[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10775-10776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             GULF OILSPILL

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night the President of the United 
States addressed one of the toughest issues any President has ever had 
to face. This is an environmental disaster of historic magnitude. It is 
one that could not have been anticipated. We have never had anything 
quite like it--at least near the United States. It is certainly one the 
President and our government did everything they could do to respond, 
but this frustrating situation continues.
  What the President reminded us of last night is that we need to 
coordinate every effort, but understand that, in the end, there is no 
U.S. department of deep sea drilling. What it comes down to is that we 
need to turn to the private sector, which has the resources, the 
expertise, and the capability of not only dealing with the continuing 
oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico but the aftermath as well.
  It has been clear from the outset that this President has been very 
firm and resolute that British Petroleum, this oil company, is going to 
be held responsible for the damage that has been done. It will be at 
their expense, and not at the expense of American taxpayers, that we 
will help the businesses affected and do anything within our power to 
restore the devastation which has occurred to the environment.
  It was interesting yesterday that in testimony before the House of 
Representatives, many of the leaders of the major oil companies that 
compete with BP were as forthright publicly as they have been privately 
in other conversations. They made it clear that many of the activities 
engaged in by BP were inconsistent with the highest standards of their 
industry. They made it clear that when it came to this blowout 
preventer, which should have stopped the flow of oil, it was 
inadequate. It hasn't been tested. It was not the kind of technology 
that had redundancy built in so that there would be some peace of mind 
and understanding that in the event of a rig disaster, it would work. 
It failed, and it failed in a situation which has caused more 
environmental damage in our country than we have ever seen from one 
occurrence.
  I saw 21 years ago what happened in the Prince William Sound of 
Alaska, and I can tell you that more than two decades later, they are 
still suffering--suffering from lawsuits against the Exxon oil company, 
which unfortunately were ruled against the plaintiffs; suffering from 
environmental damage which will continue at least indefinitely.
  What we have in the situation in the gulf is different. We have an 
admission by BP that they are at fault and an acceptance of 
responsibility for what they characterize as legitimate claims. I think 
it is proper--and many of us in the Senate joined majority leader Harry 
Reid in making the request--that BP set aside some $20 billion in an 
escrow fund, a trust fund that will be available to pay for these 
damages. It troubles me that this company is talking about declaring a 
dividend and paying out billions of dollars to its shareholders when, 
frankly, we don't know what the ultimate cost is going to be of the 
cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico. I want to be certain BP continues in 
business and meets its responsibility, that it sets aside the funds 
necessary to protect our Nation from the damage it has caused.
  I also believe we need to increase the responsibility of oil 
companies when it comes to future drilling. Right now, there is a tax 
on each barrel of oil of 8 cents--8 cents. A barrel of oil is now 
selling for about $75. So 8 cents on each barrel is paid by an oil 
company into an oilspill liability fund. That has generated a little 
over $1 billion in the event that we run into a disaster which needs to 
be taken care of. In the BP circumstance, the company is assuming 
liability. But tomorrow, God forbid, if another tragedy occurs with a 
company that doesn't have BP's resources, it will be this oilspill 
liability fund that will be called on to repair the damage, and $1 
billion is not enough. Eight cents a barrel is not enough.
  Before the Senate today is an extenders bill which will increase the 
amount per barrel to 41 cents. This will be gathered together over time 
from the oil producers and the oil industry into an insurance fund, a 
basic oilspill insurance fund. I think that is only reasonable. The 
bill also increases the liability cap of companies under this oilspill 
liability to $5 billion. Currently, it is $1 billion. So both of these 
items are in our bill in an effort to hold the major oil companies 
accountable for any future disasters and to protect the taxpayers from 
paying out-of-pocket or paying out of the Treasury for any of these 
costs.
  What is interesting is that the Republicans are going to come forward 
with a substitute brought on by John Thune, who is a Senator from South 
Dakota. The Republican substitute eliminates the increase in the tax on 
a barrel of oil for the oilspill liability fund. Of course, the big oil 
companies don't want to pay it, and this elimination of the tax is 
certainly on their agenda. It is unfortunate that Republican Senators 
are going to come forward and propose this. We need this money in the 
oilspill liability fund. To have a situation where this money is not 
being collected leaves us vulnerable in terms of future disasters where 
the taxpayers will be picking up the bill.
  There is a provision in the Thune amendment, the Republican 
substitute, which eliminates the provision in our bill relating to the 
Tax Code when it comes to American companies shipping jobs overseas. 
Most of us believe that if we are going to get out of this recession, 
we need to strengthen American businesses and certainly hire more 
people in the United States, pay them a decent wage, and bring them 
back to work and out of the ranks of the unemployed.
  At this point in time, many American companies are locating 
production facilities overseas because of perverse incentives which we 
have created in our Tax Code. The bill brought to the floor eliminates 
many of these incentives--eliminates the tax loopholes companies are 
using to be more profitable by locating overseas. So the Thune 
amendment, the Republican substitute amendment, comes forward and says: 
We don't want to do that. We want to leave in the Tax Code--according 
to the Republicans--those provisions which create incentives to ship 
American jobs overseas. That makes no sense to me.
  Last night I attended a meeting of the deficit commission, to which I 
was appointed by Senator Reid. There was an economist there who tried 
to make the argument that allowing businesses in the United States--and 
giving them incentives, incidentally--to locate and produce overseas 
was good for the American economy. He argued if they could produce more 
overseas, it would ultimately mean they would be more profitable and 
produce more jobs in the United States.
  I told him if that logic applied, then we ought to have a record 
number of manufacturing jobs because, over the last 20 years, more and 
more American businesses have moved production facilities offshore, 
overseas.
  Instead, the opposite is true. In my State and in Michigan, all 
across the United States we have seen manufacturing jobs declining 
dramatically while production facilities have been sent overseas. This 
theory that is obviously behind the Republican Thune substitute is that 
we ought to reward American companies for locating and producing 
overseas. I do not agree with that. I hope we will oppose the Thune 
substitute and we will move as soon as we can to deal with the 
situation where we have increased jobs here in the United States to 
deal with this recession.
  I understand we are going to have speakers later on in the Democratic 
side and I want to reserve time for those speakers. I reserve the 
remainder of time on the Democratic side, and if there is no one here 
to speak on the

[[Page 10776]]

Republican side, I will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  Is it my understanding that the time will be taken from the 
Republican side at this point?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection.
  Mr. DURBIN. I believe the Republicans, if I am not mistaken, under 
the unanimous consent were first in morning business.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, with the 
understanding the time that runs now will come from the time previously 
allotted to the Republican side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, could you please let me know when I 
have consumed 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.

                          ____________________