[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 58 (Tuesday, May 3, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2623-S2624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. TESTER:
  S. 870. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
modify oil and hazardous substance liability, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, on April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire 
destroyed BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig, killing 11 workers and 
causing the largest oil spill in American history.
  A year later, the well is capped and Americans who live near and rely 
on the Gulf of Mexico are still struggling with the ramifications of 
the Deepwater Horizon spill, while facing destruction from 
unprecedented storms ripping across the region. Meantime, BP, the 
second largest oil company in the United States who just reported 7.1 
billion dollars in profits last quarter, is attempting to skirt their 
fines for this unprecedented disaster.
  In early April, BP indicated it is exploring wording in the Federal 
Water Pollution Prevention Act or the Clean Water Act which allows the 
court to determine the fines by either the number of days of the 
incident, or by the number of barrels of oil spilled. Current law 
leaves the determination of which metric to use up to the court. In 
this case, the difference between these two metrics is enormous. At the 
low end, using the per-day charge of $32,500, BP could pay less than $3 
million for the whole incident. This amount of money isn't sufficient 
to change BP's safety culture and improve its workplace and 
environmental safety.
  Per barrel fines range from $1,000 to $4,300 per barrel. Under this 
metric, BP's fines would total between $5 billion and $18 billion, 
which is a much more appropriate fine for the environmental damage that 
was done.
  We must address this outrageous loophole to prevent corporate 
polluters from skirting accountability and responsibility if they wreak 
havoc on our land and in our water. We must speak the only language 
that corporations understand and that is profit. These fines, which are 
the only penalties the corporation cannot write off on their taxes, are 
critically important to sending a message that pollution doesn't 
profit; that corporations act responsibly to protect workers and the 
resources they use. If we accept minimal fines, we are condoning this 
irresponsible behavior.

[[Page S2624]]

  Many will argue that we don't need this legislation, because the 
court will fine them accordingly. But to date, the largest Clean Water 
Act fine ever levied was $13 million. $13 million is less than BP spent 
in 2009 on lobbying.
  That is why I am introducing the Pollution Accountability Act of 
2011, which requires the court to fine violators of the Clean Water Act 
whichever fine is higher, per day or per barrel. If you pollute, there 
will be consequences. There will be accountability. We will demand 
responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and 
expeditiously passing it into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 872. A bill to amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify 
the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of 
California is considered to be held in trust and to provide for the 
conduct of certain activities on the land; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton 
Gaming Oversight Act. This legislation will ensure that regular process 
under Federal law is followed when Native American tribes take land 
into trust for operating gaming facilities.
  Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act in 2000, which 
included a provision to re-recognize the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians 
and allow them to acquire trust land in the San Francisco Bay area.
  The Lytton Band has had a long and difficult history in my state, and 
by all accounts the Tribe deserved to be recognized and have a 
homeland.
  But the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act did so in a way that was both 
controversial and unfair in how it granted an individual tribe an 
unprecedented exemption to the law.
  The land taken into trust for the Lytton Band was miles away from 
their historical homeland and it treated the acquisition as if it was 
completed before 1988.
  Why would something like that matter?
  The answer is simple: the land the tribe acquired was home to an 
existing casino and 1988 is the year that Congress passed the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act.
  Therefore, by treating the land as if it were taken into trust before 
1988, the Tribe is able to operate the casino outside the framework set 
up by Congress to govern how and where tribes may open casinos.
  The Omnibus Indian Advancement Act set aside well-established rules 
and procedures, and left the government with little ability to regulate 
the Lytton Band's gaming operation.
  The result: the Lytton Band acquired land and a casino without having 
to go through the normal oversight process. No local input. No 
community feedback and no consideration for the best interest of the 
region.
  The Lytton Gaming Oversight Act would implement a reasonable solution 
to this problem.
  It does so by taking two simple steps.

       It protects the sovereignty of the Tribe by allowing 
     continued operation of existing gaming activities, provided 
     the tribe follows standards established by the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act for gaming on newly-acquired lands in the 
     future.
       Secondly it protects the interest of the surrounding 
     community by precluding any physical or operational expansion 
     of the Tribe's current gaming facility unless the Tribe 
     consults with locals and obtains the consent of the Governor 
     and the Secretary of the Interior as required by current law.

  The bill does not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal recognition 
status. It does not alter the trust status of the Tribe's land. It does 
not take away the Tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the 
standard process prescribed by current law.
  Circumventing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act process deprives local 
and tribal governments the ability to weigh in on this incredibly 
important issue.
  A 2006 report entitled Gambling in the Golden State found serious 
problems associated with gambling establishments; casinos are 
associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime, a 10 percent 
increase in bankruptcy rates, and a per capita increase of $15.34 for 
law enforcement.
  If this bill is not approved, the Lytton Tribe could take the 
existing casino that serves as their reservation and turn it into a 
large Nevada-style gambling complex. In fact, this is exactly what was 
proposed in the summer of 2004. I am pleased that the tribe has 
abandoned the plan seeking a sizable Class III casino, but without this 
legislation the tribe could reverse their decision at any time.
  Identical legislation passed this body in the past two Congresses. It 
had unanimous approval from both Democrats and Republicans. This is in 
large part because I have worked and negotiated with the Tribe to 
ensure that this legislation is fair and balanced.
  The bill is simple, straightforward, and reasonable. It restores the 
intent of Congress and preserves the sovereignty of the Lytton Band.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and look forward to 
working with you to ensure its passage again in the coming year.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 872

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA.

       Section 819 of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (Public 
     Law 106-568; 114 Stat. 2919) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Notwithstanding'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Acceptance of Land.--Notwithstanding'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Declaration.--The Secretary''; and
       (3) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Treatment of Land for Purposes of Class II Gaming.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Lytton 
     Rancheria of California may conduct activities for class II 
     gaming (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)) on the land taken into trust 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Requirement.--The Lytton Rancheria of California 
     shall not expand the exterior physical measurements of any 
     facility on the Lytton Rancheria in use for class II gaming 
     activities on the date of enactment of this paragraph.
       ``(d) Treatment of Land for Purposes of Class III Gaming.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (a), for purposes of class III 
     gaming (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)), the land taken into trust 
     under this section shall be treated, for purposes of section 
     20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719), as 
     if the land was acquired on October 9, 2003, the date on 
     which the Secretary took the land into trust.''.

                          ____________________