[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8354-8358]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3305

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished 
colleague from Washington State. I appreciate it.
  I rise because the Senate has three choices on how it is going to 
protect coastal communities from the economic ravages of the oilspills 
we are seeing in the gulf. We can have fishermen, coastal residents, 
and tourism-based small businesses endure the suffering of lost revenue 
caused by a manmade disaster that was no fault of their own, which 
clearly in my mind isn't fair, we can have taxpayers provide them with 
a safety net, which I oppose, or we can make polluters pay all the 
damages they caused from a spill, which is the appropriate course.
  It is not a hard choice. When I was a kid, my mother taught me all I 
think we need to know here, and I am sure everybody was taught the same 
way: You clean up your own mess and you are responsible for it. That is 
all we are asking BP or any other company to do: Clean up the mess, pay 
for whatever mess you can't clean up yourself and the damages that flow 
from what you did.
  The current law sets a $75 million cap on how much an oil company has 
to pay for damages. That means BP doesn't have to pay more than $75 
million for lost business revenue from fishing or tourism, damage to 
the environment, the coastline or the lost tax revenues of State and 
local governments.

[[Page 8355]]

So I have introduced a bill, along with a number of my colleagues, 
raising that liability cap for offshore oil well spills from $75 
million to $10 billion.
  Some of my colleagues have objected to this proposal because they are 
worried it will drive oil drilling companies in the gulf out of 
business. Well, in the case of BP, that is a little hard to understand. 
It is a rather strange argument. After all, BP's profits amounted to 
$5.6 billion for the first 3 months of this year--profits, not 
proceeds, profits. That breaks down to $94 million in profits each and 
every day. That means their current damages liability under the law of 
$75 million is less than one day's profits--less than one day's 
profits.
  Not every company drilling in the gulf is as big as BP, but why, I 
say to my colleagues who raise that issue, should an oil company get 
such a low liability cap when any average person driving down the 
street has unlimited liability? Why should a company doing an 
inherently dangerous and potentially polluting activity such as oil 
drilling enjoy such a low cap on liability, when the guy installing a 
solar panel on your roof has unlimited liability? It simply doesn't 
make sense.
  The oil companies want it both ways. They want to keep the profits 
when everything works out well and times are good, but they want 
taxpayers to bail them out when they spill. It is fundamentally wrong.
  Our bill is as simple as it gets. It says no bailout for BP. It says 
BP pays for its own mess, not the Nation's taxpayers. It says either 
you want to fully protect the small businesses and communities 
devastated by the spill or you want to protect multibillion-dollar oil 
companies from being held fully accountable.
  BP says they are going to be liable for all legitimate claims, but 
they would not define what ``legitimate'' is. So if they are saying 
that, why are we hesitant to raise the liability cap to make sure that 
what they are saying is kept true and that anyone else in the future 
will have the same responsibility? Does anyone who has been watching 
the images coming in from the gulf believe we should be protecting 
multibillion-dollar oil companies instead of the small businesses, 
fisheries, and coastal residents who are losing their livelihoods?
  It seems to me it is time this Senate stand up to big oil and make 
them pay for their own mess, not taxpayers, small business owners, 
States or the Federal Government.
  I know a number of my colleagues who have cosponsored this 
legislation with me wish to speak. At the end of that process, I intend 
to make a unanimous consent request so we can move forward and make 
sure now--not years later, now--that all those who are damaged as a 
result of the spill in the gulf are protected and that taxpayers don't 
pay one penny toward this liability that BP and others may have.
  With that, for the moment, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey 
because I, too, come to the floor to strongly support the Big Oil 
Bailout Provision Act and to ask some simple questions of the Senators 
who are objecting to this bill being passed. For whom are you fighting? 
