[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4578-H4584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEPENDENCE ON OIL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                               Disclosure

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to engage in a colloquy 
with my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, who will be 
along shortly, but before I launch into the issue of national security 
and of our dependence on oil, I would like to just address what my 
colleague from California was talking about, give an example of why 
disclosure is important, and would like to recognize the fact that it 
was the Republican Party mantra for nearly 20 years that the solution 
to campaign finance reform was disclosure. Now, apparently, they want 
to stand up and say they don't want disclosure after having, for 20 
years, said they want disclosure.
  Go figure.
  The fact of the matter is, in California, in an election held just 2 
weeks ago, disclosure under the State law has played a critical role in 
stopping Pacific Gas & Electric from ripping off the ratepayers of 
California and has played a critical role in stopping Mercury Insurance 
Company from doing the same to their customers.
  The California law required disclosure. PG&E spent over $40 million 
in, what I think, was blatant, false advertising, and at the bottom of 
each one of those ads, they had to read, ``Paid for by Pacific Gas & 
Electric.'' Similarly, with Mercury Insurance Company, the public took 
one look at those ads, which they saw repeatedly, and said, Oh, that's 
who's behind it. Well, I'm a ``no'' vote.
  Disclosure works, my Republican colleagues. It's what you wanted for 
more than 20 years, and now that you're about to get it, you don't want 
it. Well, I think not.


                National Security and Dependence on Oil

  Let me go to the subject at hand that we are to talk about this 
evening,

[[Page H4579]]

which is really the issue of national security.
  For more than 40 years now, America has talked about energy 
independence, about literally breaking our addiction to oil. America is 
addicted to oil. We consume more than 25 percent of all the world's oil 
supply. Yet we have a very small portion of the reserves. We are 
literally sending overseas $1 billion a day, with much of it going to 
countries that are actively supporting people who don't agree with us 
and people who are actually--well, perhaps--supporting terrorist 
organizations. Certainly, our national security is dependent upon going 
after the terrorists, and no one is going to do it more aggressively 
than the Obama administration, which has increased the antiterrorist 
activities of this Nation far more than during the Bush period--but 
back to oil.

  If we doubt for a moment that our Nation's security is at risk with 
the current way in which we produce oil, you only need to take a look 
at the Gulf of Mexico. In the last 20 years, there have been more than 
38 blowouts, none of them as large as what we now see with the 
Deepwater Horizon situation. Nonetheless, it is, in fact, a common 
occurrence, which has averaged more than one and a half per year over 
the last 20 years.
  So is it safe?
  Well, not so much. We just heard that saying from our Republican 
colleagues that the moratorium imposed by the President is somehow 
wrong. Hello? When two Air Force jets crashed within a month several 
years ago, the United States Air Force did what it calls a ``stand-
down.'' They grounded the entire fleet until they found out what was 
wrong. They corrected the problem and went on their way. That is 
exactly what President Obama has done. He did a stand-down of 
additional drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because, hey, there is a 
problem. This is an extraordinary blowout, one that is now exceeding 
everybody's estimate. The result: Oil on the beaches, dead birds and, 
according to The Wall Street Journal today, hmm, ``Oil Spill Delivers 
Recovery Setback.'' This is specifically looking at the real estate 
industry along the gulf coast. They cite five or six projects here that 
may be jeopardized because of the oil spill.
  This is a national security issue in the sense of how we get our oil, 
in the sense of our addiction to oil. It is time for us to recognize 
that. Because we have, in the past, consumed all of the easy oil, we 
are now going to the most difficult, the most dangerous, and the most 
risky places in the world, certainly to the deep waters. The Deepwater 
Horizon blowout is, perhaps, as much as 60,000 barrels a day. This is a 
very serious problem, and it deserves our attention.
  Last night, the President spoke to the problem and committed his 
administration and this Nation to everything necessary to clean up and 
to plug the well. My colleagues on the Republican side mentioned that, 
just 37 days ago, they started the relief. That's not true. They 
actually started the relief program on the very day of the blowout. It 
took a while to get it going, and it is going to take even longer to 
get it done.
  So where are we going to go with this?
  I've been joined by a couple of my colleagues today, and I would like 
to ask my colleague from California, Congresswoman Judy Chu, to give us 
her thoughts on this situation.
  Ms. CHU. Thank you, Congressman Garamendi, and thank you for bringing 
this very, very important order to the floor tonight.
  I would like to focus for a moment on the oil spill and its impact on 
the victims.
  Kim Tran doesn't know how he will pay this month's car insurance, and 
he has got no idea how he will take care of his mortgage, but what he 
is most in the dark about is when he will be able to get back in the 
water and start working again.
  Kim is a deckhand on a commercial fishing boat which is stationed 
near Buras, Louisiana, in Plaquemines Parish. He is part of a close-
knit community of Vietnamese and Cambodian shrimpers whom the gulf oil 
spill has hit particularly hard. Many of them came to the gulf coast in 
the 1980s as war refugees from Vietnam. They did well. It is estimated 
that the Vietnamese Americans own between one-third and one-half of all 
of the fishing vessels on the gulf coast.
  After Katrina, they were one of the first groups to rebuild, but 
figuring out how to recover from the recent manmade disaster has been 
difficult. You see, for many of these fishermen, language is a barrier 
as bottomless as the Deepwater Horizon's well. Because English isn't 
essential for fishing, many have never learned it, so they rely on 
interpreters to help them cross the language barrier. It takes 14 words 
to translate the word ``dispersant'' into Vietnamese--and don't even 
get me started on what to do with acronyms like ``EPA.''
  So not only have these fishermen lost their normal sources of work, 
but they have been locked out of the cleanup effort, too. Many have 
even had problems filing basic claims for lost income. These Vietnamese 
fishermen are just one group affected by the tragic gulf oil spill. 
Indeed, this spill has devastated lives up and down the gulf coast. It 
is the biggest environmental disaster in our Nation's history.
  Yet Congress is working hard to repair the damage that has been done. 
I've joined in the effort to secure $85 million in emergency funding to 
assess and respond to damages from the oil spill. This money improves 
the Federal response and guarantees compensation to out-of-work 
fishermen, but we know that is not enough.
  I am proud also to sponsor a very, very important bill on the 
Judiciary Committee. This bill is called the SPILL Act. It fixes our 
outdated liability laws, and it ensures that we can hold those who 
caused this spill accountable for the damage that they have done, but 
we know that's not enough either.

