West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 2010

Madam Speaker, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, who will be along shortly, but before I launch into the issue of national security and of our dependence on oil, I would like to just address what my colleague from California was talking about, give an example of why disclosure is important, and would like to recognize the fact that it was the Republican Party mantra for nearly 20 years that the solution to campaign finance reform was disclosure. Now, apparently, they want to stand up and say they don't want disclosure after having, for 20 years, said they want disclosure.

Go figure.

The fact of the matter is, in California, in an election held just 2 weeks ago, disclosure under the State law has played a critical role in stopping Pacific Gas & Electric from ripping off the ratepayers of California and has played a critical role in stopping Mercury Insurance Company from doing the same to their customers.

The California law required disclosure. PG&E spent over $40 million in, what I think, was blatant, false advertising, and at the bottom of each one of those ads, they had to read, ``Paid for by Pacific Gas & Electric.'' Similarly, with Mercury Insurance Company, the public took one look at those ads, which they saw repeatedly, and said, Oh, that's who's behind it. Well, I'm a ``no'' vote.

Disclosure works, my Republican colleagues. It's what you wanted for more than 20 years, and now that you're about to get it, you don't want it. Well, I think not.

National Security and Dependence on Oil

Let me go to the subject at hand that we are to talk about this evening,

which is really the issue of national security.

For more than 40 years now, America has talked about energy independence, about literally breaking our addiction to oil. America is addicted to oil. We consume more than 25 percent of all the world's oil supply. Yet we have a very small portion of the reserves. We are literally sending overseas $1 billion a day, with much of it going to countries that are actively supporting people who don't agree with us and people who are actually--well, perhaps--supporting terrorist organizations. Certainly, our national security is dependent upon going after the terrorists, and no one is going to do it more aggressively than the Obama administration, which has increased the antiterrorist activities of this Nation far more than during the Bush period--but back to oil.

If we doubt for a moment that our Nation's security is at risk with the current way in which we produce oil, you only need to take a look at the Gulf of Mexico. In the last 20 years, there have been more than 38 blowouts, none of them as large as what we now see with the Deepwater Horizon situation. Nonetheless, it is, in fact, a common occurrence, which has averaged more than one and a half per year over the last 20 years.

So is it safe?

Well, not so much. We just heard that saying from our Republican colleagues that the moratorium imposed by the President is somehow wrong. Hello? When two Air Force jets crashed within a month several years ago, the United States Air Force did what it calls a ``stand- down.'' They grounded the entire fleet until they found out what was wrong. They corrected the problem and went on their way. That is exactly what President Obama has done. He did a stand-down of additional drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because, hey, there is a problem. This is an extraordinary blowout, one that is now exceeding everybody's estimate. The result: Oil on the beaches, dead birds and, according to The Wall Street Journal today, hmm, ``Oil Spill Delivers Recovery Setback.'' This is specifically looking at the real estate industry along the gulf coast. They cite five or six projects here that may be jeopardized because of the oil spill.

This is a national security issue in the sense of how we get our oil, in the sense of our addiction to oil. It is time for us to recognize that. Because we have, in the past, consumed all of the easy oil, we are now going to the most difficult, the most dangerous, and the most risky places in the world, certainly to the deep waters. The Deepwater Horizon blowout is, perhaps, as much as 60,000 barrels a day. This is a very serious problem, and it deserves our attention.

Last night, the President spoke to the problem and committed his administration and this Nation to everything necessary to clean up and to plug the well. My colleagues on the Republican side mentioned that, just 37 days ago, they started the relief. That's not true. They actually started the relief program on the very day of the blowout. It took a while to get it going, and it is going to take even longer to get it done.

So where are we going to go with this?

I've been joined by a couple of my colleagues today, and I would like to ask my colleague from California, Congresswoman Judy Chu, to give us her thoughts on this situation.

Representative Chu, thank you very much for your statement and also mentioning the end of new oil leases off the West Coast. We call it the West Coast Ocean Protection Act. And it would prohibit new leases off the West Coast of the United States. This is a $32 billion a year industry along the West Coast--California, Oregon, and Washington--that is dependent upon the pristine nature of that coast. In addition to that, the West Coast has a much different environment than the Gulf of Mexico. It's downright dangerous out there. High waves, high wind, and earthquakes, and a lot of other things that we'd say, Oh, that's not a good place to be drilling.