Whom are you trying to help? Are you here to protect and shield the big 
oil companies or to fight for families and taxpayers?
  I know where I stand. I came to the Senate to fight for families and 
small business owners in my home State of Washington, and those are the 
people I work for every single day--moms and dads who are working hard, 
paying their taxes, doing their best but who have watched, over the 
last 2 years, as Wall Street executives and big banks derailed our 
economy and then held out their hands for a bailout from the rest of 
us, men and women who have seen their friends, family, and neighbors 
lose their jobs, who have driven by neighborhood shops they have known 
for decades that are now sitting empty and boarded up. They have seen 
all this, and they have also seen Wall Street and big banks go right 
back to their ``bonus as usual'' mentality, acting as though nothing 
ever happened, handing out millions of taxpayer dollars to their 
executives, and shamelessly sending lobbyists to Washington, DC, to try 
and water down reform.
  Families in Washington State and across the country have seen all 
this and they are angry about it and they have good reason to be. Those 
families need to know that now we are fighting for them in the Senate. 
The debate we are having today demonstrates clearly who is standing for 
them and who is not.
  Here are the facts: On April 20, 2010, there was a massive blowout 
and explosion on a BP oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven 
workers are missing, presumed dead; 17 more injured. The explosion, as 
we know, caused a gushing spill that has poured hundreds of thousands 
of barrels of oil into the gulf and threatens to spill millions more. 
It has created an environmental and economic tragedy the magnitude of 
which we are only now beginning to comprehend. It is threatening entire 
communities and businesses. The oil and chemical dispersants being 
sprayed into the gulf have the potential now to kill underwater 
wildlife and create underwater dead zones for years and years to come. 
Those are the facts.
  The questions are: Who should be responsible for this cleanup? Who 
should bear the burden for big oil's mistakes? Should it be the 
taxpayers, the families and small business owners who are already being 
asked to bear so much today or should it be BP, the company that is 
responsible for this spill and that made $6.1 billion in profits in the 
first 3 months of this year alone?
  I cosponsored the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act because, to me, the 
answer is pretty clear.
  I believe BP needs to be held accountable for the environmental and 
economic damage of this spill. I am going to continue to fight to make 
sure our taxpayers do not end up losing a single dime to pay for the 
mess this big oil company created.
  To me, this is an issue of fundamental fairness. If an oil company 
causes a spill, they should be the ones to pay to clean it up, not the 
taxpayers. The bill raises the cap on oil company liability from the 
current limit of only $75 million--that is a pittance considering this 
spill's potential damage--to $10 billion.
  So taxpayers will not be left holding the bag for big oil's mistakes. 
This is straightforward common sense, and it is fair. It hits 
particularly close for families in the Northwest--my area--who saw 
firsthand the devastation caused by the Exxon Valdez disaster and the 
long and arduous battle over cleanup costs.
  Mr. President, I was disappointed when this bill was blocked by 
Republicans last week. We are going to keep fighting because we want 
this bill to pass. I am going to keep fighting for our families and 
taxpayers in Washington State and across the country.
  The bottom line is, if oil companies are going to make billions in 
profits when times are good, they should not be allowed to leave 
taxpayers hanging when times are tough. The Big Oil Bailout Prevention 
Act writes this commonsense policy into law. I urge every Senator to 
side with the taxpayers and support this important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Nelson be next for 5 minutes, and then 
Senator Cardin for 4 minutes, and then Senator Lautenberg for 5 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues on the 
Senate floor, my worst nightmare is becoming reality. Tar balls have 
been discovered, as reported by CNN, in Key West. Even if they are not 
the tar balls from this spill, since the spill is flowing southward, it 
is getting into the Loop Current. That current goes southward into the 
Gulf of Mexico, around the Florida Keys, and becomes the Gulf Stream.

[[Page 8356]]