                              {time}  1800

  So I've cosponsored the bill to impose a moratorium on new drilling 
off the western coast of our country. The suspension is a great step 
forward to ensuring that a disaster like this never happens again. And 
even then, it's still not enough. Indeed, the only solution to this 
disaster, the only thing that truly makes sense, is to finally end this 
country's addiction to oil.
  For decades, oil companies and lobbyists killed energy reform to keep 
their profits. For decades, our dependence on oil has hurt our economy 
and put the security of our country and our environment at risk. For 
decades, we knew that offshore drilling was just a disaster waiting to 
happen. Well, the news is that it has happened. And the Gulf oil spill 
shows that it's time to take back control of our energy policies--with 
clean power made right here in America.
  We will never be able to undue this spill. As much as we wish it 
didn't happen, we can't pretend it never did. If we do, Kim Tran's 
worries about his car and house payments will only be afterthoughts 
because his town of Buras, and countless others like it along the Gulf 
Coast, will just disappear. But we will not let that happen.
  Join me and make sure that these fishermen, these people, these 
families haven't suffered in vain. And let's make sure we clean up this 
spill, hold those who caused it accountable, and make sure it never 
happens again. Together, we will end our addiction to oil and create a 
better, cleaner future for our country.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Chu, thank you very much for your 
statement and also mentioning the end of new oil leases off the West 
Coast. We call it the West Coast Ocean Protection Act. And it would 
prohibit new leases off the West Coast of the United States. This is a 
$32 billion a year industry along the West Coast--California, Oregon, 
and Washington--that is dependent upon the pristine nature of that 
coast. In addition to that, the West Coast has a much different 
environment than the Gulf of Mexico. It's downright dangerous out 
there. High waves, high wind, and earthquakes, and a lot of other 
things that we'd say, Oh, that's not a good place to be drilling.
  It's not enough to talk about the West Coast. I see my colleague from 
New York here, and I know that he, too, along with the residents of New 
York, are terribly interested in what is happening and in our natural 
energy policies and our move away from oil.
  Congressman Tonko, if you would, please join us.
  Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, thank you for bringing us

[[Page H4580]]