It's not enough to talk about the West Coast. I see my colleague from New York here, and I know that he, too, along with the residents of New York, are terribly interested in what is happening and in our natural energy policies and our move away from oil.

Congressman Tonko, if you would, please join us.

Representative Tonko, thank you once again for being both eloquent and right on the target of the issue that's out before us. When you talk about the nature of the spill, this map is a recent one from the US Geological Survey and NOAA--actually, NOAA. And if you look at the size of that spill, it looks like it's getting about the same size as Louisiana itself, and of course, the Gulf Coast along here is seriously threatened and the extraordinary wildlife and habitat of the Mississippi Delta is at risk and already seriously hurt by it.

You mentioned BP--and maybe, maybe, but I'm not convinced that BP has actually gotten the message that their first task is to clean up. Their $50 million PR campaign, I've seen some of the ads. If they had spent that $50 million on the proper blowout protector and actually had put in the most modern protection at the well head and not cut the corners, as is becoming increasingly obvious, in the drilling techniques and in securing the well itself, they wouldn't have to be spending multiple billions of dollars cleaning up.

They absolutely must put that money into a trust fund. BP is not to be trusted to adequately distribute that money to the people that have been harmed. So the President is right. Create the trust fund. Put an independent party in charge of it and let the money go to those that have been seriously harmed by this, as well as the wildlife and the damages there.

By the way, we really ought to pass a bill to increase the liability limit. And I know that bill will be moving through here.

Joining us from--well, my neighbor in California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who about 2 years ago, you experienced an oil spill on the shores of your district.

Representative Lee, thank you for joining us.

Thank you very much, Representative Lee. And thank you for all the work you did dealing with that problem in the San Francisco Bay when the ship hit the bridge. We had our own little spill over there.

I had pulled this placard up with the pictures of the oil and the birds. And I didn't realize until you started talking about the escalation and the estimate of the amount of oil that spilled--my staff put this together actually about 4 weeks ago--and they said by Father's Day it would be the worst spill ever. At 60,000 barrels, it was actually the worst spill after about the first 3 weeks. So in any case, we have got a real serious problem there.

I notice that I have fortunately been joined by three Representatives from a wide, diverse part of America. From the west coast, in the great metropolitan area of Los Angeles, Congresswoman Watson, if you would care to join us.

Thank you so very much for your eloquent comments on what has happened, what we must do.

I notice that sitting next to you is a Representative from the other side of the American continent, Representative Moran from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. Moran, how correct you are: never let this happen again. It is not just drill, baby, drill. What we have seen is spill, baby, spill. There have been 38 blowouts in the gulf between 1992 until 2009. You used the words irresponsible actions, corners being cut, and decisions being made that led to this blowout. You mentioned the $500,000 that could have been spent and should have been spent on an acoustical switch.

I was talking to one of our colleagues here who was a former Federal prosecutor, and the colleague said to me, if there is evidence that two of the BP executives worked together to circumvent a law or regulation, it may very well be criminal conspiracy. To that end, the Obama Justice Department has initiated a criminal probe of BP's actions with regard to this spill. We know that this is not the first time BP has been involved in a serious accident that has cost lives: 11 at this drilling rig; at their refinery in Texas, another large number of employees were both injured and killed. It is time for this industry to get its act together.

I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) has been involved in this for very long. If you would pick this up and carry us for a little while.

If I might interrupt you for a second, well, maybe more than a second.

We prepared a little diagram here, and let's consider this a quiz for the American public.

Which of these energy sources gets the most Federal subsidies? Would it be solar, maybe the algae, the new technologies of algae-producing fuel? How about wave action? Or maybe it is wind? Or maybe it is the oil industry? Which ones?

I am going to let people ponder that for a few minutes while I turn to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who has been a champion of protecting the ocean for many, many years.

Congressman Farr, thank you very much.

I am going to go back and answer the question about where did the Federal subsidies go in just a moment, but I see our colleague, Representative Jackie Speier, arrived with the next generation that is going to have to live with our decisions that we are making right now with regard to climate change and the extraordinary consumption of carbon-based fuels.

You know, that's really, really interesting. And if I recall the vote, when that was on the floor, the Republicans voted against that. They didn't vote for one of the most important conservation programs we have that not only would save all that energy, but help each homeowner's utility bill. Go figure.

You mentioned this. We've got to go back here because I've got to answer this question. Please help me with this. Who gets the most subsidies; solar, algae, wave, wind, or oil?

