[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 19, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Page S3955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________