[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6461-6463]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to emphasize the need of 
our Nation to move forward with a comprehensive energy policy. I know 
the Presiding Officer shares that commitment and is working very hard 
on the Environment and Public Works Committee to produce legislation 
that will solve the three major issues we have in this Nation with 
regard to energy. No. 1 is to create jobs. We need to create good, 
clean energy jobs here in America and not lose them to overseas 
competitors. We understand that. We also understand we need an energy 
policy that boosts our national security. We don't want to continue to 
support the efforts of countries that disagree with our way of life. We 
have to become energy secure here in America. Also, we need such a 
policy for the sake of our environment. We know greenhouse gas 
emissions and carbon emissions are polluting our air.
  We know we can answer all three of these issues--creating jobs, 
enhancing national security, and protecting the environment--by using 
alternative and renewable energy sources, by using less

[[Page 6462]]

energy, and by moving forward with nuclear energy. We need to do all of 
that.
  With regard to obtaining sufficient and secure energy supplies, we 
cannot drill our way out of this problem. I say that because America 
has somewhere around 3 percent of the global oil reserves. We use about 
25 percent. We can't drill our way out of that disequilibrium. 
Secondly, we have to use less carbon-emitting fuel sources for the sake 
of our environment.
  President Obama recently announced the opening of eight frontier 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas in the United States for oil and 
gas exploration and development. I oppose that policy. I wish to 
explain to my colleagues why I oppose that policy.
  Interior Secretary Salazar said we need to protect our most 
environmentally sensitive areas from drilling. I agree. The President's 
plan protects the west coast and the North Atlantic. I can tell my 
colleagues, just talk to people in this part of the country, and they 
will tell you that the Chesapeake Bay and our coastlines here in the 
mid-Atlantic region are just as precious and just as vulnerable as the 
west coast of the United States or the North Atlantic.
  I oppose the President's policy because there are other OCS areas 
which are currently available. Sixty-eight million acres that have not 
yet been explored are already available in this country for oil and gas 
exploration. Many of those areas are along the Outer Continental Shelf, 
so there is no need at this time to expand that network. I must tell my 
colleagues, the risk-reward ratio is what I am mostly concerned about--
the risk of doing environmental damage versus the little oil that may 
be recovered in these areas. It just doesn't pay.
  I have heard the advocates of offshore drilling say: Well, modern 
technology has substantially reduced the risk. We now know how to deal 
with this issue and avoid any type of catastrophic environmental risk.
  Let me share this photo with my colleagues. What we are looking at is 
the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. This 
photograph was taken shortly after an accident that occurred just 8 
days ago. There was a tragic explosion and fire and in which 11 people 
lost their lives, which is the greatest tragedy--the loss of life--but 
it also created an environmental disaster.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. Deepwater Horizon is considered 
to be the most technologically advanced offshore oil rig in the world, 
and $600 million was spent in constructing this rig so it would be 
safe. My point is, it exploded, capsized, and sank, and it cost people 
their lives and it has created an environmental disaster.
  This oil rig is located 50 miles southeast of Venice, LA. There was 
700,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel onboard that either burned or was spilled 
into the gulf. It is currently leaking about 1,000 barrels a day into 
the Gulf of Mexico. The oilspill is spreading.
  If I could just show my colleagues this image. This is hard to see, 
but this is a picture taken from space, taking a look at this region of 
the United States of America. We start to see the coastline of 
Louisiana and Mississippi, and we can also see where the spill is 
located. The spill is right here. So in a picture taken from space, one 
can actually see the spill area. The spill has spread 1,800 miles, an 
area larger than the State of Rhode Island.
  This is another, close-up view of the spill area. What this is 
showing is the oil we saw on the surface of the water. This is all oil 
that is currently in the Gulf of Mexico, and it is spreading.
  The next image shows the color-coded trajectory of the spill over the 
past several days. What we saw in the previous image includes just this 
area. It doesn't include the green area; it doesn't include this light-
orange area. That is where the spill was projected to go yesterday. So 
you can see how rapidly the spill is spreading.
  Let me tell my colleagues, the good news of this--to the extent there 
is good news--is that the winds have been blowing from the north and 