  The University of Miami oceanographer testified to us that once it 
gets into the Loop Current in the northern Gulf of Mexico, it will 
take, maximum, 10 days to get to the Florida Keys. Eighty-five percent 
of North America's living coral reefs are in the Florida Keys. The Gulf 
Stream hugs the Florida Keys going northward and the southeast coast of 
Florida. The Gulf Stream parallels the entire eastern coast, the 
Atlantic seaboard, all the way north to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 
and proceeds across the Atlantic to Scotland.
  We are looking at a gargantuan economic and environmental disaster 
facing this Nation but particularly those States on the gulf coast and 
the Atlantic seaboard. We have heard all the pronouncements, and we 
have heard those pronouncements now going on 4 weeks. The oilspill has 
not been stopped. If it continues until a rescue well reaches it in 
another 2-plus months, this spill will eventually cover up the gulf 
coast, the places like the sugary white beaches of northwest Florida, 
where I will be this Friday, where already the cancellations are coming 
right and left as their tourist season starts; and hotels that would 
normally have 85 percent occupancy are less than 20 percent occupancy. 
You can see the economic consequences from this disaster. You see the 
economic consequences already to the fishing industry in Louisiana. 
What about the oyster industry in Apalachicola and those delicate bays 
and estuaries all along the gulf coast where so much of the marine life 
is spawned?
  Now we hear reports that it is not just on the surface, it is at a 
depth of 1,500 feet. Then just off the floor of the ocean at 4,500 
feet, almost a mile below the surface--a slick that is 10 miles long 
and 3 miles wide and 2 football fields thick. What happens when that 
eventually gets to the surface? But in the meantime, what happens when 
it settles to the ocean floor?
  For the life of me, I can't understand someone objecting, as they are 
going to do, to raising an artificial limit of $75 million up to at 
least $10 billion--and it is probably going to exceed that. The 
argument you are going to hear is: Oh, it should not be this; it ought 
to be tied to profit. Is it really responsible public policy to say 
because a company makes less money, it should be responsible for less 
damage? No.
  If I seem emotional, it is because my people are scared. They are 
frightened at what they are facing.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank Senator Menendez for his leadership on S. 3305. I 
hope his request will be granted. As the other Senators have said, 
basically whose side are you on? Who should pay for this disaster? 
Should it be the taxpayers of this country? Should it be the small 
business owners whose livelihood is now in jeopardy? Should it be the 
property owners who are going to suffer damage? No. It should be BP Oil 
and its affiliates.
  That is what the Menendez bill does. It places responsibility on the 
appropriate party. BP should pay, and there are many reasons they 
should pay. As Senator Menendez points out, their profit was $6 billion 
in the last quarter. Another reason: BP, in its exploration plan that 
it presented to the Mineral Management Service, MMS, to get an 
environmental waiver, stated ``unlikely event of an oil spill as having 
little risk of contact or impact on the coastlines and associated 
environmental resources.''
  Unlikely event? Little risk of contact? They have relied upon proven 
response technology--these blowout preventers. They were failsafe, 
according to BP Oil. Yet MMS showed that the blowout preventers had 
failed or otherwise played a role in at least 14 accidents. There was 
little information about the blowout preventers at 5,000 feet of water. 
That was used to avoid a full environmental review.
  We have an environmental disaster, and BP should be held fully 
accountable for many reasons, not the least of which is they 
misrepresented the environmental risk to the public and the regulators.
  Let's talk about the extent of the damage. BP is continuing to 
underestimate this damage because they don't want the public to fully 
understand the extent of the damage. First, they tell us 1,000 barrels 
a day, and then 5,000 barrels a day. The experts tell us the 
methodology used by BP is not reliable. They should have given us a 
range, not a specific barrel amount.
  We had people who were prepared to come in and do a real assessment 
without jeopardizing BP Oil's efforts to stop the flow, and BP doesn't 
let them do that because they don't want the public to know the status 
of it, as Senator Nelson pointed out, using dispersants, which is a 
good option but not the better option. The oil is going to stay in the 
ocean and give us dead zones, and it is going to cause additional 
damage.
  It starts with the Menendez bill, with holding BP Oil responsible for 
all of the damages it has caused through its misrepresentations and the 
way it has handled the spill. I hope it will continue so we can reenact 
a moratorium, particularly for the area that I represent in the Mid-
Atlantic, which is so environmentally sensitive that if we had the 
spill in our area I would hate to see what it would do to the 
Chesapeake Bay and Assateague Island.
  I urge my colleagues to move forward today on the Menendez bill. 
Let's get the consent necessary to make sure everyone understands that 
what BP Oil says it will do, it will do, which is pay for all the 
damages it has caused. I hope that will not be the last action. I hope 
we also will reimpose the moratorium for offshore drilling--at least at 
this point--until we know we can do it safely.
  In my area, I hope the moratorium will be permanent.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague from New 
Jersey for developing this approach to make sure these companies pay 
for the damage they have done.
  We are going to see today, as we saw the other day, a response from 
the other side. I hope they have the courage, the guts, to stand and 
say they are with the ordinary American taxpayers or maybe they will 
say: We like the other guys better--big oil.
  Will the Senate stand with the fishing industries and the hard-
working men and women who make a living providing sustenance to our 
Nation or will it continue its stand with big oil? They need all the 
help. You heard from our colleague from Maryland about their earnings, 
incredible earnings. BP, in a quarter, had its earnings increased by 
$3.2 billion--earnings, not revenue.
  So the choice is an easy one: You can stand with the guys who got so 
much that they are gouging the public or do you want to stand with the 
working people?
  Will the Senate stand with the coastal communities whose families are 
left jobless, homeless, and hopeless or will it stand steadfast with 
the big oil companies, as it has done?
  Last week, we got an answer. Senators Menendez and Nelson and I asked 
our colleagues to join with us to end big oil bailouts by raising the 
liability cap for oil companies from a trifling $75 million to $10 
billion. Our colleagues stayed true to the big oil companies. They 
wanted to make sure they blocked any attempt to pass a bill that would 
raise their liability.
  So here we are again urging our colleagues to stand for the American 
taxpayers who are sick and tired of bailouts. We need to hold big oil 
accountable so the gulf coast communities don't meet the same fate as 
those families whose lives were ruined by the Exxon Valdez accident 
over 20 years ago. We have to hold them accountable because the 
American taxpayers are staring down the barrel of a disaster that is 
currently said to exceed $1 billion in monetary damage.
  The fact is, the amount of the monetary damages from the spill in the 
gulf is on track to surpass those from the Exxon Valdez. As the first 
Senator to visit Alaska after the Exxon Valdez went ashore, I saw the 
destruction caused by that oilspill firsthand. But