together in this very thoughtful way. It's great to join you and 
Representative Chu and others who will be participating in this hour of 
dialogue where we really look in a very laser-sharp, focused way at 
this very tragic occurrence in the Gulf. Obviously, I think it's 
important to recognize the commitment made by the President and his 
administration to make certain that we do everything we can possible to 
make certain that we stay on this case of cleanup and capping.
  Certainly, shutting off that leak of that oil well is incredibly 
important and the cleanup in that Gulf area that impacts the Gulf 
States is absolutely essential. And to have the President recognize 
that we have deployed some 30,000 workers that will be in the midst of 
that activity, helping, is important; to know that over 5,000 vessels 
have been solicited and that our National Guard numbers--over 17,500 
forces--out there making a difference is important. But let's really 
look at the some of the situation here.
  I really get concerned and joined with some Members in this House to 
advance correspondence to the BP CEO, stating very clearly with my 
colleagues that their priorities spoke volumes as to where they rest as 
a corporation. To have suggested that payments be made to investors as 
a high priority, be established as a high priority; to suggest that 
dollars going to marketing go to revamping their image, enhance their 
image, while we sit there and look for ways to cap this leak, while we 
continue to make certain that we need resources to clean up the Gulf, 
that didn't seem to be a very high priority with this company. And so 
it was, I think, very appropriate for us to respond in very forceful 
measure to address this strong language in a letter to the 
organization, to BP management, and state that what you really need to 
do is re-prioritize to make certain that what comes as the most 
important, essential bit of work here as you invest dollars--and they 
best ought to--as you do that, the priority has got to be to cap that 
leak, to clean up the Gulf, to make certain that we make whole the 
individuals, the States, the communities that surround that given 
region; to make certain that businesses are allowed to function again. 
When we think of the impact on agriculture, on tourism, on the seafood 
industry, to name a few, the impact on our ecosystem, on the 
environment, on the wildlife, it is painful to watch the news accounts 
of this continuing saga of a tragedy. And so their priorities were 
misplaced and totally insensitive to the needs of people and industries 
and certainly the wildlife in this given region.
  I had stated clearly at a press conference where we aired this letter 
that it was important for them to not be so concerned about their image 
but rather deal with the basics. And I said, Before you shore up your 
image, clean up our shores. I think it's straightforward and easily 
understood. That's where I would like to see the priorities. And today, 
after pressure from the President and many of us in Congress, I think 
the company has heard the message. They have been given this forceful 
statement, and they are now responding to the pressure by suggesting 
they are setting up an account that will respond to some of these 
needs. They are setting up an account that will deal with the 
compensation fund for oil workers who are out of work because of the 
catastrophe.
  Now, one can only imagine what would have been the outcome, how much 
less impacting the outcome would have been, if they had embraced the 
same order of integrity when it came to the technology they should have 
utilized with the drilling operation. You know, they asked to go 5,000 
feet deeper. They want to drill a mile deeper. But the impact of the 
damage, without the right technology and discipline and regulation, 
meant hundreds of miles of spread. From that 1 mile deeper, hundreds of 
miles of impact because of that lack of integrity.
  And so I am here with you this evening in spirit and in voice to say 
that we need to stay on this dilemma, we need to stay on this 
catastrophe, until all of the essentials are done--the clean up, the 
capping, the reforms that are essential--and making certain that the 
dollars, the resources are coming from the source--the source of the 
pollution here--in this case, BP.
  So, thank you, Representative Garamendi, for bringing us together, 
and it's great to join you and our colleagues here this evening.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Tonko, thank you once again for being 
both eloquent and right on the target of the issue that's out before 
us. When you talk about the nature of the spill, this map is a recent 
one from the US Geological Survey and NOAA--actually, NOAA. And if you 
look at the size of that spill, it looks like it's getting about the 
same size as Louisiana itself, and of course, the Gulf Coast along here 
is seriously threatened and the extraordinary wildlife and habitat of 
the Mississippi Delta is at risk and already seriously hurt by it.
  You mentioned BP--and maybe, maybe, but I'm not convinced that BP has 
actually gotten the message that their first task is to clean up. Their 
$50 million PR campaign, I've seen some of the ads. If they had spent 
that $50 million on the proper blowout protector and actually had put 
in the most modern protection at the well head and not cut the corners, 
as is becoming increasingly obvious, in the drilling techniques and in 
securing the well itself, they wouldn't have to be spending multiple 
billions of dollars cleaning up.
  They absolutely must put that money into a trust fund. BP is not to 
be trusted to adequately distribute that money to the people that have 
been harmed. So the President is right. Create the trust fund. Put an 
independent party in charge of it and let the money go to those that 
have been seriously harmed by this, as well as the wildlife and the 
damages there.
  By the way, we really ought to pass a bill to increase the liability 
limit. And I know that bill will be moving through here.
  Joining us from--well, my neighbor in California, Congresswoman 
Barbara Lee, who about 2 years ago, you experienced an oil spill on the 
shores of your district.
  Representative Lee, thank you for joining us.
  Ms. LEE of California. Yes, Congressman Garamendi, we did experience 
a devastating oil spill 3 years ago, and that's why many of us know 
from personal experience and from a history of trying to find a way to 
help our country become energy independent and end this addiction of 
oil. We have worked on this issue for many, many years. So I am very 
pleased that you've taken the lead in sponsoring a bill, which I am 
proud to cosponsor, H.R. 5213, which would really create a ban, mind 
you. We need more than moratorium. We need a ban on offshore oil and 
natural gas drilling from platforms in Federal waters, particularly 
near California, Oregon, and Washington, which your bill addresses. I 
think what we have seen in the Gulf really explains why we're doing 
this, first of all, on the West Coast, but this needs to be done 
nationwide.
  The fact is, offshore drilling poses too great a risk to our coastal 
communities, economies, and our ecosytem. This has been made painfully 
clear by the recent British Petroleum oil spill disaster in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Every day, we have seen more and more damage to our Gulf Coast, 
with really no end in sight. Over the course of weeks, estimates of the 
damages have risen from, I think it was $14 billion, now to $34 
billion. Who knows how many billion this is going to end up being. As 
millions of gallons of oil flow into the Gulf each day, I can't imagine 
what this will be like in a few months, let alone in the years to come.
  Over 50,000 claims have been filed by small businesses for economic 
losses and thousands more workers have lost their jobs. Every day, new 
fishing areas are closed off, new coastline is contaminated, and more 
communities are affected. BP must be held accountable, and they must 
pay for this tragedy. The fragile ecosytem, which once sustained over 
400 species of wildlife, are so ravaged that experts cannot even begin 
to assess the damage. However, they all agree on this--that the long-
term health and environmental effects of this spill will plague the 
region for generations to come. We cannot continue to put our economy 
and our environment and the health of our children on the line. We must 
stop the drilling.
  Just a few decades ago, California experienced a similar spill. That 
oil spill was so toxic and ruinous that it led to the creation of the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the declaration of

