Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have filed an amendment to the underlying legislation. I know there is discussion about who might get an amendment. A lot have been filed. There is negotiation about which amendments might be made pending and debated. I hope this amendment will be. It has had a long and tortured history. It is an amendment I offered when the now-President, Barack Obama, was a Senator, and he strongly supported it. In fact, during his campaign, he talked a lot about this subject. It is the issue of shutting down a perverse tax incentive that exists in this country for shipping jobs overseas. We provide tax incentives if you are willing to shut down your factory, fire your workers, and move your product elsewhere; we say we will give you a tax break. That is unbelievable. We have had four recorded votes in the Senate. I have lost all of them. As it seems, many people believe we ought to continue this tax incentive. I think we ought to continue to try to get a majority in the Senate to agree with the proposition that, at long last, we have to stop subsidizing shipping American jobs overseas. On this chart is a description of the ``cool, refreshing taste of mint dipped in dark chocolate.'' The ad, by Hershey's, is for their York Peppermint Patty, and it says, ``the cool, refreshing taste of mint dipped in dark chocolate will take you miles away.'' Little did we know that it will actually take you to Mexico, because that is where they began to make these mint patties. They used to be American made, all-American mint patties. But now they have gone to Mexico. In fact, 260 jobs were moved to Monterrey, Mexico, as part of a long-term Hershey's strategy. So that is mint patties. I suppose they are not as important as, perhaps, automobiles, or jobs that are making sophisticated high-tech equipment. But still and all it is mint patties. Hallmark Cards, an American company, privately held in Kansas City, MO, with a 100-year history in our country. It was founded by a high school dropout who started this company in 1910 with shoe box postcards. He sold a shoe box full of postcards, while living at the YMCA in Kansas City. This became a fabulously successful card company. In fact, all of us have used Hallmark cards to send a message to someone. When they say ``if you care enough to send the very best,'' they don't exactly now say where to send it. If you are going to send it where they are made, they have gone to China. What kind of a card do you send to a Hallmark employee whose job is now in China, where they are making Hallmark cards? So that is mints and cards--probably, as I say, not as important as making automobiles. But those jobs have also left. Making refrigerators. Whirlpool has been involved, as well, in moving jobs. I have talked about this previously. Whirlpool refrigerators moved jobs all over the world from Evansville, IN. They moved work to a factory in Mexico, even though the company accepted a $19.3 million grant by the U.S. Department of Energy to develop smart appliances. Those smart appliances left to go south. So Whirlpool appliances have gone to Mexico, and 1,100 U.S. jobs moved to Mexico. This is a picture of a woman named Natalie Ford, 42 years old, who worked at a Whirlpool appliance plant in Evansville for 19 years. She learned that her job was moving to Mexico in November of 2009. That is a photograph of Natalie when she discovered that her 19-year investment in this company was over. It was like a punch in the gut, she said. I notice every month we focus on this issue: How many jobs have we created in this country? How many have we lost? How many people are filing for unemployment insurance? I consider the job thing like a bathtub. You have a faucet that puts jobs in, creating jobs in this economy, and then you have a drain, and it is wide open. We are talking about how many jobs we create next month, and the drain is wide open. They are going to China. For example, I will show a couple of photographs of where some of these jobs go. This is the home of a Salvadoran worker who makes NFL jerseys. They sell for $80 apiece in the United States of America--NFL football jerseys. Here is the home of the worker. I have held hearing after hearing about these issues. This is a Reebok NFL jersey made by a Chinese-owned sweatshop in El Salvador. Again, that merges all the best of what we know is wrong with the issue of the migration of jobs--a Chinese-owned sweatshop in El Salvador making NFL jerseys for Reebok. I have held hearings, and I have had people who work in El Salvador testify at hearings. I will not spend much time on this because I have shown it on the Senate floor so many times. This is Radio Flyer, a little red wagon made in Chicago. This a 110-year-old company, made by a wonderful immigrant who loved radios and loved airplanes, built a little red wagon that every kid in this country has ridden in. What did they name the little red wagon? Radio Flyer, because he liked airplanes and radios. We all understand what Radio Flyer means. It means a little red wagon that pulls kids. But they are gone. They are not made in Illinois any longer. They are all gone to China. Maybe that is OK if one doesn't care where these things are made and where the jobs are. Finally, Huffy bicycles. I know I have described this company forever. But those who worked there were paid $11 an hour, and they all lost their jobs--all of them. There is still a Huffy bicycle. All the jobs went to China. They then declared bankruptcy, and all the pension plans of all the people fired in the United States making Huffy bicycles, made for decades, were taken over by the Federal Government because the company declared bankruptcy. Now the Chinese own the brand and they make these bikes in China. I know who makes them. They are made by Chinese workers who make 30, 40, 50, 60 cents an hour tops. They work 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a day. That is what is happening. I have not described the automobiles and what is happening, or the airplanes parts for that matter. The list is very substantial. I have spoken about it at great length. I described that Fruit of the Loom underwear left America. Maybe underwear is more important or less important than chocolate mints or Hallmark Cards. I don't know. Fruit of the Loom is the company that used to have the dancing grapes, the red grapes and green grapes people would dress up as. I don't know what kind of people dress up in grape outfits. They seem to have fun. They advertised Fruit of the Loom underwear. All of a sudden, there is not any underwear made in the United States by Fruit of the Loom. Do you know there is not one pair of Levis made in the United States? Not one. Talk about the all-American company, buying your first pair of Levis, buying a pair of Levis for school, there is not one pair of Levis made in the United States. It has all migrated, all gone. Here is the proposition. We stand idly by while month after month these jobs are leaving. I described previously on the floor about an airplane trip I took about 4 or 5 months ago. I sat next to a man who was wearing a gym outfit, sweat pants, and so on. He was pretty comfortable on that airplane. I said: Where are you headed? He said: I am heading to Asia. I am going to be on a long trip, 25, 30 hours, so I decided to dress down. He was wearing one of those sweat outfits. I said: Why are you going to Asia? He said: My company wants to move the jobs and have the products that we buy from the suppliers made in Singapore, Thailand, and China. So I am going on a trip to Singapore, Thailand, and China to take a look at where we can move these jobs to these countries. I thought, here is a guy sitting on a plane, wearing a sweat suit, and he is going someplace and there are perhaps thousands of workers whose job is going to be traded away because somebody decided: We can make those kinds of products less expensively if we can find people who will work for 30 cents an hour. Perversely, it is not just that. We have also decided, if they will do that--just shut the door, fire the workers, chain the factory gate-- we will give them a big, fat tax break. If you have two companies across the street from each other--both making the same product, both doing the same thing, both employing the same number of people--and one says they are moving to China, fires the workers, locks the gate, and the other says they are staying here, guess what the difference is the next year. If they make the same amount of money, then the company that stays here pays higher taxes and the company that leaves pays lower taxes. That is the perverse, insane tax incentive that exists in our