[[Page 8357]]

even after issuing a string of apologies, Exxon fought over every penny 
with the communities and families and the fishermen whose lives were 
decimated.
  We had a hearing the other day in the Environment Committee with 
three executives from BP, Transocean, and Halliburton. I asked the 
simple question: Is your company responsible for the leak? No, no, no. 
They were pointing fingers at one another. Nobody was willing to say 
they had an accident, they did this or that--no, not them. Later on I 
asked could they guarantee we would not have any more spills if there 
was drilling in the ocean, and they said they could not do that.
  Mr. President, they are shamefacedly trying to protect themselves 
against a legitimate obligation they have. And our friends on the other 
side are not willing to say to those oil companies: Listen, you did it, 
you messed it up, pay up. Do what you have to as a corporate citizen 
and as a company that makes so much money you don't know what to do 
with it.
  Once again, I commend my colleague from New Jersey for developing 
this program.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, to summarize, this is very simple: Whose 
side are you on? Are you on the side of the taxpayers or multibillion-
dollar oil companies? Are you on the side of fishermen, working hard to 
make a living, or on the side of multibillion-dollar oil companies? Are 
you on the side of the small inns that benefit from the tourism in the 
gulf region or on the side of multibillion-dollar oil companies? Are 
you on the side of the coastal communities that are going to be 
affected by virtue of the spill or on the side of multibillion-dollar 
oil companies?
  Because of the fierce urgency now, we believe it is necessary to ask 
unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 3305, the Big Oil Bailout 
Prevention Liability Act of 2010, and that the Senate then proceed to 
its consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I reserve the right to 
object, and I am going to object in a minute, but I agree with a lot of 
things that were said by the Senators from New Jersey.
  I say to the Senator from New Jersey, I was also there 20 years ago 
at the Exxon Valdez, which was a transportation accident. We were very 
much concerned about the recovery. We need to increase the caps. I 
understand that. But I do agree with the President--he left that 
blank--because we don't know just how high that should be.
  I disagree with the notion that you are either for or against big oil 
and all of that. Big oil would love to have these caps up there so they 
can shut out all the independents. We have independents in my State of 
Oklahoma, and right now 63 percent of the gulf's natural gas and 36 
percent of its oil are produced by independents. What you are going to 
do if you raise the caps right now, precipitously, this high, you are 
going to help the five big oil companies, including BP, giving them 
exclusive rights, and help the nationalized big oil companies, such as 
those in China and Venezuela, and shut out the small and medium-sized 
independents. For that reason, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Is there still a minute remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 3 minutes 50 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Look, I regret that my distinguished colleague from 
Oklahoma has decided to object. I would simply say that if you are an 
``independent,''--and some of these independent companies are valued at 
$40 billion--does that mean that because you are not the BPs of the 
world, you should have less liability? If this spill in the gulf was 
done not by a BP or an ExxonMobil or any of those but by some other 
entity, should there be less liability for them; therefore, they can 
take the risk and go ahead and drill, and if it works out, they get all 
the profits, but if they spill, their liability would be limited under 
the guise they were going to create a monopoly for the big five? I am 
for creating that liability across the entire range. If you are 
involved in a dangerous activity, one that can create enormous 
environmental and economic damage, then you should face the liability 
for such whether you are BP or you are some intermediate entity.
  So I don't quite understand the nature of suggesting that we are 
going to try to give the big companies some form of monopoly. Actually, 
it seems to me what we are doing is using that argument--and I have 
heard this argument several times--to not create the liability that is 
necessary for everybody, so that regardless of who creates this set of 