[[Page H4581]]

the first Earth day by the Santa Barbara City Council. We understand 
just how devastating these chemicals can be both to our Nation's 
ecosytem and to our economy. It's time we start making decisions for 
our future. This is a terrible, tragic wake-up call. We cannot continue 
to endanger our natural treasures or economic prosperity for a paltry 
reward in the form of a decade or so of oil and natural gas protection.
  The Deepwater Horizon explosion was really not an isolated incident. 
According to the Minerals Management Service, there were 38 blowouts, 
mind you--38--in the Gulf of Mexico between 1992 and 2006. Just 
yesterday, the CEO of ExxonMobil admitted that when spills happen, we 
are, ``not well-equipped to handle them.'' I don't know what they do 
with the billions of profits that they make. But if we aren't prepared, 
then we really shouldn't be drilling.
  Perhaps the greatest tragedy behind the BP oil spill disaster is that 
it really did not need to happen. Today, we have the power to learn 
from history and to chart a new path. In order to safeguard the natural 
beauty, wildlife, and ocean-based economies of California, Oregon, and 
Washington, Congressman Garamendi's bill really does set the standard. 
We've got to move forward with a permanent moratorium or permanent ban 
on offshore oil drilling in Federal waters off the West Coast.
  The environmental disaster that we're witnessing in the Gulf is a 
symptom of a much larger problem; that is our perilous dependency, as I 
said earlier, on, really, dirty fossil fuels. We must work to end that 
addiction today or really risk sacrificing our environment for the 
future. The best and most responsible way forward is one in which our 
coastlines remain free of offshore oil and gas drilling and our demand 
for fossil fuels is diminished through the use of renewable energy 
sources and the deployment of energy-efficient technologies.
  It's time to take a stand, and it's time to declare that enough is 
enough. We must be committed to a cleaner, greener future--and that 
future starts with putting and end to offshore drilling. I think the 
President is right on point. I think we need to move forward and 
support Congressman Garamendi's bill. And we need to really recognize 
that the horrific tragedy that we're seeing today is really a sign of 
what could happen tomorrow, and use this as a defining moment to 
regroup and to become clearer about our future in terms of our energy 
independence.
  Thank you, again, Congressman Garamendi, for your leadership.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Representative Lee. And thank you 
for all the work you did dealing with that problem in the San Francisco 
Bay when the ship hit the bridge. We had our own little spill over 
there.
  I had pulled this placard up with the pictures of the oil and the 
birds. And I didn't realize until you started talking about the 
escalation and the estimate of the amount of oil that spilled--my staff 
put this together actually about 4 weeks ago--and they said by Father's 
Day it would be the worst spill ever. At 60,000 barrels, it was 
actually the worst spill after about the first 3 weeks. So in any case, 
we have got a real serious problem there.
  I notice that I have fortunately been joined by three Representatives 
from a wide, diverse part of America. From the west coast, in the great 
metropolitan area of Los Angeles, Congresswoman Watson, if you would 
care to join us.
  Ms. WATSON. Yes. I want to thank you, Congressman Garamendi, for your 
leadership. As a Californian, I am so proud of the leadership you are 
taking here. Former Lieutenant Governor, you know our State so well, 
and your charts are depicting the problems that not only the gulf coast 
has, but we've had our disasters as well. And I just want the public to 
understand our commitment.
  From day one, the Obama administration has been committed to 
containing the damage from the BP oil spill and extending to the people 
of the gulf the help they need to confront what is the worst 
environmental disaster America has ever faced, and we will continue to 
fight this spill with everything we have for as long as it takes. That 
is a commitment that is made from the top and all the way through every 
level of government. We will make BP pay for the damage that their 
company has caused our country, and we will do whatever is necessary to 
help the gulf coast and its people recover from this massive tragedy.
  This has already been the largest environmental cleanup effort in our 
country's history. We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working 
across four States to contain and clean up the oil, thousands of ships 
and other vessels are responding in the gulf, and the President has 
authorized a deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the 
coast. And because of these response efforts, millions of gallons of 
oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming 
and other collection methods. Over 5.5 million feet of boom have been 
laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. We have 
approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try to 
stop the oil before it reaches the shore. We're working with the 
affected States to implement creative approaches to their unique 
coastlines, and we will offer whatever additional resources and 
assistance they may need.
  Now the President is meeting and has met with the chairman of BP and 
will inform him--and has--that he is to set aside whatever resources 
are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have 
been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. This fund will 
not be controlled by BP, but instead by an independent third party in 
order to ensure all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely 
manner.
  But we also need to be committed to a long-term plan for restoration 
that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment. So the 
President has asked the Secretary of the Navy and former Mississippi 
Governor Ray Mabus to develop a long-term gulf coast restoration plan 
as soon as possible. And the plan will be designed by States, local 
communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conversationalists, and 
other gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had 
on the region.
  We also are taking steps to ensure a disaster like this does not 
happen again, and that's why the President has established a national 
commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer 
recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards 
need to be put in place. The President has issued a 6-month moratorium 
on the deepwater drilling. He is mindful that this creates difficulty 
for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety 
and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before 
we allow deepwater drilling to continue.
  And while the President urges the commission to complete its work as 
quickly as possible, he expects them to do that work thoroughly and 
impartially. We have already begun to take action at the Minerals 
Management Service to ensure more effective oversight and end the close 
relationship between oil companies and the agency that regulates them. 
The President has asked Michael Bromwich, a former Federal prosecutor 
and inspector general, to lead this effort and to build an organization 
that acts as the oil industry's watchdog, not its partner.
  So we must look towards the future, Mr. Garamendi. We must look at 
our energy future, and we must get off this addiction to oil. You know, 
the globe is speaking to us. We've gone too deep this time. And at the 
core of this Earth there is a lot of static and volatile motion, and 
we're seeing it bubble up. And when we look around this globe, and we 
see the volcano explosion in Iceland that grounded planes for weeks, 
when we look at the earthquake down in Haiti, and we see other effects 
on the globe natural, we're getting the message.
  So we must take action to look at our planet, to notice the 
environmental tragedies that really underscore the need for this Nation 
to embrace a clean-energy future. I look forward to having 
conversations on this floor with all of my colleagues. And with you 
leading those conversations, we will make plans that will sustain a 
future for those yet unborn, and that is the purpose of looking towards 
new energy sources that don't violate the surface of our planet or go 
down so deep