Tax Code. The amendment I have filed deals with the issue of what is called deferral--deferring the obligation to have to pay taxes to a later date when you repatriate the income. I do not eliminate deferral altogether. I eliminate deferral when a company leaves our country to go abroad and produce a product to sell back into our marketplace. If that is your motive, then you ought not get a tax break from this government or this country. It makes no sense for us to continue this behavior. As I have indicated, I have required votes on this issue. We have had debates and I required votes. There are people in this Chamber who cast a vote against an amendment such as this and then rush off the floor and they will even be the ones who talk about how they support American jobs. Don't tell me you support an American job if you support a tax incentive that moves our jobs overseas. Just don't tell me because it is not true. We will again next month, right on the edge of a knife, be wondering what is happening to this economy by the evidence of unemployment numbers or the evidence of new jobs created. As I said, it is fine, and I work with all the people here. In fact, the bill that is on the floor is the so-called extender bill, a jobs bill, an attempt to invest in new jobs in this country, incentivize new jobs in this country. To the extent we create new jobs in this country and at the same time incentivize jobs running out of the country, that is just boneheaded. We cannot keep doing that. At some point, the Congress has to decide, based on some reservoir of common sense, that we are not going to provide incentives for people who move American jobs elsewhere. We have trouble enough competing with labor conditions that exist, as I have described in those charts, with a number of circumstances that exist in the hiring of workers in China who you can work 7 days a week, 12, 14 hours a day and, by the way, you can house them and sleep them in a cinder-block room that holds 12 people. That is what is happening. We have trouble enough competing with that, let alone giving a big tax incentive to somebody who says: That is where I want to do my business. I am just saying, I filed an amendment. I know there is a dance going on here to decide who gets votes and who doesn't. If we are worried about this economy and worried about trying to incentivize American jobs, we have to vote on this amendment and we ought to pass it with a resounding vote. Does anybody here care about whether ``Made in America'' once again is something we can put as a sticker on a product? Do we care at all? Or is it just that we do not need to make anything? It seems to me America's future is to understand and learn from our past that we are a strong, world-class economy only when we have a world-class manufacturing base. We will not long remain a world-class economy if we decide it does not matter what our manufacturing base is. In the previous 9 years ending in 2009, we lost more than 5 million jobs in the manufacturing base of people who make things. I am talking about people who go to work and take a shower after work. They are on a factory floor and making real products, ``Made in America.'' That has been the reservoir and source of a lot of good jobs that pay well with good benefits. It always has been. That is what largely expanded the middle class in this country. Now there is some notion that it does not matter somehow; this is just a world economy and it does not matter. Get on your airplane, search around the planet. Where can you land that plane, open a plant, and hire somebody for 30 cents an hour? I tell you what, the question of who is going to clear the products that are for sale from the shelves in this country is a very interesting question. Mr. Ford, when he opened his Ford plant to begin building automobiles, believed that you ought to pay a wage to the workers that gave the workers a chance to buy the product they make. In the larger aggregate sense, the question is, Who will buy the products on the shelves if people do not have jobs? You fire your workers and you make Hershey's mint patties in Mexico, or you make Hallmark Cards in China, or you decide to make bicycles, little red wagons, automobiles, trucks, and airplanes elsewhere. Who is going to be on the factory floor producing products in this country? Who is going to earn the wage by which they become consumers? We are short about 20 million jobs right now in this country, and 20 million jobs is what we need to put people to work. We have just gone through commencement exercises in this country. There are a lot of kids who put on a cap and a gown with enormous pride, finally graduated from college, and a whole lot of them cannot find a thing to do. They cannot find work. This President, when he walked across the threshold of the door of the White House, inherited a $1.3 trillion Federal budget deficit left by the previous administration. Had he done nothing, had he been Rip Van Winkle and slept for 10 months or a year, we were going to have a $1.3 trillion deficit. That is what he inherited, and an economy that was in desperate condition. He has done everything he can to try to put this back on track. It is hard, and it requires both parties and the best ideas of both. This ought not be difficult. This idea of stopping this insidious subsidy from moving American jobs overseas ought to be an idea that takes root here and garners 90 votes, 95 votes. Instead, we have lost the vote on this amendment over recent years four times. I started by saying that President Barack Obama, when serving in the Senate, was a supporter of this amendment. He voted for this amendment and believed in this approach. He still does. He has talked about it. I hope very much we will get a vote in the Senate on this today or tomorrow and put the Senate on record as having taken the first step in doing something meaningful to shut the drain and begin the process of saying to people: If you stay here, if you manufacture here, if you run a plant here and produce a product here, God bless you. We are on your side. We are not going to give your competitors who leave and move jobs to China a tax break. We are on your side if you stay here. That is what we ought to be doing, investing in American jobs, investing in products made in our country, investing once again in a strong manufacturing base in order to remain a world-class economic power. Madam President, at that point, I have exhausted all of the arguments once again for this amendment, hoping that enough will have listened or perhaps be given information that this is a worthy vote if you want to stand up for American jobs. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the legislation that is pending and on which we now have general debate is legislation that is important. I know there has been plenty of discussion about it. I want to discuss one element of it. The legislation includes provisions to approve the Cobell settlement. The Cobell settlement is perhaps something which people do not know much about. It is a settlement of a longstanding lawsuit that has been winding its way through the Federal courts for 14 years. It is about things that have been done to American Indians that are almost unthinkable and for which they have sought redress in the Federal courts. Let me describe this, if I may, by using a photograph of a woman. This is a photograph of Mary Fish. By telling you a little about Ms. Fish, I can describe the problem that the Cobell settlement, which is in this underlying legislation, attempts to address. Mary Fish died a few years ago. Mary Fish was an Oklahoma Indian. She lived in a very small, humble house with 40 acres. There were six oil wells on her land that had been pumping Oklahoma sweet crude for years. Even with all of these oil wells pumping on Mary's land, she made only a few dollars a year from those wells. Why would it be the case that this woman had oil wells on her land, lived in a small, little house, had virtually nothing, and got only a few dollars from the oil wells? The problem dates back over 100 years when the Federal Government divided up Indian tribal lands, and distributed the land in trust to individual Indians, saying: We will take care of your land for you. We will manage it. We will handle it. And, by the way, we will provide you with the proceeds from leasing on the lands. Almost as soon as this system was set up, the Indian people found that the Federal Government, and all kinds of other manipulators involved, stole from them, cheated, and looted their lands and trust accounts from those lands. The fact is, if you go back 100 years and try to reconnect the trust accounts the