The answer is oil. If you take a look, 2002 to 2008, where did the subsidies go? Well, the oil industry got over $70 billion of taxpayer money in direct tax subsidies, $72 billion. The green renewable energy got $12.2 billion over that same period of time, 2002 to 2008. And in addition to that, the ethanol industry got $16.8 billion.

So we really, if we took this money, this subsidy, $70 billion over a 6-year period and shifted it over to this side, particularly up here to the renewable energy--this is solar, wind, advanced biofuels like algae and the rest--where would we be? Where would that young lady's future be? Renewable energy of all kinds. You shift the subsidies around.

Is that possible? Can we do that? What do you think?

Duh. Why didn't the Republicans vote for that? It makes eminent sense.

I wasn't here at that time. I got a special election last November. You are telling me that it was just less than a year ago?

About 18 months ago they sat here and they said, ``Drill, baby, drill''? I heard the same thing tonight. They said, End the moratorium on deepwater drilling. Drill. And I am going, You want another oil spill? Thirty-eight in the last 18 years in the gulf plus this big one. That's not the solution.

The solution lies in moving to a new energy source, the green technologies, the renewable energy, so that it is the sun that gives us the power in the future so that that young lady doesn't have to face the extraordinary impact that climate change will bring. We have to move away from carbon-based fuels.

Would you agree with that?

Let's see, that fellow Murphy was right. Everything that can go wrong will go wrong. And BP didn't plan for what could go wrong. In fact, they ignored it. They put together an application that just ignored the possibility of the worst case. In situations like this, we must force the industry to assume the worst case will happen. We have seen it. No more.

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for the time. I yield back.

Mr. Garamendi, thank you for having this Special Order. We in Virginia--not all of us, but many of us--watch with sadness at what happened to the California shores, and we don't want it repeated in Virginia. Even though the Governor and the Republican Party have pushed and pushed with these silly mantras, Drill, baby, drill, and Drill here, and drill everywhere, we're not going to let it happen. If we had not been diligent, we might have some drilling rigs off the shore of Virginia today, but we don't. And they're not going to go there until there is substantial modification of the industry practices with regard to offshore drilling.

Let's bear in mind that what we are talking about is our Nation's oil. It's not oil that's owned by these oil companies or by the private sector. It's owned by us, the taxpayer. It's public land. It's owned by our children and our grandchildren. And instead of being put to our benefit and their benefit, because of neglect, carelessness, irresponsible decisions, it is destroying the ecology of the gulf and could well destroy the ecology of the Everglades along the Florida shore, and could even go up the east coast. We have no idea how extensive this damage is going to be, nor how expensive it will be to clean it up. But we're now getting an idea of why it happened.

And I would say to the gentleman and to the Speaker that we ought to be mindful, first of all, that this was not under President Obama's watch. It was not under any kind of Democratic policy. It was under the administration of a President who owned an oil drilling company, an oil exploration company, a Vice President who was the CEO of Halliburton, who made money from manufacturing and installing drilling rigs--in fact, continued to own thousands of shares of Halliburton while they made enormous profits not only from drilling rigs but from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So while these two folks sit back, the damage is being inflicted upon people who bore no fault but, in fact, became dependent upon this industry. And our hearts go out not just to those who lost their lives but to those who have lost their livelihoods.

Now, when we trace back how this particular drilling rig exploded, we find that there were a number of points along the way where it could have been avoided. Back in 2003, the Interior Department--the Bush administration's Interior Department--agreed with BP and other oil companies that installing a $500,000 acoustical shutoff switch on every offshore rig would be unreasonably expensive, even though such a shutoff switch would have prevented all of this oil from spewing out. Now it's costing BP billions of dollars. It's costing our country billions of dollars in tourism, to the fishing industry, and it's costing the lives of thousands and thousands of people because they cut corners. They weren't even willing to spend $500,000--a half million dollars on a shutoff switch.

And then they feel badly. They think they are being beaten up on by the Congress. Well, let me share some of the reasons why they've lost their credibility. For one, they started out telling us that it was about 1,000 barrels a day that were leaking. I think the gentleman will remember that. Of course there are 42 gallons in a barrel, which would mean that every day, about 200,000 gallons of oil were being emitted. Well, it wasn't 1,000. Then they went up to 5,000, which means that-- well, with 5,000 instead of 42,000 gallons of oil a day, it was 210,000. But the 5,000, even though the scientists at the Minerals Management Service say, We think it's much larger than this, the scientists continued to be ignored. And now we find that every second, 18 gallons of oil is being emitted from this spill.