circumstances and has a spill and therefore fishermen, shrimp 
fishermen, seafood processing companies, tourism, coastal communities, 
and our environment are damaged, they should be let off the hook 
because they are not as big as BP.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Isn't it interesting how all the different companies are pointing at 
each other now? And the real question is, Is it going to be the 
taxpayer who will pay for this or will the responsible parties? Why 
should someone say no to raising the liability simply because they say 
it ought to be tied to the size or the profitability of the particular 
company? It makes no sense.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I recently saw firsthand the miles and 
miles of oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. The scope of the disaster is 
staggering, and an oil rig the size of a football field shouldn't 
suddenly explode in a massive fireball and threaten the entire coast of 
our country. But beyond that potential, if they closed the Port of New 
Orleans, think of the effect that would have on Minnesota or the effect 
it would have on other parts of our country. And I don't believe the 
taxpayers of this country should have to pay for that.
  That is why I support the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act, 
which will help ensure that the current liability gap for a single 
oilspill will not apply to the gulf coast oil disaster and make sure 
that BP--a company that just a few weeks ago flouted its record profit 
of $6 billion in the first quarter of this year alone--will pay for 
this and that the taxpayers of this country--already burdened with the 
cost of the difficult economic times and what Wall Street has done--are 
not stuck with the bill.
  Mr. President, I am supportive of the work my colleagues have done, 
and I thank Senators Menendez, Nelson of Florida, and Lautenberg for 
their efforts.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just make one comment. I don't very 
often agree with President Obama. Right now, he is unsure what that 
level should be. I am unsure what that level should be. Maybe it should 
be the level we are talking about right now, and it may end up there, 
but we just don't know that.
  We know that what the Senator from New Jersey and I experienced up at 
Exxon Valdez some 20 years ago was not adequate, so that is why we 
passed the legislation. It should be upgraded. Certainly, we need to 
raise these limits. Where it should be raised, I don't know. I don't 
know where the cap should be. We are going to have to find out as this 
thing moves along.
  I would only say this: If you have it up too high, you are going to 
be singling out BP and the other four largest majors and the 
nationalized companies, such as China and Venezuela, and shutting out 
the independent producers. I don't want that to happen. Let's wait and 
see where that cap should be.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the Senator yield for a question?

[[Page 8358]]


  Mr. INHOFE. I would, yes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  So is it my understanding that because of your concern about these 
other independents, let's call them, you would allow them--if they were 
the cause of this incident--to limit their liability just because they 
are small?
  Mr. INHOFE. No. My answer to the question is, as I said, we don't 
know where that cap should be. You are coming up with a cap that might 
end up being the appropriate cap for everyone. But my understanding now 
would be that the only ones who would be able to live up to that cap 
would be the five majors and the nationalized companies. If that is the 
case, yes, I would say we need to have that opened so that we are not 
just allowing the majors as opposed to the independents. But let's wait 
and see where the cap should be. Maybe it should be that high. We don't 
know yet, President Obama doesn't know yet, and I don't know yet. That 
is the reason I object.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. INHOFE. You can ask, but I am going to have to leave here. Go 
ahead.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. If, in fact, it is--I think everybody clearly believes 
this consequence in damages is at least $10 billion--some have 
suggested it should be an unlimited cap. If that is the figure, your 
concern wouldn't stop you from putting it at that figure and making 
sure all the independents----
  Mr. INHOFE. I would repeat, it is too early to come up with a figure, 
and I think the President agrees with that. Let's see what kind of cap 
should apply.

                          ____________________