Federal Government said they were holding for these Indians--for grazing fees that were paid on the Indian lands, for oil that was pumped from Indian lands, for minerals, for agriculture--what you will find is this Federal Government going back all those years does not have any records, cannot reconnect, does not have the foggiest idea what happened. In addition, there were a lot of unscrupulous people who were stealing, cheating, and looting. That is why these American Indians, the first Americans--those who were here first--14 years ago filed a case in Federal court now called Cobell v. Salazar, a case against the Secretary of the Interior. Cobell v. Salazar has languished for 14 years in the Federal court system. At long last, there has been a negotiated settlement to settle these claims that have existed for a long time. Claims of Indians being cheated by a government that, in some cases, was corrupt for over 100 years. That settlement is in the underlying legislation. The settlement was not something the Congress did. The settlement was a settlement between the Department of the Interior, led by Secretary Salazar, and the plaintiffs, led by a woman named Elouise Cobell. Recently, the plaintiffs and the Department of the Interior reached an agreement-- finally reached an agreement--to address this unbelievable set of terrible events over the last century that cheated American Indians out of what they were owed. My colleague from Wyoming has offered an amendment to change the settlement. My colleague, Senator Barrasso, is someone with whom I work on the Indian Affairs Committee. I am Chair; he is Vice Chair of the Committee. I have great respect for him. I do not take issue with the fact he thinks this settlement, perhaps, could be better. I don't know that. He has some ideas on how it can be changed. The dilemma is that we are not a party to the negotiations to reach that settlement. Perhaps if the Senator would send his recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior and the plaintiffs and they sit down at a table and decide if they want to renegotiate this or decide that. Whether there are other ideas that could or should be added, perhaps that might be beneficial. But if the Congress now decides that this settlement, which is to be paid out of the United States Judgement Fund, is not something that Congress supports, that it needs to be changed, then I think this settlement will be scuttled, and we will be back in the same position we were in. The Federal judge who watched over the negotiations that reached a settlement in the Cobell case set a deadline of 30 days and then a second deadline and then a third deadline. The Congress missed all of those deadlines--every single one. The Federal judge a few weeks ago said: I would like to call Members of Congress down to my court to find out what on Earth they are doing, what is going on. Why can this settlement not get approved by Congress, because after 14 years, I think the Federal court believed a settlement agreed to by both parties was the appropriate thing to do. Despite this, Congress has missed all the deadlines. In these proceedings we have been considering the Cobell settlement which is a part of the underlying legislation. I support that settlement. Is it perfect? I don't know. I was not a part of the negotiating team. That was the Interior Department and the plaintiffs, the Native Americans on behalf of the plaintiffs who have been cheated over all these years. My colleague Senator Barrasso says the parties themselves made changes to the settlement and so they should not mind a few more changes by the Congress. The difference is who makes the changes. The party to a settlement can make changes by agreement of the parties. But if Congress makes changes unilaterally, of course, then Congress risks voiding the entire settlement, which I fear would be the case. Senator Barrasso's amendment would change the settlement and I think risk sending these parties back into endless litigation that has gone on now for 14 years. I do not think anybody wants that. Senator Barrasso has said his proposed changes are within the framework of the settlement. But the administration, Secretary Salazar, and others have already sent a letter to the Congress saying it believes these changes are material and would, therefore, void the settlement. I do not think any of us would want that to happen. My colleague Senator Barrasso has not said the settlement is unreasonable or unjust, only that he wants to improve the settlement. With great respect to my colleague--and I do like him, and we work together well on a lot of issues--I believe now is not the time to decide after 14 years that this settlement needs improvement. If the changes are within the framework of the settlement, my recommendation is that he meet with the parties who were at the table and reached this settlement. If they believe his ideas have some merit, maybe some of them will find their way into the settlement. The Congress was not a party to that settlement and should not make unilateral changes. I hope very much we can finally resolve more than a century of theft and mismanagement through this settlement. When I talked about looting, stealing, cheating, and theft, I understand that. I said that deliberately. That is exactly what has happened. Even worse has been the unbelievable mismanagement of those funds that cheated a whole lot of people. This is a photograph, as I indicated, of Mary Fish. I said she had six oil wells on her land. She lived in a humble little house and got a couple dollars from them. Somebody else got the money. Who got the money? What happened to the money from the oil wells on this woman's land that led her to die before she had a chance to lead a good life, to have the resources that should have been hers? I have another photograph, this woman's name is Susan White Calf. She is from the Blackfeet tribe. She is a Blackfeet Indian. She passed away in November of 2007. This picture was in 2001. She took this picture with her grandchildren. Mr. President, 2001, by the way, was the same year that the Federal courts found that the Federal Government had broken its trust responsibility to the American Indians by this unbelievable mismanagement of Indian trust funds. The Federal Government said: Trust us. We will take care of your funds. We will take care of your assets. Trust us. The fact is, unbelievable mismanagement, some theft, and some looting occurred. Six years later after 2001, 6 years after the courts found that the Federal Government had broken its trust responsibility to American Indians, Susie died, still waiting to get the money that was owed her for grazing leases on land she owned. This is money that Susie White Calf should have had during her life but did not because the Federal Government dropped the ball, was guilty of unbelievable mismanagement. This problem of mismanagement goes back well into the 1800s. When you read the stories of how the Indians were cheated and the federal mismanagement, and then take a look at where the records were being stored. It is unbelievable. You cannot even reconstruct the records that were stored in rat-infested warehouses. You cannot find some records, and you find others in rat-infested warehouses. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for as much time as I may consume.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand the time has been divided during this debate until 1 o'clock. Can I learn how much time is available on our side?