Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I had intended to ask unanimous consent to set aside an amendment in order to offer amendment 4191, but I understand there are certain Senators who want to review that amendment before that request is made. That is certainly a reasonable suggestion. I will withhold my request to offer the amendment. I hope I will have a chance to offer it later. I want to let my colleagues know what I intend to do. This amendment would reestablish the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, the South Atlantic and the Straits of Florida Planning Areas. As I am sure colleagues are aware, several weeks ago the President indicated he would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling along the Atlantic from the New Jersey- Delaware border south all the way to the Florida Keys, that he would also lift the moratorium on parts of Alaska, but that he would maintain a moratorium on the Pacific coast and on the North Atlantic. Since that announcement has been made we all know what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico. We have seen what happened with the BP oilspill--the loss of life and the horrific impact it has had on the environment. When the President announced his policy of additional offshore drilling sites, he stated, through the Secretary of the Interior, that there are places in the United States that are environmentally too sensitive to consider for new oil and gas exploration and production. He cited the entire west coast of the continental United States and the North Atlantic. Those who are familiar with the mid-Atlantic know it is also too sensitive an area from an environmental point of view to take the risk on new offshore drilling. I mention this specifically because there is a lease sale site--220--50 miles off the Virginia coast and 50 miles due east of the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay, and just 60 miles from the border of the Assateague Island National Seashore that is actively being considered for oil exploration. Recently, the Department of Defense weighed in with objections to that because naval operations use a large part of that area. It is about 2.9 million acres. My point is that expected reserves there are minuscule compared to our national needs and the risk factors are significant. If we were to have anywhere near the type of spill that happened in the gulf 50 miles off the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay, it would have a catastrophic impact for generations to come on the Chesapeake Bay and on the beaches not only in Maryland and Virginia but in Delaware and New Jersey. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the prevailing winds in our region blow toward the shore or along the shore 72 percent of the time, making it much more likely that any spill that short a distance from the shore would end up affecting our coastal areas. I say that knowing full well there is not much oil to drill for out there. It is interesting to point out that 79 percent of our recoverable offshore oil and 82 percent of our recoverable offshore natural gas is already open to drilling. The mineral companies already have significant areas where they can drill. There is only a small amount left. More important, if we go after all of our known oil reserves we have in this country, we have less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, known reserves. But we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. It is clear to all of us that we need to develop an energy policy that makes us energy secure, that helps us create and save jobs in America and is friendly toward the environment. The best investment we can make is in conservation, alternative and renewable energy sources, and safely developing resources on existing leases in order to accomplish that. For many years, there was a moratorium on offshore drilling. That moratorium was imposed by Congress and by Executive Orders. But we were unable to extend the Congressional moratorium in 2008 and because of the actions of the previous administration, that moratorium no longer exists. The purpose of this amendment is to say that none of the funds made available in this act--and there are funds made available in this bill to deal with the oil spill issue--can be used for pre-leasing, leasing or any other activity off the Atlantic coast or the Straits of Florida. The west coast is protected; the administration did not propose drilling there. So, too, is the North Atlantic. But to be as emphatic as possible, I included the North Atlantic Planning Area in my amendment to send a message that we don't want drilling anywhere from Maine to the Florida Keys. Alaskans have their opinions on the way that they believe drilling should be handled there. We can get to that legislation separately. Certainly, with BP Oil currently under investigation, I hope it will be the unanimous view of this body that we don't want to see any new areas drilled until after we have had a full investigation into what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, to find out why we didn't have the regulatory system in place to protect our environment and protect public safety, to protect small businesses and property owners, and to protect taxpayers, why that regulatory system was not in place. Before we consider new areas, we certainly want to make sure we have reviewed the regulatory structure that is in place and taken the steps necessary to fix it. This amendment would express our intention that until that is done, we don't want to see any new offshore drilling sites along the Atlantic coast. I hope we go further. Quite frankly, I hope we go further and say we should not be doing any new drilling anywhere in this country until we find out what went wrong so that we have corrected that. I am talking about offshore drilling. We should at least be able to correct what was the mistake with regard to BP Oil and the Deepwater Horizon rig. But at a minimum, these areas along the Atlantic coast where we currently don't drill should be off limits until we have completed the full review. That is the purpose of my amendment. I hope the chairman and ranking member will give me an opportunity to offer this amendment. I have heard from the Parliamentarian's Office that it would not be subject to a Rule XVI point of order and I believe it is germane. I believe we have a responsibility to act on this issue on this supplemental appropriations bill, because this truly is an urgent issue that has become much more urgent as a result of the spill in the gulf.

Mr. CARDIN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. CARDIN. No, it is not tied to the investigation. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to call to my colleague's attention my pending amendment, amendment No. 4050. This is the amendment that would require the oil companies to disclose the payments that they make to countries for mineral rights. It is in order to give investors transparency and knowledge about the risks that may be involved in regards to oil companies. This is real if you look at what is happening in Nigeria and other countries. Investors have a right to know where oil companies are making payments. This amendment would also further good governance. I think most of us are familiar with the mineral curse; that is, countries that have mineral wealth are some of the poorest in the world. It also helps finance corruption because the government leaders are taking these payments for themselves rather than for the people of the country. My amendment would require the SEC to allow for the disclosure of the payments made by oil companies that are regulated by the SEC. This is mostly foreign companies. These are not U.S. companies by and large. It puts U.S. companies on a level playing field because U.S. companies are prohibited by law from being involved in any part of corruption. This is a bipartisan amendment. It is cosponsored by Senator Lugar. He has been one of the true leaders on this issue for many years. My cosponsors include Senators Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, Merkley, Johnson, and Whitehouse. It comes out of the work of the Helsinki Commission. We have held hearings on this within the Commission. This is one of the priorities we have on basic human rights. It is supported by the Obama administration. I say all that knowing full well we are now postcloture. It is unlikely we will get a vote on this amendment. I find that disturbing. We have made the technical changes in order to make sure we adhere to the concerns expressed by Members. Quite frankly, I am not aware of any Senator who