[[Page H4582]]

they disturb the powers underground. I thank you so very much.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very much for your eloquent comments on 
what has happened, what we must do.
  I notice that sitting next to you is a Representative from the other 
side of the American continent, Representative Moran from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Garamendi, thank you for having this 
Special Order. We in Virginia--not all of us, but many of us--watch 
with sadness at what happened to the California shores, and we don't 
want it repeated in Virginia. Even though the Governor and the 
Republican Party have pushed and pushed with these silly mantras, 
Drill, baby, drill, and Drill here, and drill everywhere, we're not 
going to let it happen. If we had not been diligent, we might have some 
drilling rigs off the shore of Virginia today, but we don't. And 
they're not going to go there until there is substantial modification 
of the industry practices with regard to offshore drilling.
  Let's bear in mind that what we are talking about is our Nation's 
oil. It's not oil that's owned by these oil companies or by the private 
sector. It's owned by us, the taxpayer. It's public land. It's owned by 
our children and our grandchildren. And instead of being put to our 
benefit and their benefit, because of neglect, carelessness, 
irresponsible decisions, it is destroying the ecology of the gulf and 
could well destroy the ecology of the Everglades along the Florida 
shore, and could even go up the east coast. We have no idea how 
extensive this damage is going to be, nor how expensive it will be to 
clean it up. But we're now getting an idea of why it happened.

  And I would say to the gentleman and to the Speaker that we ought to 
be mindful, first of all, that this was not under President Obama's 
watch. It was not under any kind of Democratic policy. It was under the 
administration of a President who owned an oil drilling company, an oil 
exploration company, a Vice President who was the CEO of Halliburton, 
who made money from manufacturing and installing drilling rigs--in 
fact, continued to own thousands of shares of Halliburton while they 
made enormous profits not only from drilling rigs but from the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. So while these two folks sit back, the damage is 
being inflicted upon people who bore no fault but, in fact, became 
dependent upon this industry. And our hearts go out not just to those 
who lost their lives but to those who have lost their livelihoods.
  Now, when we trace back how this particular drilling rig exploded, we 
find that there were a number of points along the way where it could 
have been avoided. Back in 2003, the Interior Department--the Bush 
administration's Interior Department--agreed with BP and other oil 
companies that installing a $500,000 acoustical shutoff switch on every 
offshore rig would be unreasonably expensive, even though such a 
shutoff switch would have prevented all of this oil from spewing out. 
Now it's costing BP billions of dollars. It's costing our country 
billions of dollars in tourism, to the fishing industry, and it's 
costing the lives of thousands and thousands of people because they cut 
corners. They weren't even willing to spend $500,000--a half million 
dollars on a shutoff switch.
  And then they feel badly. They think they are being beaten up on by 
the Congress. Well, let me share some of the reasons why they've lost 
their credibility. For one, they started out telling us that it was 
about 1,000 barrels a day that were leaking. I think the gentleman will 
remember that. Of course there are 42 gallons in a barrel, which would 
mean that every day, about 200,000 gallons of oil were being emitted. 
Well, it wasn't 1,000. Then they went up to 5,000, which means that--
well, with 5,000 instead of 42,000 gallons of oil a day, it was 
210,000. But the 5,000, even though the scientists at the Minerals 
Management Service say, We think it's much larger than this, the 
scientists continued to be ignored. And now we find that every second, 
18 gallons of oil is being emitted from this spill.
  Now, think about that. Most of us, to fill our tank, the gas tank in 
our car, it takes about 18 gallons. All of that is going out into the 
gulf every second, which means that we've got more than 1,000 a minute. 
We've got 65,000 gallons an hour, and we have 1.6 million gallons every 
day. It's hard for the mind to comprehend that, but 1.6 million gallons 
of oil is coming out into the gulf every day. And this has gone on for, 
what, 50 days.
  Now, what has to happen in the future is there needs to be a time-
out. No more deepwater drilling until, number one, we have the 
technology on hand. The Minerals Management Service has been assured 
that this cannot happen again.