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to discuss briefly the President's remarks last evening to the Nation about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the actions that this administration has been doing to address that. I would also like to discuss issues related to BP, the company that leased the area offshore and drilled the exploratory well which exploded in the gulf. First of all, I know there is a great deal of anxiety, nervousness and anger about all this. I understand all that because all of us are frustrated that the oil continues to flow. It is a mile down beneath the surface of the water, which is known as a deepwater well. All of us are frustrated that this spill has not been contained. But the President did not cause that spill, and the President himself cannot fix it. I do know this though. The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Energy, and many other senior administration officials have brought together the best minds in the world as a team to try to evaluate what kinds of technologies and actions that can be used to fix that leak and stop that gusher. They have consulted many experts. They have consulted the Norwegians who drill in the North Sea in deepwater drilling. They have consulted with many interests. While it is not a case where they have not done everything conceivable to shut down that spill, and I think, as the President suggested last evening, we are beginning to make some good progress. Then the next issue is how do you deal with the impact on the coastal regions in the Gulf of Mexico. This is unbelievably devastating to these States. How do you deal with that? As I have indicated, what about the guy who has a fishing boat on the pier. The pier is deserted. The boat sits at the end of the pier. There is no opportunity to fish. And that person has to make a payment on the boat each month. What about that person and what about the tens of thousands of others like him? What about the ecological and environmental damage that has been caused as well? All of those issues are critically important. I appreciate the fact that the President gave a speech to the Nation. I think it was important to do that. I also appreciate the fact that this administration was on this very quickly. But it is frustrating for them and for all of us that the leak from that well has not been stopped. I do want to mention the issue of BP because the President mentioned it last night, and we have talked about it before. BP has said they will stand behind all legitimate claims and reimburse people for those impacts. I said last week--and I know the President has also now said it as well. It is one thing to make a pledge but another to follow through on a commitment. We have heard about pledges before. In the Exxon Valdez disaster, Exxon made a pledge to pay for the economic and other damages but then fought it for 20 years. A whole lot of folks died before they saw the result of what they were promised. So pledges are one thing. I want a binding commitment from the responsible party. If BP says they are going to stand behind this--if they do not stand behind this, the taxpayers will eventually end up picking up the tab. So the issue is, if BP says: We pledge this, I say that is fine, let's make it a binding commitment. Put the money in a recovery fund. You can call it what you want--a trust fund, an escrow account, a recovery fund. Put the money in there so we know it will be available for use to those who have been impacted. I also think that there needs to be some sort of special master work to find a mechanism by which you begin to get the money out to the people who are hurting. That is what needs to be done. There is debate about whether BP should pay a dividend to its shareholders that it announced several weeks ago. Of course they should not pay a dividend. There ought to be no dividend at this point. They need to have the money available to recompense all of the damages for all of the people and all the natural resource damages that have occurred as a result of this devastating gusher a mile under the ocean. So I don't want them to pay a dividend. They shouldn't be talking about a dividend. All of the discussion ought to be about how much money you put in this recovery fund. Thad Allen has written to BP saying: How about some more transparency in how your are making decisions to compensate communities and individuals? I know BP has paid some funding to people, but Thad Allen has said: How about some increasing transparency? Let's find out what you are paying, whom you are paying, how you are paying. What is the criteria? How about some transparency here? We shouldn't have to be asking those questions. The money ought to be put in a fund, and that fund ought to be administered by people who are putting together the criteria by which we address the problems that are being confronted by people all up and down the Gulf Coast. That is what ought to happen. Another company that is responsible here is Transocean. By the way, Transocean was the company who BP leased the mobile offshore drilling unit from, and they were drilling under contract for BP. They are going to have some responsibility as well, I expect. Let me give you a description here because it is so symbolic of what is happening too often in this country. Transocean was an American headquartered company, but they moved to Switzerland not too long ago. Why did they move to Switzerland? I assume so they do not have to pay American taxes. Go find a tax haven so you do not have pay taxes to the United States. So they have, as I understand it, about 1,200 employees working in Houston, TX, and about 12 employees in Switzerland. Yet they declare Switzerland their headquarters. They had a meeting in Switzerland some weeks ago and decided they were going to pay a $1 billion dividend to their shareholders. They ought not be paying dividends either. They, too, ought to keep this funding available in case it is needed--when it is needed--to be helpful to the people on the Gulf Coast who are seeing these unbelievable impacts. So they ought not be paying dividends at all. Again, we should be asking questions about Transocean. Is it a big company that should have some liability here? I guess so. It operates 140 mobile offshore drilling units. It is the world's largest offshore drilling contractor. But again I say, as I have said before, why is it that when you pull the pages back and unearth the story, you discover, that this is a company that moved its headquarters for tax purposes? They first went to the Cayman Islands and then went to Switzerland. Yet, hey have a handful of people in Switzerland and most of the people in Texas. Why does it not want to be an American company? I guess to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Why is it that all these companies want the opportunity to utilize all that our country has to offer but none of the obligations to the country? It is unbelievable, to me. But with respect to dividends, I say to BP and Transocean: Don't be doing that. You are going to need that money. Let's make a binding commitment--no more pledges. That old movie, ``Jerry McGuire,'' where Cuba Gooding, Jr., says, ``Show me the money''--show me the money. Let's have that money go from a pledge to a binding commitment in a recovery fund, and that will give a whole lot of folks who are hurting today some feeling that maybe, just maybe, they are going to get helped. I also wanted to make a couple of other points about how the Senate addresses energy and climate change legislation. Last evening, the President talked about the need for Congress to take up energy legislation. I agree with that. The fact is, we passed an energy bill out of the Energy Committee last June. I want to debate and vote on it on the floor of the Senate. There are all of these questions about energy versus climate change. Look, the Energy bill we passed will maximize the production of renewable energy. It will help build the transmission lines, the interstate highway of transmission capability, around our country that is necessary so that you can produce energy where the Sun shines and the wind blows and move it to the load centers where it is needed. It can help do all of these things. It includes provisions for building efficiency and retrofits. It does a lot of things to reduce carbon. I guess my approach to energy is best described--and I didn't take Latin in a high school of nine students in my senior class. But I call my approach ``totus porkus,'' which probably in Latin would mean something like ``whole hog.'' I think we ought to do everything. Let's do everything and do it well. Let's responsibly produce more oil and gas here and do it the right way. Let's maximize wind, solar and other renewable resources. Let's have the first ever renewable energy standard that says we anticipate that 20 percent. We need to get 20 percent of all of the electricity produced from renewable sources. Let's support biomass and more biofuels. Let's do all of those things and do them well, even as we do them differently, including using coal by capturing the carbon. By the way, there are a lot of ways to do that. Sandia National Laboratories is working on ways to change the way we think about CO2. Yes, CO2 is a major problem, but it can also be a product. Why don't you think of this not just as a problem but a product? What kind of beneficial use can you develop with CO2 that turns a problem into an asset? I chair the subcommittee on appropriations that funds the energy research and development for the Department of Energy. We are doing a lot of unbelievable things that take a look at beneficial use of CO2. Even as we reduce the emissions into the atmosphere to try to protect this planet, we can find ways to use CO2 in a beneficial way and protect our planet. My point is this about taking up legislation: Some say, well, you have to bring climate change to the floor of the Senate right now. Look, I don't think there are 60 votes for a climate change bill. But if that is the case, we will see. But at this point, we do know we have a bipartisan bill on energy legislation from the Senate Energy Committee does all of the right things. We ought to try to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and do that soon. We can do that by bringing the Energy bill we have already passed on a bipartisan basis to the floor of the Senate--the sooner the better, in my judgment. I know we are short of time. I know Senator Reid and others--