objects to the substance of this amendment. I hoped perhaps we could move forward and include this, but I am a realist, and I understand the current circumstances. I want my colleagues to know I will try to work with the chairman and ranking member in conference to see whether we can get some of these provisions included. We do have a similar provision on disclosure related to the Congo. We do have this subject matter that will be before the conferees. I am hopeful, after conversations with Senators Dodd and Shelby, that we will be able to continue this discussion as this bill moves forward to conference. I will also look for other opportunities to bring this issue back. I know Senator Dodd has voiced his support for the amendment. I have talked to Senator Shelby. He has indicated to me that he is sympathetic to the amendment. I hope we will be able to find a way to prevent the citizens of Third World countries from being denied a share of the wealth of their own countries and to give investors the information they need in order to make intelligent decisions as to whether they want to invest in a particular company. I want my colleagues to know that if we don't get a chance to vote on this amendment tonight, it will not be the end. We will look for other opportunities, whether it is in conference or other bills that move forward. I thank many of my colleagues who have been supportive. I know we will succeed in protecting the mineral wealth of Third World nations for the people of the country rather than to fund corruption and giving investors the information they should have as to whether they want to invest in a mineral company. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to Baltimore Heritage, Inc. as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. Baltimore Heritage, Inc.--BHI--is beginning its fifth decade of service to Baltimore City. BHI was founded in 1960 by leaders of the Baltimore business and cultural community, including members of the Greater Baltimore Committee, the Maryland Historical Society, the Peale Museum, and the Junior Chamber of Commerce. For decades, the organization has effectively advocated for actions and broader policies that protect the city's irreplaceable historic buildings and neighborhoods. BHI works in three primary areas: education, planning and advocacy, and technical assistance. Its education programs seek to involve people and promote the city's heritage. To further that effort, it conducts monthly guided tours of historic sites, spring walking tours, a fall history lecture, and a reception to recognize the best historic preservation projects. Through its planning and advocacy work, BHI has helped preserve city landmarks and develop strategies to use Baltimore's historic buildings and neighborhoods as the basis for economic growth. Some successes include: reversing plans to demolish the historic buildings surrounding Mt. Vernon Place; saving the City Hall dome; and establishing the Baltimore City Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation, CHAP, which has gone on to help designate more than 60 local and national neighborhood historic districts and achieve protected landmark status for more than 100 historic structures, parks, and monuments. BHI was a partner in blocking the extension of I-83 through Fells Point and Canton and in preserving and reusing Camden Station and Camden Warehouse as integrated parts of the new downtown ballpark. Baltimore Heritage leaders also were partners with Preservation Maryland in crafting and advocating for an alternative proposal for revitalizing the West Side of Baltimore's downtown--an alternative that proved the feasibility and great economic potential of integrating, rather than demolishing, the district's historic structures. This alternative plan now serves as the guideline for the city's official redevelopment plan for this important downtown district. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Baltimore Heritage for its dedication to showcasing our rich historic and cultural heritage. Baltimore is one of our Nation's most historic cities, and Baltimore Heritage, Inc. understands the importance of preserving the past while building for the future. To paraphrase Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph, ``If you seek Baltimore Heritage's monument, look around you.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico makes one thing very clear; that is, America's energy policy is a disaster. I thank Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Boxer for their leadership in pointing out the need for America to get off its addiction to oil and promote safe and clean energy sources for America so that we can be independent, so that we can achieve the type of economic growth we need and contribute to a cleaner environment. If we do our energy policy right, as Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Boxer have been telling us, we can solve all three problems. I must tell you, I think one of the most urgent needs for an energy policy is to make America more secure. We spend almost $1 billion a day on imported oil that goes to many countries that disagree with our way of life. Americans are actually helping to fund those who are trying to compromise America's security. That makes no sense whatsoever. The Department of Defense has pointed out that our energy policy actually contributes to international instability. We spend a lot of money trying to figure out how we can make the world safer. One way we can make the world safer is to develop an energy policy where we are self-sufficient, where we do not have to rely on imported oil. We can also solve the second problem, and that is economic growth. Take a look at what is happening in China. They are investing heavily in solar and wind power because they know they are going to create jobs. We want to create these clean jobs in America. We want to manufacture the component parts for solar and wind. We want to be able to manufacture component parts for nuclear. We believe we can create jobs in America by having a policy that relies more on clean energy. There are more jobs to be created, much more so than in oil. For the sake of our economy, we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Then, for our environment, I can talk a great deal about why we need to move forward and get the pollutants out of our air and reward those who use clean technologies. Climate change is real. Tell the people on Smith Island, as they see their island disappearing because of the rising sea level, or tell those who see the traditional seafood industry go in decline because of warmer waters. We know climate change is real, and it is causing instability around the world. We need to deal with it. If we need a reminder, take a look at what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. BP originally told us there was 1,000 barrels a day leaking. Now they tell us it is 5,000. We do not know whether that is accurate. We know one thing: It has caused an environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. We can expect dead zones because of oxygen deprivation. We can expect that our wetlands, which are critically important for our ecosystem and to protect our environment, will be invaded by this oil. As Senator Nelson points out frequently, if it gets into the Loop Current, it could very well go through the Keys and the east coast of the United States. The tragedy of this is, we all know we cannot drill our way out of our energy problem. We have less than 3 percent of the oil reserves and we use over 25 percent. We know we cannot drill our way out of our energy problems. Additional exploration will give us very little as far as energy independence. I will talk about the mid-Atlantic because I am most familiar with the mid-Atlantic. We have been told by recent studies that we may have enough oil in the mid-Atlantic to handle our energy needs for 2 months in the United States. Think about that--the risk factor versus the reward. It makes no sense whatsoever. If we have a Deepwater Horizon episode in the mid-Atlantic, it will be catastrophic to the Chesapeake Bay. Many of us have invested a lot of energy to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. We know we need to do more. EPA has come out with its game plan. I filed legislation with my colleagues to have a stronger effort in cleaning up the bay. But if we had an oilspill in this region anywhere near what happened down in the Gulf of Mexico, it would set us back for generations. Some say: Is that a real possibility? Could that really happen? Let me tell you about the lease site 220 off of Virginia which is being primed