                              {time}  1830

  We had a 30-day open window when they had the ability to determine 
whether permits should be issued. Under the Bush administration, it was 
automatic. They didn't take any of that time.
  But in the future, we need trained personnel. We need tested 
equipment. We need all of the technology to be on hand. And all of that 
research that should have been done, it needs to be paid for by the oil 
companies. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that research. The 
taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the training. And the taxpayers, 
obviously, shouldn't pay for the equipment. All of it needs to be 
tested because it is the taxpayers' oil. It is the taxpayers' land, and 
it has been exploited and a lot of people have made billions of dollars 
by drilling off our land, drilling the oil that really belongs to our 
children and grandchildren.
  Well, it is time to put a stop to this. As far as I am concerned, 
there should be a moratorium until we can assure the American public 
and our children and grandchildren that this can't happen again because 
the government is going to be the sheriff in the future. The Obama 
administration is going to put in the people that care about our 
environment that are going to regulate this oil drilling and are going 
to ensure that this kind of catastrophe never happens again because we 
are not going to show the kind of negligence and greed that drove this 
situation to occur.
  So I thank you, Mr. Garamendi. Again, let me conclude by ending where 
I started, that we feel bad for what happened to California. We feel 
worse for what is now the worst ecological disaster in the gulf, but we 
have to make sure that we learn from this and we never, ever let 
something like this happen again.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Moran, how correct you are: never let this happen 
again. It is not just drill, baby, drill. What we have seen is spill, 
baby, spill. There have been 38 blowouts in the gulf between 1992 until 
2009. You used the words irresponsible actions, corners being cut, and 
decisions being made that led to this blowout. You mentioned the 
$500,000 that could have been spent and should have been spent on an 
acoustical switch.
  I was talking to one of our colleagues here who was a former Federal 
prosecutor, and the colleague said to me, if there is evidence that two 
of the BP executives worked together to circumvent a law or regulation, 
it may very well be criminal conspiracy. To that end, the Obama Justice 
Department has initiated a criminal probe of BP's actions with regard 
to this spill. We know that this is not the first time BP has been 
involved in a serious accident that has cost lives: 11 at this drilling 
rig; at their refinery in Texas, another large number of employees were 
both injured and killed. It is time for this industry to get its act 
together.
  I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) has been involved 
in this for very long. If you would pick this up and carry us for a 
little while.
  Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, listening to Representative 
Moran from Virginia reminds us of the investment in technology that 
should accompany this situation. There should have been the checks and 
balances, and there should have been the investment; as he suggested, a 
drop-in-the-bucket investment compared to the damages now associated 
with this catastrophe. I know the people I represent in the 21st 
Congressional District watch with sadness as they see the news accounts 
that show us the day-to-day responses with regard to this disaster.
  We have heard a lot of talk about alternatives and technology that 
needs

[[Page H4583]]

