[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11028-11029]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 11029]]

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.

                          ____________________