for offshore drilling. That is 60 miles from Assateague Island and 50 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The prevailing winds are toward the coast, which means a spill is likely to come on the coast a lot quicker than we saw in the Gulf of Mexico. I have a few suggestions for my colleagues. First, we need to stop any further offshore exploration of gas or oil until we have put in place the regulatory structure to make sure we have done adequate environmental assessments before any new drilling is permitted. That is the least we can do. We know the exploration plans submitted by BP Oil told us there was virtually no risk, and if there was a spill, they had the proven technology to make sure it did not reach our coastlines. The proven technology was these blowout protectors that we note failed in the past, had very little experience at 5,000 feet of water, and as a result we see the disaster that has unfolded. The regulatory system is not independent. It needs to be changed. We need to make sure other agencies in the Federal Government that are knowledgeable about wildlife are consulted before permits are granted. At least we need to make sure those regulatory changes are in place. Secondly, we need to protect, as Secretary Salazar has said, those places in America that are environmentally too sensitive to risk drilling. Secretary Salazar points with pride--and I agree--to the west coast of the United States or to the North Atlantic. The area off the coast of the Chesapeake Bay is environmentally too sensitive to risk drilling for the little bit of oil that may be there. I urge my colleagues to provide protection--permanent protection--from the offshore drilling in the mid-Atlantic. Then we need to consider legislation for a comprehensive energy policy in this Nation. I applaud Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman for bringing forward a proposal. It is a good start. I compliment them for the manner in which they handled offshore drilling because they give States, such as Maryland, a veto if the environmental risks are there. To me, that is far better protection than current law and better than what the administration has proposed. I hope we can do better. There are provisions in the bill I want to strengthen. There are issues I want to make sure are added to it. But unless we get started on energy legislation, unless we bring to the Senate Floor and are willing to debate, as we should, an environmental and energy policy for our country, we won't have a chance to move on these issues. I can't tell you how many people I have talked to in the State of Maryland who say: Look, we need to be energy independent, we need to create jobs, we need to be sensitive to the environment. But we can't do that unless we have a bill before us. I want to applaud Senators Kerry and Lieberman for their efforts. I hope we will have a chance to consider that, and I can assure my colleagues that I will have some suggested changes for that legislation in order to strengthen it so we truly can achieve the goals of making America more secure, of creating the jobs we need and being an international leader on preserving our environment to make sure that polluters do not continue to pollute our environment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank Senator Menendez for his leadership on S. 3305. I hope his request will be granted. As the other Senators have said, basically whose side are you on? Who should pay for this disaster? Should it be the taxpayers of this country? Should it be the small business owners whose livelihood is now in jeopardy? Should it be the property owners who are going to suffer damage? No. It should be BP Oil and its affiliates. That is what the Menendez bill does. It places responsibility on the appropriate party. BP should pay, and there are many reasons they should pay. As Senator Menendez points out, their profit was $6 billion in the last quarter. Another reason: BP, in its exploration plan that it presented to the Mineral Management Service, MMS, to get an environmental waiver, stated ``unlikely event of an oil spill as having little risk of contact or impact on the coastlines and associated environmental resources.'' Unlikely event? Little risk of contact? They have relied upon proven response technology--these blowout preventers. They were failsafe, according to BP Oil. Yet MMS showed that the blowout preventers had failed or otherwise played a role in at least 14 accidents. There was little information about the blowout preventers at 5,000 feet of water. That was used to avoid a full environmental review. We have an environmental disaster, and BP should be held fully accountable for many reasons, not the least of which is they misrepresented the environmental risk to the public and the regulators. Let's talk about the extent of the damage. BP is continuing to underestimate this damage because they don't want the public to fully understand the extent of the damage. First, they tell us 1,000 barrels a day, and then 5,000 barrels a day. The experts tell us the methodology used by BP is not reliable. They should have given us a range, not a specific barrel amount. We had people who were prepared to come in and do a real assessment without jeopardizing BP Oil's efforts to stop the flow, and BP doesn't let them do that because they don't want the public to know the status of it, as Senator Nelson pointed out, using dispersants, which is a good option but not the better option. The oil is going to stay in the ocean and give us dead zones, and it is going to cause additional damage. It starts with the Menendez bill, with holding BP Oil responsible for all of the damages it has caused through its misrepresentations and the way it has handled the spill. I hope it will continue so we can reenact a moratorium, particularly for the area that I represent in the Mid- Atlantic, which is so environmentally sensitive that if we had the spill in our area I would hate to see what it would do to the Chesapeake Bay and Assateague Island. I urge my colleagues to move forward today on the Menendez bill. Let's get the consent necessary to make sure everyone understands that what BP Oil says it will do, it will do, which is pay for all the damages it has caused. I hope that will not be the last action. I hope we also will reimpose the moratorium for offshore drilling--at least at this point--until we know we can do it safely. In my area, I hope the moratorium will be permanent. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to thank Senator Dodd for his extraordinary leadership on this bill. I know he is working through a lot of amendments. I know a lot of us have been urging him to allow us to present amendments. I know he has been challenged by the efforts on trying to schedule votes on amendments. I thank him, on behalf of all his colleagues in the Senate, for his extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill forward. I thank Senator Shelby for working with Senator Dodd. I know we are close to bringing this bill to completion. I am very proud to be a supporter of this bill. It is critically important that we do what we need to do in regulating Wall Street. This amendment is a bipartisan amendment. Senator Lugar has filed a bill, of which I am a proud cosponsor, that accomplishes basically the same purpose. He has been a real leader in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on transparency in the oil industry and its contracts. The nature of the oil, gas, and mining sector means that companies often have to operate in countries that are often autocratic, unstable, or both. Investors need to know the full extent of a company's exposure when they are operating in countries where they are subject to expropriation, political and social turmoil, and reputational risks. In Nigeria, for example, American companies have taken oilfields offline because of rebel activity and instability in the Niger Delta. In 2009, Nigeria was producing almost 1 million barrels less than it is able to produce because of conflict and instability. With so much production offline, American oil companies, such as Chevron and Exxon, have lost jobs and have lost profits and are forced to pay higher production costs because of added security. This amendment goes a long way in achieving that transparency by requiring all foreign and domestic companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to report, in their annual reports to the SEC, how much they pay each government for access to their oil, gas, and minerals. In short, this amendment is a critical part of the increased transparency and good governance we have been striving