Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2010

Could the Presiding Officer tell me how much time remains for the majority side?

Would the Presiding Officer let me know when I have exhausted 2 of my 3 minutes?

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.

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 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.

This is unlimited liability.

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.

Madam President, let me respond to the Senator from New Hampshire.

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.

Reserving the right to object, this S. 3472, this is one with no caps?

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----

I object.

Now I wish to be recognized to explain my objection.

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.

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.

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.

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?

If I may finish the sentence--why should we not allow any kind of future devastation by a company to have the same liability?

Madam President, may I inquire how much time remains?

If I could be forewarned when there is a minute remaining?