Now, think about that. Most of us, to fill our tank, the gas tank in our car, it takes about 18 gallons. All of that is going out into the gulf every second, which means that we've got more than 1,000 a minute. We've got 65,000 gallons an hour, and we have 1.6 million gallons every day. It's hard for the mind to comprehend that, but 1.6 million gallons of oil is coming out into the gulf every day. And this has gone on for, what, 50 days.

Now, what has to happen in the future is there needs to be a time- out. No more deepwater drilling until, number one, we have the technology on hand. The Minerals Management Service has been assured that this cannot happen again.

We had a 30-day open window when they had the ability to determine whether permits should be issued. Under the Bush administration, it was automatic. They didn't take any of that time.

But in the future, we need trained personnel. We need tested equipment. We need all of the technology to be on hand. And all of that research that should have been done, it needs to be paid for by the oil companies. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that research. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the training. And the taxpayers, obviously, shouldn't pay for the equipment. All of it needs to be tested because it is the taxpayers' oil. It is the taxpayers' land, and it has been exploited and a lot of people have made billions of dollars by drilling off our land, drilling the oil that really belongs to our children and grandchildren.

Well, it is time to put a stop to this. As far as I am concerned, there should be a moratorium until we can assure the American public and our children and grandchildren that this can't happen again because the government is going to be the sheriff in the future. The Obama administration is going to put in the people that care about our environment that are going to regulate this oil drilling and are going to ensure that this kind of catastrophe never happens again because we are not going to show the kind of negligence and greed that drove this situation to occur.

So I thank you, Mr. Garamendi. Again, let me conclude by ending where I started, that we feel bad for what happened to California. We feel worse for what is now the worst ecological disaster in the gulf, but we have to make sure that we learn from this and we never, ever let something like this happen again.

Representative Garamendi, thank you for bringing us

together in this very thoughtful way. It's great to join you and Representative Chu and others who will be participating in this hour of dialogue where we really look in a very laser-sharp, focused way at this very tragic occurrence in the Gulf. Obviously, I think it's important to recognize the commitment made by the President and his administration to make certain that we do everything we can possible to make certain that we stay on this case of cleanup and capping.

Certainly, shutting off that leak of that oil well is incredibly important and the cleanup in that Gulf area that impacts the Gulf States is absolutely essential. And to have the President recognize that we have deployed some 30,000 workers that will be in the midst of that activity, helping, is important; to know that over 5,000 vessels have been solicited and that our National Guard numbers--over 17,500 forces--out there making a difference is important. But let's really look at the some of the situation here.

I really get concerned and joined with some Members in this House to advance correspondence to the BP CEO, stating very clearly with my colleagues that their priorities spoke volumes as to where they rest as a corporation. To have suggested that payments be made to investors as a high priority, be established as a high priority; to suggest that dollars going to marketing go to revamping their image, enhance their image, while we sit there and look for ways to cap this leak, while we continue to make certain that we need resources to clean up the Gulf, that didn't seem to be a very high priority with this company. And so it was, I think, very appropriate for us to respond in very forceful measure to address this strong language in a letter to the organization, to BP management, and state that what you really need to do is re-prioritize to make certain that what comes as the most important, essential bit of work here as you invest dollars--and they best ought to--as you do that, the priority has got to be to cap that leak, to clean up the Gulf, to make certain that we make whole the individuals, the States, the communities that surround that given region; to make certain that businesses are allowed to function again. When we think of the impact on agriculture, on tourism, on the seafood industry, to name a few, the impact on our ecosystem, on the environment, on the wildlife, it is painful to watch the news accounts of this continuing saga of a tragedy. And so their priorities were misplaced and totally insensitive to the needs of people and industries and certainly the wildlife in this given region.

I had stated clearly at a press conference where we aired this letter that it was important for them to not be so concerned about their image but rather deal with the basics. And I said, Before you shore up your image, clean up our shores. I think it's straightforward and easily understood. That's where I would like to see the priorities. And today, after pressure from the President and many of us in Congress, I think the company has heard the message. They have been given this forceful statement, and they are now responding to the pressure by suggesting they are setting up an account that will respond to some of these needs. They are setting up an account that will deal with the compensation fund for oil workers who are out of work because of the catastrophe.