to achieve in the financial industry. We have been working with a lot of groups on perfecting this amendment, and we have made some changes that will give the SEC the utmost flexibility in defining how these reports will be made so that we not get the transparency we need without burdening the companies. I thank all involved in the modifications that have been made to this amendment from how it was originally filed in order to make it not a burden on the industry but to provide the necessary information to investors. This amendment also is about creating jobs and preserving jobs. This amendment is important because it will help create and preserve U.S. jobs in the oil, gas, and mining sector by improving the conditions in which oil and mining companies have to work. Transparency will help create more stable governments, which in turn allows U.S. companies to operate more freely--and on a level playing field--in markets that otherwise are too risky or unstable. This is a bipartisan amendment because Democratic and Republican colleagues both know we are creating a new standard of transparency that will apply to the world's extractive industries and is in the best interest of companies in competing on a level playing field. That has been what Senator Lugar has been standing for within the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and I applaud him on his leadership. In fact, this amendment would apply to all oil, gas, and mining companies required to file periodic reports with the SEC, which includes 90 percent of the major internationally operating oil companies and 8 out of the 10 largest mining companies in the world-- only 2 of which are U.S. companies. We currently have a voluntary international standard for promoting transparency. A number of countries and companies have joined the Extracted Industries Transparency Initiative, an excellent initiative that has made tremendous strides in changing the cultural secrecy that surrounds extractive industries. But too many countries and too many companies remain outside this voluntary system. I had the honor of chairing the Helsinki Commission for this Congress. This has been one of our top priorities because it deals with good governance as well as investors knowing whether a company is making payments. The U.S. needs to take a leadership position in regard to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. This amendment, attached to this bill, will go a long way in promoting that leadership for the United States. The notion of transparency has been endorsed by the G8, the IMF, the World Bank, and a number of regional development banks. It is clear to the financial leaders of the world that transparency in natural resources development is key to holding government leaders accountable for the needs of their citizens and not just building up their personal offshore bank accounts. I urge my colleagues to stand up for investors and citizens and give them the information they need to hold governments accountable. I urge my colleagues to join me and the other cosponsors of this amendment and support the creation of a historic transparency standard that will pierce the veil of secrecy that fosters so much corruption and instability in resource-rich countries. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Dependent Coverage Extension Act. This bill will allow Federal employees to benefit immediately from an important provision of the new health care law. FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored group health insurance program in the world, covering more than 8 million Federal employees, retirees, former employees, and their dependents. Currently, FEHBP enrollees with family coverage can keep unmarried, dependent children on their health insurance policies until age 22. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which moves us to universal health coverage and lowers health care costs for our Nation and for families. One of the first effective provisions of the legislation requires health plans to allow parents to keep children on their health insurance policies until their 26th birthday. Previously, most plans terminated dependent children's coverage once they tunred 22. While the insurance exchanges created by the new law will enable millions more Americans to access affordable coverage, they will not be operational until 2014. Enabling children of insured parents to stay on their policies until age 26 is an immediate benefit that will begin now to improve our health care system by increasing the number of people with affordable coverage right away. This provision of the law will take effect on the first day of the new plan year after September 23, 2010. For most plans, that means January 1, 2011. But I am pleased to report that many insurance companies have chosen to implement this provision earlier than required by law. But unless Congress acts, Federal employees with family coverage will have to wait until next year for this benefit to kick in. This is because FEHBP law prevents the Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry from moving up the effective date. Two sections of the law hinder OPM from taking action now. According to OPM, ``The first section allows OPM to contract with plans to provide health services to employees and their families. The second defines family members to include `an unmarried dependent child under age 22.' Unfortunately, this does now allow flexibility for FEHB plans to provide coverage to other adult children until the provision in the Affordable Care Act becomes effective.'' Director Berry has stated that he would like to begin expanding coverage for enrollees' adult children now, and that he does not want to wait until next January to offer this cost-saving benefit. The bill we are introducing today would conform FEHBP law with PPACA and ensure that all children of Federal employees can remain on their parents' health insurance policies until their 26th birthday and give OPM the authority to implement the change immediately. Graduation season is upon us, and many college seniors are preparing for new challenges, including moving out on their own, starting graduate studies, finding a job, and other life transitions. They should not have to endure the additional stress that comes from suddenly losing their health insurance coverage. Young adults just starting their careers often lack access to affordable employer-based health insurance and must rely on the prohibitively expensive individual market for coverage. That is why so many private insurers have stepped up to the plate. Permitting Federal employees to benefit from the new law now will ease young adults' transition from college to the workforce and reduce their out-of-pocket expenses. The independent Congressional Budget Office has issued a preliminary analysis indicating that this legislation has no cost associated with it. So it will save families money, get more young adults insured, and bring greater efficiencies to our health care sooner, all at no cost to the Federal budget. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this bipartisan effort: Senators Collins, Akaka, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Bingaman, Johnson, Kaufman, Kerry, Landrieu, Stabenow, and Warner. This is the companion bill to H.R. 5200, introduced by my colleague from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, and it has been endorsed by the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, NARFE, the National Federation of Federal Employees, NFFE, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE, and the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to pass it without delay, so that children of Federal employees can have the same coverage option as children of other employees in the private sector.