to be embraced to carry us into a clean energy economy. My region in 
the capital region of New York State is ripe with that sort of 
opportunity. It is investing in high-tech opportunities for clean 
energy jobs, in innovation, energy intellect, energy ideas, energy 
technology that will enable us to move forward with a progressive 
agenda.
  The fact that we have been held back by slogans and mantras such as 
``drill, baby, drill'' have held back the progress. Even the likes of 
T. Boone Pickens has said we can't drill our way out of the energy 
crises of this country or the world. We need to embrace that new 
technology. We need to bring about the type of jobs that will allow for 
a clean energy economy to take hold, and to make certain that we invest 
in those subsidies that will take us into renewables like utilizing our 
sun and our wind and our soil and our water to create and respond to 
the energy generation that we require. I think that is so very 
important.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might interrupt you for a second, well, maybe 
more than a second.
  We prepared a little diagram here, and let's consider this a quiz for 
the American public.
  Which of these energy sources gets the most Federal subsidies? Would 
it be solar, maybe the algae, the new technologies of algae-producing 
fuel? How about wave action? Or maybe it is wind? Or maybe it is the 
oil industry? Which ones?
  Mr. TONKO. I think we are going to have a sad answer there.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am going to let people ponder that for a few minutes 
while I turn to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who has been a 
champion of protecting the ocean for many, many years.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you, Congressman Garamendi. It was such a pleasure 
serving with you in the California legislature when we adopted a lot of 
legislation dealing with handling oil.
  Tonight I would like to share with you essentially a tale of two 
States, States that are both oil-producing States, States that both 
have offshore oil drilling, and those two States are California and 
Louisiana.
  Mr. Speaker, the comparison here is one that essentially I really 
want to ask Governor Jindal: Ask not what the Federal Government can do 
for Louisiana, but what Louisiana should be doing for its own 
constituency, as California has done for its constituency, knowing that 
we have an oil economy, somewhat of an oil economy in the State, and 
certainly an offshore oil economy.
  The comparison is this. Both States have an oil response. California 
has a strong law on oil response. Louisiana has a very weak law on oil 
response. Why? That is something that Louisiana ought to correct. The 
California statute has stations throughout California, places to clean 
up wildlife. It is paid for, it is implemented. It is essentially 
large, wildlife veterinary hospitals. The one in my district, you could 
even bring a small whale in there and operate on it. Louisiana has no 
such network, no such program, and no such allocation of resources.
  Another big disability, big difference between the two, liability 
caps. Louisiana has a cap on liability. California has no cap on 
damages. Louisiana has a cap on damages. When you and I and our 
colleague, Jackie Speier, who has joined us here, were all members of 
the State legislature, I authored legislation that you sponsored to put 
a strict liability on oil spills in California, a remarkable law. There 
is strict liability that has no cap on damages under State law.
  Louisiana, being a friend of the oil companies, puts caps on damages. 
They are not asking for that cap right now, they are asking it to be 
raised.
  The big difference number three between California and Louisiana, 
both offshore oil drilling States, is civil and criminal penalties. 
California sets up involved civil and criminal penalties, a whole 
section of law. Louisiana has no civil or criminal penalties.

  Louisiana, come on. If you are going to cry now where is the Federal 
Government when you have a problem, why haven't you risen to the 
occasion? California has had that law in place since 1990. Your law was 
enacted in 1991 with no teeth. It is about time you took responsibility 
for putting some teeth into your State law.
  Lastly, what both States have is a Coastal Zone Management Act 
created by the Federal Government. There is a nifty provision in that 
act. It is called consistency provision. What that means is the State 
can review any proposal to do offshore oil drilling, whether it is in 
Federal waters or State waters. And as long as you have an adopted plan 
and that plan can explain why you should condition that oil drilling, 
or even deny that oil drilling in Federal waters, you have the power at 
the State level to do that. We in California have used that power and 
prevented the Federal Government from expanding its offshore oil 
drilling.
  We are going further now with the bill that Mr. Garamendi has because 
we realize that drilling for oil off coast is high risk and low gain. 
You really don't get a lot out of it. And the risk we can see in spades 
from what is happening in the gulf right now.
  So Louisiana, don't cry for what the Federal Government is not doing, 
cry for yourself as to what you are not doing to help your own 
constituency, put teeth in the laws that would allow you to deny those 
offshore oil drilling rigs, to put conditions on those offshore oil 
drilling rigs, to allow you to have the money to clean up the mess and 
help the wildlife, to put teeth in the penalties and to raise those 
caps. So we want to see our coastal States have a strong law. And most 
of all, we think if you really look at it, we shouldn't be drilling 
offshore at all.
  Lastly, I want to change the issue because one of it is about money. 
There is money that comes into the Federal Treasury from offshore oil 
drilling. It produces $23.2 billion; $23.2 billion. Out of that, 
Congress has authorized the expenditure of about $5 billion in five 
programs: American Indian tribes get some of that money; historic 
preservation gets some of that money; lands and water conservation fund 
which is essentially land more than water, it is on land not offshore, 
get some of that money; the reclamation fund gets some of the money; 
and there are two funds that go back to the States.
  But out of the $23 billion fund, $5 billion, less than 20 percent, is 
spent. Where does the rest of it go, into the United States Treasury. 
And guess what, all of that money made from offshore oil drilling and 
not a penny spent on the ocean. We have a big source of income that the 
United States Government can use to start with renewable resources, 
start investing in the oceans, and create an ocean fund and ocean 
governance plan so it isn't chaos at sea, it is a planned, organized, 
smart way to use the ocean, just like we have learned smart ways to use 
the land.
  I commend you on your bill and on your work, and thank you for 
inviting me to be here tonight.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Congressman Farr, thank you very much.
  I am going to go back and answer the question about where did the 
Federal subsidies go in just a moment, but I see our colleague, 
Representative Jackie Speier, arrived with the next generation that is 
going to have to live with our decisions that we are making right now 
with regard to climate change and the extraordinary consumption of 
carbon-based fuels.
  Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Congressman Garamendi, and thank you for your 
leadership in this area and for recognizing the next generation. 
Marianne Larson will be part of that next generation that is going to 
be asking the question: Did we do enough?
  The question I have tonight that I would like to pose is when will we 
see enough damage to say enough is enough. How many oil spills do we 
need before we take decisive action to end our dependence on fossil 
fuels?
  Just last week, probably not heard because we have been focused on 
the BP oil spill, but last week we saw yet another spill in Salt Lake 
City, Utah. Any oil spill is one too many, and the era of our planet 
being constantly contaminated by crude oil must come to an end.
  The preventable accident in the gulf claimed 11 lives, tragically, 
and is now the worst environmental disaster in this country's history, 
and the biggest environmental cleanup that we have ever undertaken. It 
serves as a terrible reminder of our country's dangerous dependence on 
foreign oil. As long as we remain addicted to that oil, foreign and 
domestic, spills are inevitable. The question we have to ask ourselves: 
How

