Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 91 (Thursday, June 17, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 91 (Thursday, June 17, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5052-S5053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3462

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise today to ask that my
legislation, S. 3462, which would grant subpoena power to the
Presidential commission tasked with investigating the BP oilspill, be
passed by unanimous consent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I think I
will object at this time. The bill was just introduced 7 business days
ago. It has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, where I assume
Chairman Leahy will take a thoughtful look at it. Senator Reid has
asked his committee chairmen to report out oilspill legislation by the
4th of July for consideration next month, so I think we should give
that process an opportunity to work. So I do object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I don't understand. We are 58 days
into this oilspill. Eleven lives have been lost. We have seen up to 97
million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that is already on the
shores of the gulf. We have thousands of wildlife covered in oil, many
of them dead. We have fishermen who have lost their livelihoods, some,
we guess, maybe for generations. We have countless hotels and
restaurants that are empty during what should be their prime tourist
season. I don't understand why, given all of this--the full devastation
of this catastrophic spill is far from being known, although we know it
is going to be one of the worst economic and environmental disasters in
American history, and we need to make absolutely certain this never
happens again--why people are still objecting to giving the bipartisan
commission charged with investigating this disaster the subpoena power
to do what they need to do to make sure this never happens again.
In order to have a full and fruitful investigation, this commission
must have subpoena power to get to the bottom of what safety
precautions BP did and did not take leading up to the Deepwater Horizon
explosion. Subpoena power is essential to their task of making
meaningful recommendations on how to prevent future disasters. That is
why I, along with 18 other Senators, have introduced this legislation
to grant subpoena power to this commission. It is unacceptable for BP
and the other companies responsible for this oilspill to continue to
stonewall the American people.
I don't understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are objecting to this. I would assume they are as interested in getting
to the bottom of this disaster as the rest of us are, and this
stonewalling is something I just don't understand.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me respond to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator does not have control
of the time at this moment.
Mr. INHOFE. I was just reassuring her. I think I agree with
everything she said. Mine was the process we are talking about, and I
think that is the process the majority leader was recommending.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Could the Presiding Officer tell me how much time
remains for the majority side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 6 minutes 20 seconds
remaining.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the Presiding Officer let me know when I have
exhausted 2 of my 3 minutes?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise once again to ask unanimous
consent--and I will do so shortly--to hold oil companies accountable
for their spills. This is really a sense of who is on your side. Are we
going to take the side of big oil or are we going to take

[[Page S5053]]

the side of commercial fishermen? Are we going to take the side of big
oil or are we going to take the side of shrimp fishermen? Are we going
to take the side of big oil or are we going to take the side of
preserving the estuaries that are so critical yet that we see
increasingly devastated, the wildlife, with consequences to those
ecosystems that may very well affect a generation? Are we going to take
a side with big oil or are we going to stand up for the tourism
industry that is affected? Are we going to stand up for big oil or are
we going to stand with the boater who ultimately sees his boat
languishing in the waters because he cannot go out because there is no
one to take out on a commercial venture? Are we going to stand up for
the communities and the coasts along the gulf shore or are we going to
stand with big oil?

That is what this effort is all about. It is about setting
responsibility where responsibility should lie. I applaud that the
President got BP to sign up to $20 billion over the next 4 years or so.
But that does not mean we should not be lifting the liability cap, a
liability cap that is ridiculously low at $75 million total when BP,
for example, makes over $90 million a day. So their liability under the
law, regardless of what they say, is less than 1 day's profit.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 2 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. This is about making sure at the end of the day we
stand up to big oil. I know there are those who suggest--my colleague
from Louisiana has suggested he has a better way. The problem is his
better way is constitutionally infirm. That has been reviewed by the
Congressional Research Service which says that trying to enact
legislation that effectively declares the guilt or imposes punishment
on an identifiable individual or entity is in essence a bill of
attainder under the Constitution; therefore, it cannot work. I have
heard him say I don't want to come here and make a speech, I want to
solve something. That is exactly the problem. That does not solve
anything because it is constitutionally infirm, therefore it would not
apply, therefore we would not have a success. Besides, if it is good
enough for this incident, it is good enough for any other.
Understanding that, I want to ensure we stand on the side with all of
those commercial interests, so I ask unanimous consent--I take a final
30 seconds--I ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public
Works Committee be discharged of S. 3472, the Big Oil Bailout
Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2010, and that the Senate proceed
to its consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action
or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, this S. 3472, this is one
with no caps?
Mr. MENENDEZ. This is unlimited liability.
Mr. INHOFE. Unlimited liability. Madam President, we have talked
about this before. It sounds good to talk about big oil. This would be
the greatest thing for big oil. Only the big five might----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator from New
Jersey has expired. Is there an objection?
Mr. INHOFE. I object.
Now I wish to be recognized to explain my objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining on
the majority's time that the Senator from Florida intends to use.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the oil is relentlessly
moving east in the Gulf of Mexico. A week and a half ago it hit Perdido
Pass. That is in Perdido Bay. A week ago it hit Pensacola Pass. It is
in Pensacola Bay. You ought to see what it looks like. There are tar
balls. We know what tar balls look like. You ought to see what the
reddish brown gunk looks like that I saw on Monday as the wind was
blowing it right toward downtown Pensacola.
Today, Destin Pass, further to the east, is being closed. But when it
is closed by a boom it will not stop the oil if the oil is not already
skimmed off out in the gulf because the tar balls will go right
underneath the boom and the tides come rushing into the pass at 6 to 8
knots, and a boom will not stop the oil.
This is what we are facing. We are facing the economic devastation as
a result of the despoiling of the coast that relies, so much of its
economy, on that coast being pristine--whether it is tourism, whether
it is fishing, whether it is oyster, shrimp, et cetera.
Why shouldn't the company--now that precedent has been set yesterday
by them setting up a $20 billion trust fund, but that is not a limit.
Why should we not--has my time expired?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. If I may finish the sentence--why should we
not allow any kind of future devastation by a company to have the same
liability?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. First, I do not disagree with anything that was said by
my very good friend from Florida. It is a devastating thing. I have no
love for BP. I assure you they are not any friends of this side over
here. I only have to say this. If you want to shut out everyone from
their exploration, it doesn't make any difference whether it is deep
water or otherwise, you go ahead and do something like this. This would
only help the big five or the national oil companies--that is China and
Venezuela. Without a cap they would be the only ones who could explore
out there. Frankly, they don't have the capacity to do the amount of
exploration that is going to be necessary to run this machine called
America.
Right now there is a commission that is taking place. I believe they
are going to be discussing all these things, including what types of
caps, if any, should go on. They are the ones who are approaching this
thing, considering everything. I think they should have time to do
their own work. That is the reason. But I do not disagree with anything
either one of the Senators said.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Nebraska.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, may I inquire how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eight minutes.
Mr. JOHANNS. If I could be forewarned when there is a minute
remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.

____________________