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the Cardin-Grassley amendment extends whistleblower protections to employees of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, NRSROs. NRSROs are the companies-- such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's--which issue credit ratings that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission permits other financial firms to use for certain regulatory purposes. There are 10 NRSROs at present, including some privately held firms. The NRSROs played a large role--by overestimating the safety of residential mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations--in creating the housing bubble and making it bigger. Then, by marking tardy but massive simultaneous downgrades of these securities, they contributed to the collapse of the subprime secondary market and the ``fire sale'' of assets, exacerbating the financial crisis. In the wake of the Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco corporate scandals, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in July of 2002. One of the provisions in the act was extended whistleblower protections to employees of any company that is registered under the SEC Act of 1934 or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the same act. The whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act protect employees of the publicly traded companies from retaliation by giving victims of such treatment a cause of action which can be brought in Federal court. Section 1514(a) delineates which companies are covered by that act and what actions are prohibited. The Cardin-Grassley amendment expands the provision to include employees of the rating companies. I think it is important we have the whistleblower protection. S. 3217 contains several provisions to improve SEC and congressional oversight of the functioning of the NRSROs. So the underlying bill does provide for the regulatory framework for the rating agencies. What the Cardin-Grassley amendment does is extend the whistleblowing provisions--that protect employees--to all of the rating agencies. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, let me thank Senator Dodd for bringing forward a strong bill to regulate Wall Street. The bill provides for strict new regulations to stop Wall Street's reckless gambling. I think one needs to understand the current system and how we got to where we are today. We have eight Federal regulatory entities that oversee the financial sector. Their authority is different, their powers are different, their ability to respond to a particular problem is different, and the entity that is regulated today can shop for the regulator they want by what they call themselves and the types of activities they try to define themselves as. They can shop and look for the regulatory entity they believe they can circumvent the easiest. They can escape and did escape proper supervision. Well, this legislation ends that practice by a clear regulatory framework in order to regulate all financial institutions. The regulatory entity that does the regulation is based upon size and jurisdiction. And we have the Financial Stability Oversight Board that provides uniformity. No more gaps in the regulatory system. And it provides the tools for the regulators for early intervention. That means we end, once and for all, too big to fail. By early intervention on takeovers, closing down financial institutions, requiring the sale of financial institutions, we can prevent the need for too big to fail. The risk will be on the investors, not on the taxpayers of this country. The Boxer amendment makes that clear. Tools that are needed for orderly liquidation to minimize the impact on the financial sector and our economy are provided in this legislation. It recognizes the need for special attention to our community financial institutions. They were not the cause of the financial crisis we went through. We know it came from Wall Street. Our community banks were very much vulnerable as a result of the financial collapse. We need to streamline the regulatory process as it relates to our community banks. Regulation is cost. We have to have regulation. We need regulation. They need regulation. But we need to make sure it is sensible. This bill streamlines the regulatory structure as it relates to our local financial institutions. We need strong and adequate regulation, and it provides it. We need to write a balance, and this legislation provides that. I might say, there are amendments we have already considered that I think were the right thing in order to make sure this balance is correct. I am sure there will be other amendments we will consider to make sure we get that balance right between adequate regulation and the cost of regulation to small community financial institutions. This legislation puts the consumer first, as it should, with a strong consumer bureau. Some say: Why do we need that? Isn't the current regulation adequate? The answer is no. All you need to look to is what happened in the residential mortgage marketplace. All you need to look at are the advertisements that were taking place just 2 years ago for no-doc or stated-income loans or no-down-payment loans--loans that provided over 100 percent of the cost. And look at the subprime lending in each of our communities, where home buyers who could have qualified for traditional home mortgages were steered into the subprime market because the mortgage company or the seller made more money by steering them into subprime loans. Well, those practices have to come to an end. Those housing practices sparked, as we know, the trigger for this recession. These practices helped create that bubble that burst and the damage that was caused when it did burst. We can take a look at the cost of this recession. The Pew Financial Reform Project estimated that just a slowdown in economic growth will cost every family in America close to $6,000. Well, that is money that will never be made up. We have to make sure it never happens again. The Federal spending, in order to prevent the economic collapse of Wall Street, is estimated to cost $2,000 per household. If you look at just the decline in real estate values, in 9 months, from July 2008 to March 2009, the wealth lost equaled about $30,000 per household in real estate and over $60,000 per household in the stock market. We lost millions of jobs. I could go on and on. We have an obligation to make sure our economy and our people are protected from that type of financial meltdown in the future. This legislation properly regulates risky gambling by financial institutions by putting in place prohibitions and disclosures. It puts an end to derivatives markets that have no economic value to our economy. It requires disclosure on the derivatives markets, so we can take Justice Brandeis' advice and use sunlight as the best disinfectant. It provides for the Volcker rule, codifying that, by restricting certain types of high-risk financial activities by banks and bank holding companies. This legislation regulates credit rating companies. We know credit rating companies--their rating will very much affect the price of a security and the viability of the security. In this recession, many Marylanders and people from every State in this Nation have lost their homes, their jobs, and savings. We have a responsibility to act to end the reckless practices on Wall Street that helped plant the seeds for this recession. This legislation is a giant step forward. Amendment No. 3732 Madam President, I will now speak briefly about an amendment I intend to offer. I rise to urge the inclusion of amendment No. 3732 to S. 3217. This amendment is a critical part of the increased transparency and good governance we are striving to achieve in the financial industry. This is a bipartisan amendment that would require all foreign and domestic companies registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to report in their annual report to the SEC how much they pay each government for access to their oil, gas, and minerals. Most of the world's extractive industries companies would be covered by this law, setting a new international standard for transparency, for openness. We have seen the devastating effects of a lack of transparency in this country, what happens when Wall Street is left unchecked and barons cloaked in secrecy make off with millions while others lose their homes. This is why we are addressing openness and transparency in the underlying legislation today. We would be remiss to create this sweeping reform of our financial sector without addressing the need for adding a new layer of transparency to a set of companies already under the SEC's jurisdiction--the oil, gas, and mining companies that make up the extractive industries. This amendment would create an environment of transparency to reassure investors, help stabilize global energy markets, and thus support goals of energy security. Current Federal Accounting Standards Board standards require reports of tax, royalty, and bonus payments to host governments, but the numbers need only be reported in aggregated categories, such as ``production costs excluding taxes'' and ``taxes other than income.'' These payments are reported on a country level where a company's operations are very substantial, but otherwise they are reported on such a broad basis that a company can simply report on which continent it was operating. Such disclosure is not useful in determining the extent of a company's operations in