Mr. DORGAN. We have all talked about the prospects of debating energy legislation and want to do the right thing. I hope, as the President indicated last night, the right thing is to pass good, comprehensive energy legislation that will make us less dependant on foreign oil and begin to address climate change at the same time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will not speak long. Let me continue and finish. When the historic accomplishment occurred of settling this lawsuit after 14 years between the Federal Government and the plaintiffs, when that historic agreement was reached, I was hopeful the Congress would move very quickly and provide the resources, from the Settlement Fund, that are available to make this settlement work. I hope very much, if there is a vote--I don't know there will be a vote on the Barrasso amendment--if there is a vote on the Barrasso amendment, I hope very much my colleagues will oppose it. I say to Senator Barrasso that the ideas, recommendations, and thoughts he has about this settlement should be presented to both sides who negotiated the settlement. In fact, if Congress were to unilaterally make changes, I think it would void the settlement. Void it after 14 long years and a lot of important work that would culminate in a settlement that plaintiffs have been waiting for and plaintiffs well deserve. I urge my colleagues, as the Administration has urged, let us not unilaterally go outside the settlement that has been structured and negotiated. Let's decide to do what I believe Congress has a responsibility to do. The longer this drags out, the more the American people see what was done to American Indians, the more people see how badly some of these people were cheated. Yes, this woman, who never got her money and died long before that money was ever available. Yes, this woman, who lived humbly all her life with six oil wells on her land and got virtually nothing from it. Do we have to continue to talk about these issues, or should we settle this and do what the Federal Government should do: own up to its responsibility, say we have done wrong here, say we will fix it now, say the trust accounts are going to work the way they should work. But to recompense for past mistakes and for money that was not given to the first Americans that the Federal Government promised would be theirs, that belonged to them, came from their lands, let's not interrupt that with an amendment on the floor of the Senate on this legislation. Let us instead decide we will ratify this agreement and put this behind us. It is a very sad, sorry chapter in the history of this government in the way they have treated American Indians. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 17, 2010, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Indian Education: Did the No Child Left Behind Act Leave Indian Students Behind?'' Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me speak for a moment with respect to the New START treaty. Strategic arms reductions are very important. We do not think about them very much. We deal with big issues and small issues in the Senate. Sometimes the small issues get much more attention than the big issues. But one is coming for sure to the floor of the Senate that is a very big issue; that is, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that was negotiated with the Russians. This is really a big issue and very important. I want to describe why and describe why I feel so strongly about it. I have spoken on the floor previously about this, but I want to do it again, describing a Time magazine article from March 11, 2002. The March 11, 2002, Time magazine article referred back to 2001, right after 9/11--It said this: For a few harrowing weeks last fall, a group of U.S. officials believed that the worst nightmare of their lives-- something even more horrific than 9/11--was about to come true. In October, an intelligence alert went out to a small number of government agencies, including the Energy Department's top-secret Nuclear Emergency Research Team, based in Nevada. The report said that terrorists were thought to have obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal and planned to smuggle it into New York City. ``It was brutal,'' a U.S. official told Time. It was also highly classified and closely guarded. Under the aegis of the Whitehouse's Counterterrorism Security Group . . . the suspected nuke was kept secret so as not to panic the people of New York. Senior FBI officials were not in the loop. Some while later, Graham Allison, who is an expert on nuclear proliferation wrote about this incident in a book titled ``Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.'' In his book, he points out: One month to the day after the attacks of 9/11, a CIA agent codenamed Dragonfire reported that al-Qaida terrorists had stolen a ten kiloton Russian nuclear bomb from the Russian arsenal and may have smuggled it into New York City. Vice President Cheney moved to a secret mountain facility along with several hundred government employees. They were the core of an alternative government that would operate if Washington, DC were destroyed. President Bush dispatched Nuclear Emergency Support Teams to New York to search for the suspected nuclear weapon. To not cause panic, no one in New York City was informed of the threat, not even Mayor Giuliani. After a few weeks, the intelligence community determined that Dragonfire's report was a false alarm. But as they did the postmortem on this, they understood that no one claimed it could have been impossible that a nuclear weapon could have been stolen from the Russian arsenal. No one claimed it would have been impossible--having stolen a Russian nuclear weapon--to smuggle it into New York City or a major American city. No one claimed it would have been impossible for a terrorist group--who wanted to kill several hundred thousand people with a nuclear weapon--to have been able to detonate that nuclear weapon. Now, as I indicated, I describe that as it was described in Time magazine in 2002, and as it was written about in the book by Graham Allison, a former Clinton administration official, in his book titled, ``Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.'' I describe that and the apoplectic seizure that existed in parts of the U.S. government when it was thought that 1 month after 9/11 al-Qaida had stolen a nuclear weapon and was prepared to detonate it in an American city. And on that day, we wouldn't have had 3,000-plus Americans murdered, we would have had hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their lives. Yet that was about one nuclear weapon--one, just one. The loss of one nuclear weapon. Now, it turns out it Dragonfire's report wasn't true. The FBI agent codenamed Dragonfire heard it, passed it along, but it turned out it was not accurate. But that was just one nuclear weapon. There are about 25,000 nuclear weapons on this planet. This chart shows the Union of Concerned Scientists' estimate for 2010 estimate that Russia has 15,100 nuclear weapons, the United States has 9,400, China about 240, France 300, Britain 200, and Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea each have some. So 25,000 nuclear weapons, and I have described the terror of having just one end up in the hands of a terrorist group. If it ever happens--when it ever happens, God forbid--and hundreds of thousands of people are killed, life on this planet will be changed forever. Now, Mr. President, we have a lot of nuclear weapons on this planet of ours, and we understand the consequences of their use. These pictures from August of 1945 show the consequences of the dropping of two nuclear weapons--one in Hiroshima and one in Nagasaki. Those pictures are, all these years later, still very hard to look at. That is the consequence of two nuclear weapons. I was recently in Russia visiting a site that we fund in the Congress under the Nunn-Lugar program. I want to show some photographs about what we have been doing to try to back away from the nuclear threat, to try to see if we can reduce the number of nuclear weapons and the number of delivery vehicles to deliver those nuclear weapons. This is a photograph of the dismantlement of a Blackjack bomber. This Blackjack bomber was a Russian bomber--a Soviet Union bomber prior to Russia--that would carry a nuclear weapon that would potentially be dropped on the United States, then an adversary during the Cold War. You can see that we dismantled that Russian Blackjack bomber, and this is a piece of a wing strut. I ask unanimous consent to show a couple of samples.

