed amendment No. 4191. Fortunately, the President has removed the immediate concern. Of course, since his March announcement, we have seen the BP Oil episode in the Gulf of Mexico--this horrific event. By the way, the largest spill we had in the United States--the Exxon Valdez accidental spill--was 10.8 million gallons. We now believe the spill in the Gulf of Mexico currently is approaching 40 million gallons. So we are talking about perhaps as much as three to four times the scope of what happened with the Exxon Valdez. We know the original estimates were wrong. We don't know the exact estimates. Some say it is even larger than that. But we do know that we have now exceeded the Exxon Valdez as far as the amount of oil that has gone into the Gulf of Mexico and, of course, is traveling. It is traveling, as Senator Nelson points out frequently, along the Loop Current that brings it around the Keys up the east coast of the United States. So this is having a catastrophic environmental impact. As I have said previously on the floor, the permits for the BP Oil site never should have been granted. The exploration plans spelled out very clearly that there was little risk of a spill, and that if they had a spill, it would not affect our coast because they had proven technology to prevent that from happening. Well, they didn't have proven technology. The blowout preventers had failed on numerous occasions previously, and we know that they misrepresented the facts. The point I am bringing up is that there is a need for significant change in our regulatory system as it relates to going forward with drilling, and the President is recognizing that today. He announced a moratorium on deep water and he also announced a modification on what is happening in the Arctic. I think all that is the right step moving forward. It is the first step forward, to acknowledge we have a problem. But I want to point out that the areas already available for exploration represent over 70 percent of our known reserves--I think over 80 percent on oil. So we are talking about a very little amount in new areas. And we only have less than 3 percent of the world's reserves. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. As the President said today, what happened in the Gulf of Mexico should be a real awakening call to our Nation to go forward with an energy policy to make us secure. We cannot drill our way out of this problem. We have to develop renewable and alternative energy sources. We need to be serious about conservation, and we need to look at ways that we can be energy secure and improve our economic outlook by creating jobs and also be friendly toward our environment. For all those reasons, it makes absolutely no sense whatever to move forward with new explorations along the Atlantic coast. Although I applaud the President's announcement today--it is a step in the right direction--what we need to do is take this site, lease sale 220, off the table permanently and take drilling in the Atlantic permanently off the table. I assure my colleagues I will be looking for a way in which we can speak to this to provide the legislative authority so drilling will not take place off the Atlantic coast. I know Senator Feinstein is also working on amendments to make sure we do not have any new permits issued until we have a regulatory system in place that we all have confidence is independent and will protect the environment and safety of the American people. The bottom line is that the American people have a right to expect we are going to do what is right for this country, that we are on their side and we are not just going to listen to what the oil industry wants. We are going to make sure we protect our environment and make sure we have an energy policy that makes sense for America. I think the President took an important step forward today in his announcements concerning taking this lease site, at least for the moment, off the table so we are not threatened by exploration off the Virginia coast. That was the intent of my amendment. I am very pleased he did that. But I hope this will lead this body to pass legislation to permanently protect the Atlantic coast because, frankly, oil spilled anywhere on the Atlantic coast will affect the entire coast. We need to be mindful that we all are in this together. Let's work on responsible policies for regulation to make sure our regulators are controlling the drilling that is taking place in the proper manner, and let's work together on an energy policy that makes sense for this Nation, that will make us energy secure and provide for America's future. With that in mind, when the appropriate time comes to consider amendment No. 4191, I want my colleagues to know why I will not be seeking action on that amendment. I believe the President's actions will protect those of us on the east coast of the United States during this immediate time, during 2010, so we will not have any drilling done. I am satisfied that we have been able to protect our communities from drilling. But I urge us to get together to make sure that is permanent and that it is not changed when perhaps people's recollection of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico might not be quite as fresh as it is today, as we see the consequences of this environmental disaster. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

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