or its ongoing financial arrangements with a country. In terms of energy security, the oil, gas, and mining revenues are critically important economic sectors in about 60 developing and transition countries which are paradoxically home to more than two- thirds of the world's poorest people. Despite receiving billions of dollars per year from extractive revenue, these countries rank among the lowest in the world on poverty, economic growth, authoritarian governance, conflict, and political instability. Unaccountable management of natural resource revenues by foreign governments leads to corruption and mismanagement, which in turn creates unstable and high- cost operating environments for multinational companies and threatens the security of the energy supply of the United States and other industrialized nations. So we are talking about in these countries where mineral wealth becomes a mineral curse. It becomes a source of revenue for corruption rather that a source of revenue for economic growth so a country can grow. It runs counter to our foreign policy objectives of good governance and economic growth for the developing world. Transparency will help make sure the mineral wealth goes to the people of that nation. The provisions of this amendment would apply to all oil, gas, and mining companies required to file periodic reports with the SEC; namely, 90 percent of the major internationally operating oil companies and 8 out of the 10 largest mining companies in the world--only 2 of which are U.S. companies. We are talking about foreign-owned companies, not U.S. companies, by and large. Of the top 50 largest oil and gas companies by proven oil reserves, 20 are national oil companies that do not usually operate internationally. These companies are not registered with the SEC or any other exchange and only operate within their own country, which means these national oil companies do not compete with internationally operating companies. Of the remaining 30 companies that do operate internationally, 27 would be covered by this legislation--27 of the 30. These include Canadian, European, Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, and other international companies. We currently have a voluntary international standard to promote transparency. A number of countries and companies have joined the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the EITI, an excellent initiative that has made tremendous strides in changing the culture of secrecy that surrounds the extractive industries. But too many countries and companies remain outside this voluntary system. The notion of transparency has been endorsed by the G8, the IMF, the World Bank, and a number of regional development banks. It is clear to the financial leaders of the world that transparency in natural resources development is key to holding government leaders accountable to the needs of their citizens and not just building up their personal offshore bank accounts. It is now time to create in law an international standard for transparency. It will only happen if the United States is in the leadership. The international community looks to us to be a leader on this issue. Investors need to be able to assess the risks of their investments. Investors need to know where, in what amount, and on what terms their money is being spent in what are often very high-risk operating environments. These environments are often poor developing countries that may be politically unstable, have lots of corruption, and have a history of civil unrest. The investor has a right to know about the payments. Secrecy of payments carries real bottom-line risks for investors. Creating a reporting requirement with the SEC will capture a larger portion of the international extractive industries corporations than any other single mechanism, thereby setting a global standard for transparency and promoting a level playing field. Investors should be able to know how much money is being invested up front in oil, gas, and mining projects. For example, oil companies often pay very large signature payments to secure the rights for an oilfield, long before the first drop of oil is produced. Such payments are in addition to the capital investment required. In Angola, for example, $500 million is not an unusual signature bonus that has to be paid for a single field, and a single field can cost more than $2 billion to develop. Such costs take years for companies to recoup through their production-sharing arrangements with host companies. For this reason, it is in the interest of the investors to know the amount and timing of payments of high-risk operating environments. When a company they have invested in becomes targeted by a campaign of misinformation, only the transparency of their financial information will help the investor. Disclosure of payments is one way to address risk, helping companies protect themselves from false or unfair accusations and blame-shifting by host governments that can tarnish their image in the investor community and the general public. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the creation of a historic transparency standard that will pierce the veil of secrecy that fosters so much corruption and instability in resource-rich countries around the world. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I pay special tribute to the outstanding accomplishments of Kevin J. Manning, Ph.D., president of Stevenson University. May 21, 2010, is Commencement Day at Stevenson University, a day when student accomplishments are rewarded and recognized. This year's Commencement Day also marks the end of Kevin J. Manning's 10th year as president of Stevenson University. During Dr. Manning's 10 years as president, the university has transitioned itself from a liberal arts college to a university that emphasizes a core liberal arts curriculum and has a unique focus on career preparation. Stevenson University students are well prepared and have a strong record of excelling in academics, community service, and postgraduate work. With Dr. Manning's guidance, Stevenson University has seen tremendous success and growth. In recent years, the university has had seen record levels of enrollment, the opening of a second campus in Owings Mills, and the opening of a new School of Business and Leadership in 2008. Dr. Manning has provided critical guidance to the development of the university's Career Architecture Program, for which he received the Maryland Innovator of the Year Award from the Daily Record in September 2003. The Career Architecture Program provides career guidance and counseling to undergraduate students at Stevenson University. Dr. Manning also has been committed to the community surrounding Stevenson University. He sits on the board of directors of numerous community and professional organizations, including the United Way of Central Maryland, the Independent College Fund of Maryland, the Greater Baltimore Committee, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, and the Maryland Business Roundtable for Education. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Kevin J. Manning for his outstanding accomplishments at Stevenson University and for his dedication to his students and colleagues, to higher education, and to the larger community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to honor Rabbi Gedaliah Anemer, a beloved Orthodox Jewish leader and scholar who passed away at age 78 on April 15, 2010. For more than 50 years, Rabbi Anemer served as a religious guide, compassionate counselor, and an authority on Jewish practices and laws to his Silver Spring congregation. His leadership and spiritualism helped to nurture a strong, vibrant Orthodox Jewish community in the Greater Washington area and strengthened his congregants' love of Judaism and connection to Israel. He also founded the Yeshiva of Greater Washington in Silver Spring, helping to educate a future generation of Jewish spiritual leaders. Rabbi Anemer was born in Akron, OH, in 1932 and studied as a boy at the Tiferes Yerushalayim in New York. In 1952, he was ordained from the Telshe Yeshiva. For the 5 years following his ordination, Rabbi Anemer was the head of the Yeshiva of the Boston Rabbinical Seminary. In 1957, he became spiritual leader of a small congregation in Washington, DC, Shomrei Emunah. In 1961, the synagogue was renamed Young Israel Shomrei Emunah of Greater Washington, YISE, and later moved to Silver Spring, becoming the first Orthodox synagogue in Montgomery County. In Silver Spring, Rabbi Anemer and YISE became a ``cornerstone'' of the Kemp Mill Orthodox community. Rabbi Anemer's energy and enthusiasm for his