[[Page H4584]]

many more do we want to somehow live with? Live with the damage to our 
ecosystem, live with the damage to the people that are afflicted by it, 
the jobs that are lost, the tourism that is lost. They have been with 
us for over a century, these oil spills, and they will be with us for 
centuries more unless we break that addiction to oil.

                              {time}  1845

  We must replace oil in our energy supply with clean fuel. And it's 
right here. We have it. We know what it is. You pointed to some of them 
in that chart. And the stunning figure that I just heard that I would 
like to share with you tonight, Mr. Garamendi, is that, by just 
retrofitting 75,000 homes in this country, we would save the equivalent 
of all the oil that has spewed into the gulf by BP. Just retrofitting 
75,000 homes.
  Now, we have passed in this House legislation, the Home Star bill, 
which will spur the retrofitting of 3.3 million homes and create over 
600,000 jobs. The energy saved from these retrofits, if the Senate 
passes that measure, would save more than 44 times the wasted energy 
floating in the gulf and would do so at one-fortieth of the cost.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You know, that's really, really interesting. And if I 
recall the vote, when that was on the floor, the Republicans voted 
against that. They didn't vote for one of the most important 
conservation programs we have that not only would save all that energy, 
but help each homeowner's utility bill. Go figure.
  You mentioned this. We've got to go back here because I've got to 
answer this question. Please help me with this. Who gets the most 
subsidies; solar, algae, wave, wind, or oil?
  Ms. SPEIER. The answer is?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The answer is oil. If you take a look, 2002 to 2008, 
where did the subsidies go? Well, the oil industry got over $70 billion 
of taxpayer money in direct tax subsidies, $72 billion. The green 
renewable energy got $12.2 billion over that same period of time, 2002 
to 2008. And in addition to that, the ethanol industry got $16.8 
billion.
  So we really, if we took this money, this subsidy, $70 billion over a 
6-year period and shifted it over to this side, particularly up here to 
the renewable energy--this is solar, wind, advanced biofuels like algae 
and the rest--where would we be? Where would that young lady's future 
be? Renewable energy of all kinds. You shift the subsidies around.
  Is that possible? Can we do that? What do you think?
  Ms. SPEIER. Of course we can do it. It's all about whether we have 
the will. We can even allow Big Oil to continue to have some little 
subsidies, or equalize the subsidies that we are providing there and 
take that other money, take $6 billion, retrofit 3.3 million homes in 
this country, create hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of jobs, and 
we would be better off.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Duh. Why didn't the Republicans vote for that? It 
makes eminent sense.
  Ms. SPEIER. Well, it's the same reason that they sat in this Chamber 
a year-and-a-half ago and chanted over and over again, ``Drill, baby, 
drill.'' It was like a high school football field. And they couldn't 
say it loud enough or long enough or repeat it often enough.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I wasn't here at that time. I got a special election 
last November. You are telling me that it was just less than a year 
ago?
  Ms. SPEIER. About 18 months ago.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. About 18 months ago they sat here and they said, 
``Drill, baby, drill''? I heard the same thing tonight. They said, End 
the moratorium on deepwater drilling. Drill. And I am going, You want 
another oil spill? Thirty-eight in the last 18 years in the gulf plus 
this big one. That's not the solution.
  The solution lies in moving to a new energy source, the green 
technologies, the renewable energy, so that it is the sun that gives us 
the power in the future so that that young lady doesn't have to face 
the extraordinary impact that climate change will bring. We have to 
move away from carbon-based fuels.
  Would you agree with that?
  Ms. SPEIER. Oh, I absolutely agree with that. And I think that we 
have got to just face some very fundamental facts. If you continue to 
drill at 18,000 feet, you are asking for trouble.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's see, that fellow Murphy was right. Everything 
that can go wrong will go wrong. And BP didn't plan for what could go 
wrong. In fact, they ignored it. They put together an application that 
just ignored the possibility of the worst case. In situations like 
this, we must force the industry to assume the worst case will happen. 
We have seen it. No more.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for the time. I yield back.

                          ____________________