Mr. DORGAN. This is a piece of a wing strut of a Russian bomber. We didn't shoot it down. We cut the wing off. I happen to have a piece of it. This was happening because our colleagues, Senators Nunn and Lugar, put together a program by which we actually paid for the dismantlement of Russian bombers. I also have copper wiring from the ground-up copper of the electrical wires of a Russian submarine. We didn't sink that submarine. We paid money to have that submarine destroyed, as part of our agreement with Russia to reduce that country's nuclear weapons. This is a hinge from a silo in the Ukraine that previously housed a missile with warheads aimed at the United States. There is now planted on that ground sunflowers, not missiles, because we paid the cost of reducing delivery vehicles and reducing nuclear weapons in the stockpile of the former Soviet Union. This is a program that works--a program that is unbelievably important. And as I and some others viewed these programs in Russia, we understood again the importance of what we have been doing under the Nunn-Lugar program: The Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are now nuclear weapons free. That didn't used to be the case. There are no nuclear weapons in those three countries. Albania is chemical weapons free. We have deactivated, under the Nunn-Lugar program, 7,500 former Soviet nuclear warheads. And the numbers of weapons of mass destruction that have been eliminated, and their delivery vehicles, are 32 ballistic missile submarines--gone, eliminated; 1,419 long-range nuclear missiles; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles, and 155 nuclear bombers. All of this has been done under a program that very few people know about--the Nunn-Lugar program. It works. It is a great program. But, as I have indicated, there are still thousands and thousands and thousands--it is estimated this year 25,000--of nuclear weapons on this planet. So what do we do about that? This administration engaged with the Russians for a new treaty because the old START treaty had expired. This new treaty--the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty--was negotiated over a lengthy period of time. It required a lot of patience, a great deal of effort, but this administration stuck with it. They negotiated, completed, and signed this treaty. The President of Russia and our President met in Prague, the Czech Republic, and signed this treaty. Now it needs to be ratified by the Senate. I want to talk just a bit about the need to do that. I think all of us understand the urgency. There are some who feel strongly that perhaps we should begin the testing of nuclear weapons. I don't support that. I don't think we should. I think we need to be world leaders on these issues. We have stopped nuclear testing. Others have stopped nuclear testing as well, and we ought to continue that posture. There are some who feel we should begin building new nuclear weapons. I don't believe we should. That doesn't make any sense. That is the wrong signal for us to send to the world. There are some who believe that we need to make additional investments in the area of life extension programs and investments in making certain that the nuclear weapons that do exist in the stockpile are weapons in which we have the required confidence that those weapons are available, if needed. The President has asked that funding to do that be made available. I chair the subcommittee that funds those programs, and I believe we will make available what the President requests. It is reasonable, it seems to me, to not only proceed--hopefully, on a bipartisan basis--to address something as important as the START treaty, but at the same time make sure that the programs that we have always had--the life extension programs and the programs that make sure that we have sufficient confidence in the weapons that exist--are funded appropriately. That is what the President has recommended in the budget that he has sent to the Congress. It just seems to me there is so much to commend to this Congress the need to ratify an arms control treaty here. Mr. Linton Brooks, the NNSA Administrator under George W. Bush, said this, talking about the newly negotiated treaty and the President's budget request: START, as I now understand it, is a good idea on its own merits, but I think for those who think it's only a good idea if you have a strong weapons program, I think this budget ought to take care of that. Coupled with the out-year projections, it takes care of the concerns about the complex and it does very good things about the stockpile and it should keep the labs healthy. I don't quote Henry Kissinger very often, but Henry Kissinger says it pretty well when he says: It should be noted I come from the hawkish side of this debate, so I'm not here advocating these measures in the abstract. I try to build them into my perception of the national interest. I recommend ratification of this treaty. Henry Kissinger says he recommends ratification of this treaty. And, finally, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen: I, the Vice Chairman, and the Joint Chiefs, as well as our combatant commanders around the world, stand solidly behind this new treaty, having had the opportunity to provide our counsel, to make our recommendations, and to help shape the final agreements. It is not just us, but it is our children and their children that have a lot at stake with respect to reducing the number of nuclear weapons, reducing the delivery vehicles. It is the case that the amount of plutonium that will fit in a soda can, the amount of highly enriched uranium the size of a couple of grapefruits will produce a nuclear weapon that will have devastating consequences. So one of our obligations is to try to make sure nuclear material--the material with which those who wish to make nuclear weapons can make those weapons-- stays out of the hands of terrorists. That is one of our jobs. We are working very hard on that. We have programs that work on that constantly. Second is to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I described the countries that we know have nuclear weapons. Now we have to stop the proliferation and stop other countries from getting nuclear weapons. That is our responsibility. We have to be a world leader to do that. As I said, if, God forbid, somehow in the future--5 years, 10 years, or 20 years from now--a nuclear weapon is exploded in a major city, and hundreds of thousands are killed, life on this planet is not going to be the same. That is why it seems to me that a very important start-- and this is just a start, not a finish--is to take this treaty that has been negotiated, bring it to the floor of the Senate, and have this discussion. I would expect there will be Republicans and Democrats who will come down on the same side of this issue--that it is a better world, a safer world when we meet our responsibility to lead on the issues of nonproliferation, when we meet our responsibilities to lead on the matter of reducing nuclear weapons and reducing delivery vehicles. That is what this New START treaty does. It does it in a very responsible way. So my hope will be that in the coming 2 months or so that we will have a robust discussion of the START treaty and have the celebration of having had the debate and had the vote and then exclaiming to the world that this was a success--that this treaty was a success. Yes, a first step but a success. Beyond this treaty, there will be other negotiations that will take us to other areas in reductions. I think, as a result, if we do what we should be expected to do, this can be a safer world. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 932 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard and NOAA; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 15, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and debate concurrently the following nominations on the Executive Calendar for a total of 20 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees: Calendar No. 732, Tanya Pratt; Calendar No. 775, Brian Jackson; and Calendar No. 776, Elizabeth Foote; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed, and that after the first vote, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each; that upon confirmation, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 211, H.R. 3360.