congregants, for his neighbors, and for the Jewish people could be observed in his daily endeavors: Holding minyon in his basement, leading services for his congregation, presiding as the head of the Rabbinical Council of Greater Washington's beit din, or religious court, and acting as a mentor and confidant to his community. Under his leadership, YISE flourished. The shul originally started by holding services in private homes. As it grew, YISE moved to a number of different locations--a clubhouse, the basement of an apartment building, a condemned house awaiting demolition, and a Masonic building--before settling into its own, newly constructed building. Services were held in Hebrew and English because the majority of the congregation's participants were scientists and engineers who did not have a Yeshiva education. Rabbi Anemer also sponsored a number of Jewish learning activities including children's services, Talmud night, and regular adult education classes. He became the spiritual leader of a congregation that grew from 30 families in 1963 to more than 500 families today. Rabbi Anemer wore many hats in his career and in his personal life. He was a loving husband, a devoted father to four children, a caring brother, and a fiercely compassionate friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the many accomplishments of Rabbi Gedaliah Anemer and in recognizing him as a pioneer and friend to the Jewish Orthodox community of the Greater Washington area.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me express to my colleagues how disappointed I am that we were unable to move forward with debate on Wall Street reform. People should know that what we recently voted on was a motion to proceed so a bill could be brought to the floor for debate. It did not speak to how that bill would be considered. It is open to amendment. Each Member of the Senate would have the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration. The bill Senator Dodd has brought out of his committee is a bill that establishes the types of reforms of Wall Street that are necessary, strict new regulations to stop Wall Street gambling so that we have a clear responsibility in the regulatory framework, so each of the financial institutions understands the clear roles which they must operate under and how those regulations will take place. The framework is based upon the size of the institution and the jurisdiction. The bill provides for adequate capital to prevent too big to fail. Our first goal is to avoid an institution from becoming so large, so vulnerable that its failure jeopardizes the economy. If we have a clear regulatory structure and the right capital rules and the right regulatory oversight, we have a much better chance of protecting the public's interest. That is why the strict new guidelines to stop Wall Street gambling are critically important, so that we don't run into that situation from the past. No more taxpayer bailouts. I hear that over and over again from my constituents. I agree. If an institution can't make it, it should fail. It should not be getting a government bailout. This bill makes it clear: no more government bailouts. It gives the regulators the authority they need to intervene a lot earlier and, if necessary, to restructure the institution or to break it apart or to have it merge or to close it down. It does not involve public funds. We will have a regulatory structure. Today, we see institutions that call themselves banks that are not regulated under banking statutes. We find insurance companies that claim they are insurance companies but they do things other than insurance and get themselves into trouble, and there is no regulatory consistency. That will change with the bill Senator Dodd has brought to the floor. This bill puts consumers in control of information in plain English, by a strong consumer provision within the bill. This is absolutely necessary. We know today that consumers and small businesses are being victimized under the current financial structure. Consumers have been victimized by predatory lending. Small businesses have been victimized by banks that won't make loans to small businesses. We need a strong consumer presence. Senator Dodd, in his bill, has brought out an independent consumer agency. What this bill provides is tough regulation, the framework in which we can intervene earlier in order to protect the economy, no government bailout, and a way in which consumer issues can be handled independently to protect consumers. Why not move forward? I am puzzled. I listened to my colleagues who oppose bringing this bill forward speak on the floor. I still don't understand their argument. If we move forward, amendments are in order. Amendments that are germane will have to be considered, will have to be voted on. Those are the rules of the Senate. For us to move the bill off the floor, we will need at least 60 votes. We know that. It should not take it. It should be an up-or-down vote. But we know from the prior record that the minority will insist upon 60 votes. We should be willing, on an important issue such as this, to vote up or down on amendments and final passage, but they will still have that right. So they are not jeopardizing the ability of the minority to block final consideration of the bill. What they are doing is blocking debate on the bill. The only thing I can think of is that they would prefer to work out their issues behind closed doors rather than on the floor of the Senate. The reason is kind of self-evident: If you are trying to weaken the regulatory framework and you don't want your fingerprints on it, it would be easier to do that outside of the spotlight of the Chamber. If you are trying to diminish the consumer protections in the bill, you certainly would rather have that in a bill brought to the floor than having to offer an amendment to change it. I can only presume from the delay that the opposition is not to negotiate in good faith; the opposition is to avoid the public knowing the changes they are seeking in the bill or to weaken this bill or, even worse, in the hopes that major sections of this bill will be deleted or struck. That is not what the process should be about. We need to move forward with Wall Street reform. We all know how our economy was brought to near the brink of destruction. We know how many millions of Americans have been adversely affected by what happened on Wall Street. People of Maryland, the people of the Nation are saying: Let's reform Wall Street. Let's make sure the reckless gambling doesn't take place in the future. Let's make sure too big to fail ends. Let's make sure those who are responsible are held accountable. The Dodd bill is a very good start to the process. Debating the issue is what we should be doing in the Senate. The delay is aimed at preventing the public from knowing what is going on or, even worse, weakening this bill or making sure it doesn't pass. I urge my colleagues to reconsider. Let's move forward and debate the Wall Street reform bill. Let's get on with the people's business first, our Nation's security first, our Nation's economic growth first. Let's bring this bill to the floor for immediate debate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to emphasize the need of our Nation to move forward with a comprehensive energy policy. I know the Presiding Officer shares that commitment and is working very hard on the Environment and Public Works Committee to produce legislation that will solve the three major issues we have in this Nation with regard to energy. No. 1 is to create jobs. We need to create good, clean energy jobs here in America and not lose them to overseas competitors. We understand that. We also understand we need an energy policy that boosts our national security. We don't want to continue to support the efforts of countries that disagree with our way of life. We have to become energy secure here in America. Also, we need such a policy for the sake of our environment. We know greenhouse gas emissions and carbon emissions are polluting our air. We know we can answer all three of these issues--creating jobs, enhancing national security, and protecting the environment--by using alternative and renewable energy sources, by using less energy, and by moving forward with nuclear energy. We need to do all of that. With regard to obtaining sufficient and secure energy supplies, we cannot drill our way out of this problem. I say that because America has somewhere around 3 percent of the global oil reserves. We use about 25 percent. We can't drill our way out of that disequilibrium. Secondly, we have to use less carbon-emitting fuel sources for