Now, one can only imagine what would have been the outcome, how much less impacting the outcome would have been, if they had embraced the same order of integrity when it came to the technology they should have utilized with the drilling operation. You know, they asked to go 5,000 feet deeper. They want to drill a mile deeper. But the impact of the damage, without the right technology and discipline and regulation, meant hundreds of miles of spread. From that 1 mile deeper, hundreds of miles of impact because of that lack of integrity.

And so I am here with you this evening in spirit and in voice to say that we need to stay on this dilemma, we need to stay on this catastrophe, until all of the essentials are done--the clean up, the capping, the reforms that are essential--and making certain that the dollars, the resources are coming from the source--the source of the pollution here--in this case, BP.

So, thank you, Representative Garamendi, for bringing us together, and it's great to join you and our colleagues here this evening.

Representative Garamendi, listening to Representative Moran from Virginia reminds us of the investment in technology that should accompany this situation. There should have been the checks and balances, and there should have been the investment; as he suggested, a drop-in-the-bucket investment compared to the damages now associated with this catastrophe. I know the people I represent in the 21st Congressional District watch with sadness as they see the news accounts that show us the day-to-day responses with regard to this disaster.

We have heard a lot of talk about alternatives and technology that needs

to be embraced to carry us into a clean energy economy. My region in the capital region of New York State is ripe with that sort of opportunity. It is investing in high-tech opportunities for clean energy jobs, in innovation, energy intellect, energy ideas, energy technology that will enable us to move forward with a progressive agenda.

The fact that we have been held back by slogans and mantras such as ``drill, baby, drill'' have held back the progress. Even the likes of T. Boone Pickens has said we can't drill our way out of the energy crises of this country or the world. We need to embrace that new technology. We need to bring about the type of jobs that will allow for a clean energy economy to take hold, and to make certain that we invest in those subsidies that will take us into renewables like utilizing our sun and our wind and our soil and our water to create and respond to the energy generation that we require. I think that is so very important.

I think we are going to have a sad answer there.

Thank you, Congressman Garamendi. It was such a pleasure serving with you in the California legislature when we adopted a lot of legislation dealing with handling oil.

Tonight I would like to share with you essentially a tale of two States, States that are both oil-producing States, States that both have offshore oil drilling, and those two States are California and Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, the comparison here is one that essentially I really want to ask Governor Jindal: Ask not what the Federal Government can do for Louisiana, but what Louisiana should be doing for its own constituency, as California has done for its constituency, knowing that we have an oil economy, somewhat of an oil economy in the State, and certainly an offshore oil economy.

The comparison is this. Both States have an oil response. California has a strong law on oil response. Louisiana has a very weak law on oil response. Why? That is something that Louisiana ought to correct. The California statute has stations throughout California, places to clean up wildlife. It is paid for, it is implemented. It is essentially large, wildlife veterinary hospitals. The one in my district, you could even bring a small whale in there and operate on it. Louisiana has no such network, no such program, and no such allocation of resources.

Another big disability, big difference between the two, liability caps. Louisiana has a cap on liability. California has no cap on damages. Louisiana has a cap on damages. When you and I and our colleague, Jackie Speier, who has joined us here, were all members of the State legislature, I authored legislation that you sponsored to put a strict liability on oil spills in California, a remarkable law. There is strict liability that has no cap on damages under State law.

Louisiana, being a friend of the oil companies, puts caps on damages. They are not asking for that cap right now, they are asking it to be raised.

The big difference number three between California and Louisiana, both offshore oil drilling States, is civil and criminal penalties. California sets up involved civil and criminal penalties, a whole section of law. Louisiana has no civil or criminal penalties.

Louisiana, come on. If you are going to cry now where is the Federal Government when you have a problem, why haven't you risen to the occasion? California has had that law in place since 1990. Your law was enacted in 1991 with no teeth. It is about time you took responsibility for putting some teeth into your State law.

Lastly, what both States have is a Coastal Zone Management Act created by the Federal Government. There is a nifty provision in that act. It is called consistency provision. What that means is the State can review any proposal to do offshore oil drilling, whether it is in Federal waters or State waters. And as long as you have an adopted plan and that plan can explain why you should condition that oil drilling, or even deny that oil drilling in Federal waters, you have the power at the State level to do that. We in California have used that power and prevented the Federal Government from expanding its offshore oil drilling.

We are going further now with the bill that Mr. Garamendi has because we realize that drilling for oil off coast is high risk and low gain. You really don't get a lot out of it. And the risk we can see in spades from what is happening in the gulf right now.