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Rockefeller substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, the bill be passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, June 14; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. I further ask that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 4213, the extenders package.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. As a reminder, there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session. However, the bill manager will be here in the Chamber of the Senate to continue working through amendments on the extenders bill. The next rollcall votes will occur around 11:50 a.m. Tuesday, June 15, on the confirmation of several judicial nominations.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 550 submitted earlier today.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the START treaty briefly. Before I do, let me mention, as I have previously, that I have been sending messages to the Justice Department and others. I was pleased with the Attorney General's comments today about the oilspill in the gulf, the gusher of oil that continues in the gulf, and about BP's responsibility. There is no question that BP has said they pledged to cover legitimate costs as a result of this oilspill. The question I have is, Is that a binding agreement? And the answer from the Justice Department at a hearing recently was, no, it is not binding. If that is the case, if it is not binding--and I believe it is not--we need to move to take steps to make that pledge binding. There are people today who are trying to figure out how on Earth do they get through this situation. In addition to oil spilling out into the gulf--and it has been doing that I think for 52, 53 days--there are people on a dock in a small town somewhere who are fisher men and women. They have a boat and they fish for a living. But their boat is idle at the end of the dock because they cannot fish. Yet they have to make a payment on that boat at the end of the month. Up and down the gulf, there are significant consequences of this situation. The question is, Who is going to reach out to help those folks? They did not cause these problems. I think it is important for BP to be asked to put a significant amount of money into a fund, a recovery fund of sorts, and that fund be handled by a special master and perhaps by a counselor from BP. In any event, it is important to turn this from a pledge into a binding commitment and to do so soon so that money begins flowing to those who are substantially disadvantaged by what has happened and this disaster that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this week there was a full-page advertisement in the magazine Politico. It was actually a letter to me, an open letter to Senator Byron Dorgan, and then it says: ``Setting the Record Straight About the Cayman Islands.'' It is signed by a man named Anthony Travers, chairman of the Cayman Islands Financial Services Association. The letter says: During the recent debate over financial regulatory reform, you-- Meaning me-- perpetuated the myth that the Cayman Islands is a tax secrecy jurisdiction with unbelievably enormous loopholes. Neither of these claims are true. And so on. I thought I would respond to Mr. Travers. I don't know Mr. Travers from a cord of wood, but since he bothered to buy a full-page ad in the newspaper Politico setting me straight, I thought perhaps it would be useful for those who might ever have read this to know the facts. The Cayman Islands is a wonderful place. It has I guess the nicest water I have ever seen; blue-green, beautiful water, beautiful beaches. I don't know much about the Cayman Islands. I have visited there. I know about some of the Cayman Islands from a number of things I have read and seen about their banking system. What I have done on many occasions on the floor of the Senate when I have been talking about those who have been trying to avoid paying taxes to the United States and those who want all that America has to offer them, except they don't want to meet the obligations of citizenship by paying the taxes they owe, is I have held up a picture of a house in the Cayman Islands. So I will do it again today. This is called the Ugland House. A very enterprising reporter named David Evans from Bloomberg News brought this to my attention the first time. This is a five-story white house. It sits on Church Street in the Cayman Islands. It is a building that has 18,857 corporations that call it home. The first time I showed this on the floor, this five-story white building on Church Street in the Cayman Islands, it had, I believe, 12,748 corporations that say this is our corporate home. Now it has grown. There are actually 18,857 companies in this five-story building. Oh, they are not there; it is just a fiction. They claim a mailbox in this little white stucco building in order to find a way to avoid responsibilities to others outside of the Cayman Islands. Many of them would be American companies searching for ways to provide secrecy for their financial transactions and presumably searching for ways to avoid paying their tax obligations. The fellow who wrote to me, whose name is Anthony Travers--and let me describe who he is. Mr. Travers, says the Cayman Islands News Service, is chairman of CSI Stock Exchange and a former partner of Maples and Calder. Anthony Travers apparently chairs the Cayman Islands Financial Services Association. So he is a former partner of Maples and Calder. Who is Maples and Calder? The law firm of Maples and Calder is the only occupant of the Ugland House. Isn't that interesting? They have 18,857 companies that claim to be there--that is pretty crowded, right--18,857 companies claim to be crowded into this five-story white stucco building. But these companies are just there to claim a mailbox-- perhaps they all use the same mailbox--to avoid their obligations to other countries, especially our country. So Mr. Travers has an epileptic seizure because I suggest that the Cayman Islands is a place where there is tax secrecy and he writes a letter to set the record straight. He does no such thing. He doesn't have the foggiest idea what he is talking about. I know what I am talking about. This is a place he used to work. This is where the law firm he worked for existed. They are the ones that accomplished apparently the opportunity to have 18,857 companies claim a mail box as their legal address. Well, if that is not enough, let me say this: The Wall Street Journal had an opinion piece by Robert Morgenthau in New York, he said: There is $1.9 trillion-- He is talking about the lack of financial transparency and the activities of principals in the financial markets-- There is $1.9 trillion, almost all of it run out of the New York metropolitan area, that sits in the Cayman Islands, a secrecy jurisdiction. Let me say that again: ``A secrecy jurisdiction.'' That is from Mr. Robert Morgenthau, who knows what he is talking about. By the way, let me also say that McClatchy reported this: Goldman Sachs used offshore tax havens to shuffle its mortgage-backed securities to institutions worldwide, including European and Asian banks, often in secret deals run through the Cayman Islands, a British territory in the Caribbean that companies use to bypass U.S. disclosure requirements. Well, I guess Mr. Travers sure did set me straight, except he didn't have the facts. He knows what the facts are because he has been in this building with 18,857 corporations. One wonders where he could find a chair or even find lunch--a pretty crowded place. Let me further then say, the Asset Protection Law Center, reportedly run out of a law firm located in California, describes this as the four main factors for being involved in the Caymans and being involved in what they are doing: No. 1: There are no income taxes, capital gains taxes, profits tax or estate taxes. No. 2: The bank secrecy laws are among the strictest in the world with criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure. No. 3: The law allows companies to be formed with a minimum of paperwork, and shares can be held anonymously in bearer form or by nominees. No. 4: The law regarding the formation of trusts is highly developed and allows an excellent level of flexibility-- I will bet it does-- an excellent level of flexibility, asset protection, and privacy. I guess that describes what