northwest. If they hadn't been blowing from that direction, it is very 
likely this oilspill would be much closer to the Louisiana coastline.
  There are many areas that are vulnerable as a result of this spill, 
many coastal areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The 
spill is approaching the Delta and Breton National Wildlife Refuges and 
the Chandeleur Barrier Islands. It threatens our coasts, bird-nesting 
habitats, oyster production areas, wildlife, wetlands, and the list 
goes on and on and on.
  I know the Presiding Officer knows the importance of bird-nesting 
habitats for the protection of species. He understands that oyster 
spawning and production areas can be destroyed for generations as a 
result of pollution; that when we lose wildlife, we can lose it 
permanently, and when we lose wetlands, we lose the filtration system 
that protects us from pollutants coming into estuaries and we lose the 
``speed bumps'' that can slow and absorb storms and hurricanes, causing 
more havoc when they hit our coasts. This is all happening as a result 
of a fire and a spill from the most technologically advanced rig in the 
world.
  An article in the New York Times today says we might have to have a 
controlled burn of the oil floating on the surface of the water because 
capping the well is such a challenge. First, we are told we have 
technology to deal with this type of incident; now, we are being told 
we are going to have burn the oil instead.
  The first thing to do when we have an event such as this one is that 
we try to plug the hole so it doesn't spew more oil into the gulf. 
Guess what. We are told that because of the depth of this well--5,000 
feet--it could take up to several months to plug the leak by drilling 
what are know as relief wells. So what can we do? Oil is pouring out. 
They said: Well, we are going to try to funnel the oil for collection 
underwater, before it reaches the surface. This procedure has never 
been done before at this depth. They are trying to design and fabricate 
the equipment right now to deal with that approach. Will it work? I 
don't know. But these are the risks inherent in offshore drilling. It 
underscores my concern and opposition to the offshore drilling plan as 
proposed by the President.
  So let me talk about why this is not just a hypothetical to the 
people of Maryland but this is a real problem. There is a site known as 
lease sale 220. Lease sale 220 is located off the shore of Virginia. It 
is a 2.9 million-acre site. The site where they want to drill is the 
green triangle we see on this chart. The purple shows the current flows 
of the Gulf Stream, and here you see the coasts of New Jersey, 
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. This 
chart is instructive because we see how the currents go.
  Let me also tell my colleagues that the National Atmospheric and 
Oceanic Administration (NOAA) tells us that 72 percent of the time, the 
prevailing winds in this region blow toward or along the coast--72 
percent of the time. If there is a catastrophe, if there is an oilspill 
related to this site, the likelihood of oil washing up on the shores of 
New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the Outer Banks is quite 
high.
  Here is the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, 50 miles away from this 
site. As the Presiding Officer knows, we are struggling to deal with 
the clean-up of the Chesapeake Bay. It is hard enough just dealing with 
the known pollutants that come in from farming and from development and 
from storm runoff. Put into that a potential oilspill and it would set 
us back decades in trying to restart our oyster crops and help our 
watermen with the blue crabs and to help the rock fish return and 
thrive. It is too great of a risk.
  As Secretary Salazar said, there are certain parts of this country 
that are so environmentally sensitive, they are not worth the risk--the 
west coast of the United States, the North Atlantic, parts of Alaska. 
And I tell my colleagues that the coast around the Chesapeake Bay falls 
into that category. We should not permit that type of drilling.
  We can do something about this. We are going to have a chance. I am a 
strong proponent of what Senator

[[Page 6463]]

Kerry is attempting to do in bringing forward a bill that will solve 
all three of our problems: creating jobs, enhancing our national 
security, and responsibly dealing with pollutants in our environment 
while being an international leader in the effort to reduce carbon 
emissions. We can achieve all of those objectives without this 
drilling.
  We will have a chance to say something about it. I urge my colleagues 
to take a look at what happened in the Gulf of Mexico last week, what 
continues to happen there, and work with those of us who want to make 
sure we have a sensible and sustainable energy policy in this country 
and help me and help our Nation protect the Chesapeake Bay and protect 
those lands that are just too valuable and too sensitive to risk oil 
drilling.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Udall of New Mexico pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 3217 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

                          ____________________