So Louisiana, don't cry for what the Federal Government is not doing, cry for yourself as to what you are not doing to help your own constituency, put teeth in the laws that would allow you to deny those offshore oil drilling rigs, to put conditions on those offshore oil drilling rigs, to allow you to have the money to clean up the mess and help the wildlife, to put teeth in the penalties and to raise those caps. So we want to see our coastal States have a strong law. And most of all, we think if you really look at it, we shouldn't be drilling offshore at all.

Lastly, I want to change the issue because one of it is about money. There is money that comes into the Federal Treasury from offshore oil drilling. It produces $23.2 billion; $23.2 billion. Out of that, Congress has authorized the expenditure of about $5 billion in five programs: American Indian tribes get some of that money; historic preservation gets some of that money; lands and water conservation fund which is essentially land more than water, it is on land not offshore, get some of that money; the reclamation fund gets some of the money; and there are two funds that go back to the States.

But out of the $23 billion fund, $5 billion, less than 20 percent, is spent. Where does the rest of it go, into the United States Treasury. And guess what, all of that money made from offshore oil drilling and not a penny spent on the ocean. We have a big source of income that the United States Government can use to start with renewable resources, start investing in the oceans, and create an ocean fund and ocean governance plan so it isn't chaos at sea, it is a planned, organized, smart way to use the ocean, just like we have learned smart ways to use the land.

I commend you on your bill and on your work, and thank you for inviting me to be here tonight.

Yes. I want to thank you, Congressman Garamendi, for your leadership. As a Californian, I am so proud of the leadership you are taking here. Former Lieutenant Governor, you know our State so well, and your charts are depicting the problems that not only the gulf coast has, but we've had our disasters as well. And I just want the public to understand our commitment.

From day one, the Obama administration has been committed to containing the damage from the BP oil spill and extending to the people of the gulf the help they need to confront what is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced, and we will continue to fight this spill with everything we have for as long as it takes. That is a commitment that is made from the top and all the way through every level of government. We will make BP pay for the damage that their company has caused our country, and we will do whatever is necessary to help the gulf coast and its people recover from this massive tragedy.

This has already been the largest environmental cleanup effort in our country's history. We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working across four States to contain and clean up the oil, thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the gulf, and the President has authorized a deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast. And because of these response efforts, millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming and other collection methods. Over 5.5 million feet of boom have been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try to stop the oil before it reaches the shore. We're working with the affected States to implement creative approaches to their unique coastlines, and we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance they may need.

Now the President is meeting and has met with the chairman of BP and will inform him--and has--that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. This fund will not be controlled by BP, but instead by an independent third party in order to ensure all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner.

But we also need to be committed to a long-term plan for restoration that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment. So the President has asked the Secretary of the Navy and former Mississippi Governor Ray Mabus to develop a long-term gulf coast restoration plan as soon as possible. And the plan will be designed by States, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conversationalists, and other gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.

We also are taking steps to ensure a disaster like this does not happen again, and that's why the President has established a national commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards need to be put in place. The President has issued a 6-month moratorium on the deepwater drilling. He is mindful that this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue.

And while the President urges the commission to complete its work as quickly as possible, he expects them to do that work thoroughly and impartially. We have already begun to take action at the Minerals Management Service to ensure more effective oversight and end the close relationship between oil companies and the agency that regulates them. The President has asked Michael Bromwich, a former Federal prosecutor and inspector general, to lead this effort and to build an organization that acts as the oil industry's watchdog, not its partner.

So we must look towards the future, Mr. Garamendi. We must look at our energy future, and we must get off this addiction to oil. You know, the globe is speaking to us. We've gone too deep this time. And at the core of this Earth there is a lot of static and volatile motion, and we're seeing it bubble up. And when we look around this globe, and we see the volcano explosion in Iceland that grounded planes for weeks, when we look at the earthquake down in Haiti, and we see other effects on the globe natural, we're getting the message.

So we must take action to look at our planet, to notice the environmental tragedies that really underscore the need for this Nation to embrace a clean-energy future. I look forward to having conversations on this floor with all of my colleagues. And with you leading those conversations, we will make plans that will sustain a future for those yet unborn, and that is the purpose of looking towards new energy sources that don't violate the surface of our planet or go down so deep

they disturb the powers underground. I thank you so very much.