we have in the Cayman Islands. Again, the letter from Mr. Travers to myself explains how the claims of tax secrecy jurisdictions are untrue. Then, if I might, one more time, without being too repetitious, the five-story white building where Mr. Travers--or at least Mr. Travers' old firm--occupies and accommodated 18,857 neighbors to join them for the purpose of getting their mail there in order to claim that is where their business location exists. Is it because they have relatives in this building? No, no relatives. Is it because they visit the building from time to time? No, likely they have never seen the building. Is it because they want to claim an address in the Cayman Islands because they like blue and green water or beaches? No. It is because they need a location in an area where you have unbelievable secrecy so you can claim this is home to avoid taxes and to avoid other disclosures of what you are doing with a substantial amount of money. Mr. Morgenthau had it correct. Mr. Morgenthau talked about $1.9 trillion that has been run around through these orifices, in this case a five-story building in the Cayman Islands. All I say to Mr. Travers is this: I have certain expectations of those who want everything that America has to offer. If you are an American citizen or an American corporation, which is an artificial person, if in those circumstances you want all that America has to offer, then I believe you have responsibilities to pay your taxes and become productive citizens and meet the responsibilities that citizens have in this country. Most of the people I represent up the street and down the block and out on the farm don't have the ability or the willingness to decide to hide their income from their government. But some of the biggest enterprises in the country do, so they find a willing partner in a little white building on Church Street in the Cayman Islands that allows them to do that. That is very unfortunate. I would say to Mr. Travers: Next time you try to set somebody straight, use a few facts. Perhaps it will buttress your argument. But don't try to fool me or the Congress or the American people about what is going on inside of this white building. We understand what is going on inside this building, and I think the people who allow that to happen and to decide it is a legitimate way to do business ought to be ashamed of themselves. Gulf Oilspill Madam President, if I might--I understand some colleagues are here--I wish to make some very brief comments about a hearing we had this morning in the Energy Committee with Secretary Salazar dealing with the oilspill. I asked this morning again about the promise and the pledge that BP has made that they will cover all of the ``legitimate'' costs that occur as a result of this oilspill. I have asked this question to the U.S. Justice Department, I talked to the President about it yesterday, and I talked to Secretary Salazar about it. Isn't it time now, on the 51st day of this gusher, for us to say to BP that we expect you to pay and we don't expect the American taxpayer to bear the burden of your mistakes? If, in fact, you have made a pledge--and they have repeatedly--to cover all legitimate costs, let us finally take steps to make that pledge binding. BP is a very large company that has made $150 billion in net profits over the last 10 years, averaging $15 billion a year. This company made $6 billion in net profits in the first quarter of this year. It is time to say to that company: If you are serious and your commitment is real, then let's make a binding commitment. I believe we ought to ask BP to put $10 billion in a gulf coast recovery fund now, and that fund ought to be the result of a signed agreement between our government and BP. That signed agreement ought to create a special master and a special counselor from BP working together to disperse funds from that $10 billion which will be the first tranche of funds that likely will be necessary to respond to this oilspill. As I speak, there are people standing on a dock in a small town on the gulf and they have a fishing boat at the end of a pier that is going nowhere because there is no fishing to be done. They have to make a payment on that boat at the end of this month. Also, there is likely a small cafe on that pier and the people who put their life savings into that don't have any customers. Who is going to help them? Who is going to respond to their needs, and when? It is time, in my judgment-- past the time--for us to make this commitment that BP has said they will pledge a binding commitment. The initiation of that, in my judgment--I have written to the Justice Department. I hope very much they will initiate that effort to do this. If BP says, You know what, no, we are just going to give you a pledge, I would say we have seen that pledge and heard that pledge before, and long after people are dead. I am talking about Exxon Valdez. A company that was still objecting to paying, despite the fact they made the same pledge. I want BP to make that pledge binding, and that can be done I believe contractually through our government and BP by establishing a gulf coast recovery fund. Placing the first $10 billion into that fund and having a special master and counselor be in charge of that fund in order to respond to those people out on the dock who are wondering: How do I make my payment? How do I make my living? What do I do tomorrow, next week, next month? This is a very important issue, and I hope in the coming days the administration and the Congress will be able to address this. Let me make one final point. I know there are people trying to create other issues from this disaster in the gulf. This President, President Obama, did not punch that hole in the planet, he didn't drill that well, and he can't cap that well. The fact is he, his administration, and others have done everything possible. This morning I met with Dr. Tom Hunter. I don't know whether people know Dr. Tom Hunter. He is the head of Sandia National Laboratory. He is one of the extraordinary minds, one of the really interesting people in this country. Dr. Tom Hunter had some health issues some many months ago, but I will tell my colleagues where he has spent his last 51 days. He, as a part of a group with the other best thinkers in this country, has been called by this administration to represent the core of competent people to try to figure out how to address this issue. When I heard Dr. Hunter was working on this with Dr. Steve Chu, the Energy Secretary, Ken Salazar and so many others, I told the Secretary of the Interior this morning: You know what, you look like you need 10, 12 hours of sleep. I said: That doesn't mean you look awful; I just know how weary it has been working every day for 51 days. This administration has tried very hard, and they are continuing to try. The fact is, there are a lot of people playing politics with this oilspill. We don't need to point fingers. We need to gather together and join hands and understand this was a national disaster, and the consequences of it will be with us for a long time. Now our first responsibility is simply to work together to figure out how to shut off this gusher. Second, how do we deal with the problems that exist for so many people as a result? How do we begin the process of trying to clean up the environmental damage it has done? Third, it is quite clear to me things aren't going to change with respect to offshore drilling. We need oil production. Thirty percent of our domestic production comes from offshore drilling. Perhaps there is a difference between shallow water and deep water production. There will be changes in regulations and in approaches. All of that is necessary. But first and foremost, we need to stop this gusher and then begin work to find a way to address the needs of so many people who have lost hope and their livelihoods. We can do that. Let me just say again that this administration has done everything it can, and it continues to do that. I am pleased to see Dr. Hunter and so many of the others with the best minds in America brought together, brought to bear on this issue. If this gusher can be stopped--and it will be--it will be because some of the best people in the country have worked 51 days overtime trying to find a way to address this very significant disaster. I apologize to my colleague for the waiting. I will perhaps come back again if Mr. Traverse from the Cayman Islands wishes to send additional information out about the Ugland House. Maybe I should visit the Ugland House, if it is not too crowded with the 18,857 companies calling it home. But that is perhaps for another speech and another day. I yield the floor.