the sake of our environment. President Obama recently announced the opening of eight frontier Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas in the United States for oil and gas exploration and development. I oppose that policy. I wish to explain to my colleagues why I oppose that policy. Interior Secretary Salazar said we need to protect our most environmentally sensitive areas from drilling. I agree. The President's plan protects the west coast and the North Atlantic. I can tell my colleagues, just talk to people in this part of the country, and they will tell you that the Chesapeake Bay and our coastlines here in the mid-Atlantic region are just as precious and just as vulnerable as the west coast of the United States or the North Atlantic. I oppose the President's policy because there are other OCS areas which are currently available. Sixty-eight million acres that have not yet been explored are already available in this country for oil and gas exploration. Many of those areas are along the Outer Continental Shelf, so there is no need at this time to expand that network. I must tell my colleagues, the risk-reward ratio is what I am mostly concerned about-- the risk of doing environmental damage versus the little oil that may be recovered in these areas. It just doesn't pay. I have heard the advocates of offshore drilling say: Well, modern technology has substantially reduced the risk. We now know how to deal with this issue and avoid any type of catastrophic environmental risk. Let me share this photo with my colleagues. What we are looking at is the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. This photograph was taken shortly after an accident that occurred just 8 days ago. There was a tragic explosion and fire and in which 11 people lost their lives, which is the greatest tragedy--the loss of life--but it also created an environmental disaster. Let me tell my colleagues something. Deepwater Horizon is considered to be the most technologically advanced offshore oil rig in the world, and $600 million was spent in constructing this rig so it would be safe. My point is, it exploded, capsized, and sank, and it cost people their lives and it has created an environmental disaster. This oil rig is located 50 miles southeast of Venice, LA. There was 700,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel onboard that either burned or was spilled into the gulf. It is currently leaking about 1,000 barrels a day into the Gulf of Mexico. The oilspill is spreading. If I could just show my colleagues this image. This is hard to see, but this is a picture taken from space, taking a look at this region of the United States of America. We start to see the coastline of Louisiana and Mississippi, and we can also see where the spill is located. The spill is right here. So in a picture taken from space, one can actually see the spill area. The spill has spread 1,800 miles, an area larger than the State of Rhode Island. This is another, close-up view of the spill area. What this is showing is the oil we saw on the surface of the water. This is all oil that is currently in the Gulf of Mexico, and it is spreading. The next image shows the color-coded trajectory of the spill over the past several days. What we saw in the previous image includes just this area. It doesn't include the green area; it doesn't include this light- orange area. That is where the spill was projected to go yesterday. So you can see how rapidly the spill is spreading. Let me tell my colleagues, the good news of this--to the extent there is good news--is that the winds have been blowing from the north and northwest. If they hadn't been blowing from that direction, it is very likely this oilspill would be much closer to the Louisiana coastline. There are many areas that are vulnerable as a result of this spill, many coastal areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The spill is approaching the Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges and the Chandeleur Barrier Islands. It threatens our coasts, bird-nesting habitats, oyster production areas, wildlife, wetlands, and the list goes on and on and on. I know the Presiding Officer knows the importance of bird-nesting habitats for the protection of species. He understands that oyster spawning and production areas can be destroyed for generations as a result of pollution; that when we lose wildlife, we can lose it permanently, and when we lose wetlands, we lose the filtration system that protects us from pollutants coming into estuaries and we lose the ``speed bumps'' that can slow and absorb storms and hurricanes, causing more havoc when they hit our coasts. This is all happening as a result of a fire and a spill from the most technologically advanced rig in the world. An article in the New York Times today says we might have to have a controlled burn of the oil floating on the surface of the water because capping the well is such a challenge. First, we are told we have technology to deal with this type of incident; now, we are being told we are going to have burn the oil instead. The first thing to do when we have an event such as this one is that we try to plug the hole so it doesn't spew more oil into the gulf. Guess what. We are told that because of the depth of this well--5,000 feet--it could take up to several months to plug the leak by drilling what are know as relief wells. So what can we do? Oil is pouring out. They said: Well, we are going to try to funnel the oil for collection underwater, before it reaches the surface. This procedure has never been done before at this depth. They are trying to design and fabricate the equipment right now to deal with that approach. Will it work? I don't know. But these are the risks inherent in offshore drilling. It underscores my concern and opposition to the offshore drilling plan as proposed by the President. So let me talk about why this is not just a hypothetical to the people of Maryland but this is a real problem. There is a site known as lease sale 220. Lease sale 220 is located off the shore of Virginia. It is a 2.9 million-acre site. The site where they want to drill is the green triangle we see on this chart. The purple shows the current flows of the Gulf Stream, and here you see the coasts of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. This chart is instructive because we see how the currents go. Let me also tell my colleagues that the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) tells us that 72 percent of the time, the prevailing winds in this region blow toward or along the coast--72 percent of the time. If there is a catastrophe, if there is an oilspill related to this site, the likelihood of oil washing up on the shores of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the Outer Banks is quite high. Here is the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, 50 miles away from this site. As the Presiding Officer knows, we are struggling to deal with the clean-up of the Chesapeake Bay. It is hard enough just dealing with the known pollutants that come in from farming and from development and from storm runoff. Put into that a potential oilspill and it would set us back decades in trying to restart our oyster crops and help our watermen with the blue crabs and to help the rock fish return and thrive. It is too great of a risk. As Secretary Salazar said, there are certain parts of this country that are so environmentally sensitive, they are not worth the risk--the west coast of the United States, the North Atlantic, parts of Alaska. And I tell my colleagues that the coast around the Chesapeake Bay falls into that category. We should not permit that type of drilling. We can do something about this. We are going to have a chance. I am a strong proponent of what Senator Kerry is attempting to do in bringing forward a bill that will solve all three of our problems: creating jobs, enhancing our national security, and responsibly dealing with pollutants in our environment while being an international leader in the effort to reduce carbon emissions. We can achieve all of those objectives without this drilling. We will have a chance to say something about it. I urge my colleagues to take a look at what happened in the Gulf of Mexico last week, what continues to happen there, and work with those of us who want to make sure we have a sensible and sustainable energy policy in this country and help me and help our Nation protect the Chesapeake Bay and protect those lands that are just too valuable and too sensitive to risk oil drilling. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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