Craig Thomas Rural Hospital And Provider Equity Act
Floor Speech
CRAIG THOMAS RURAL HOSPITAL AND PROVIDER EQUITY ACT -- (Senate - June 14, 2007)CRAIG THOMAS RURAL HOSPITAL AND PROVIDER EQUITY ACT -- (Senate - June 14, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate and respect the desire of the Senator from Virginia to be an advocate for his State for the pursuit of whatever natural resources it may have. However, the ocean is not refined to defined blocks that can be confined in terms of consequences. We share that Atlantic Ocean along many States. So the decision of one State, while it may be seen to be sovereign to it, actually has a ripple effect to other States, and the consequences can be very significant.
Now, the Warner amendment, far from helping end our dependence on oil, is seeking to tap another vein to feed our oil and our fossil fuel addiction. I would say to all of my colleagues in this body, all States and Members of those States who reside within the Outer Continental Shelf should be paying a lot of attention to this amendment because the undoing of the moratorium for one State can create a domino effect that will undo the whole basis of the moratorium throughout both the east and west coasts. That moratorium has existed for a quarter of a century, and for good reason. It has existed for a quarter of a century, and for good reason because it is about preserving the very essence of other natural resources as well--the shorelines of those States which often generate billions of dollars in economic activity--and also about being good stewards of the land for future generations of Americans.
Now, I appreciate that the Senator from Virginia has in his amendment a percentage of the proceeds, some which will go to the Commonwealth of Virginia, some which will go to a fund to potentially mitigate damages, but that recognizes, in fact, that damage is possible to other States. I don't want to be in a position of New Jersey having to mitigate damages caused to its coastal shoreline which is critical in estuary capacity, critical in terms of the economy of our State, critical to the fishing industry of our State, critical to the tourism of our State, and critical to the State of New Jersey. I would replicate that through other States throughout the Atlantic seaboard as well as on the Pacific seaboard. So having a fund that says to other States: Well, if there is damage, we will work to mitigate it, is not very consoling. And to think that one would say: We will only drill for gas, don't worry about it, it is not about oil, we are only going to drill for gas, but if while we are drilling for gas we happen to hit oil, to believe that, oh, we are going to stop and plug it up and we are not going to pursue oil exploration I think is rather ludicrous.
The Clean Energy Act of 2007 which we are debating is supposed to be--supposed to be--about transforming our economy from one based on fossil fuels to one based on renewable energy; from an economy which threatens our planet to one which is sustainable; from energy sources which are old and inefficient to ones which conserve our resources and use them efficiently. Instead, this amendment would promote oil and natural gas drilling in the mid-Atlantic. To me, that is an unacceptable threat to New Jersey's coastline.
The area the Senator from Virginia is interested in opening to drilling is about 75 miles from Cape May, NJ--more than close enough for spills to pollute New Jersey's beaches. Furthermore, any drilling in the mid-Atlantic puts us on a slippery slope toward a day when oil rigs are the norm along the entire eastern coast. One of the greatest jewels of New Jersey is without a doubt our shore. Millions of people visit the Jersey shore every year, bringing an estimated $20 billion into the State's economy--$20 billion into the State's economy--and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. We simply cannot afford to put our shoreline at this type of risk.
Mitigation doesn't help us. We had a time in New Jersey history where oil slicks, where garbage came up on New Jersey's beaches and shores, and the consequences were enormous for the State's economy, for the vitality of the communities that are along the shoreline, consequences in employment. We worked very hard at cleaning up through the Clean Water Act and other initiatives to make sure the shoreline was preserved for future generations of New Jerseyans and, for that fact, the entire Outer Continental Shelf for the future generations of Americans who call that part of our country home.
Now, the proponents of this amendment say that other States on the east coast will have the opportunity to provide input into any drilling decision, but to be very honest, the Secretary of the Interior will have the ability just to ignore their views and approve a recommendation for drilling anyway. Actually, this administration has already, through the mineral-mines management part of the Interior Department, been promoting a plan that actually seeks to create more drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. It is an advocate of that regardless of any potential consequences to natural resources. So I have no faith in a Secretary of Interior directed by an administration that promotes drilling, and all he has to do is say: OK, I heard you, New Jersey; thank you, but no thanks. That doesn't do anything to safeguard the sovereignty of any State that may be affected by the decisions of another State as it relates to the Outer Continental Shelf. This would leave States well within the scope of environmental impacts helpless--helpless--to stop most leases and, more importantly, for the circumstance at hand in my home State of New Jersey, we could not object to any drilling off the coast of Virginia--object in a way that would ultimately have a consequence--even though this drilling could seriously endanger our coast.
Now, the proponents of this measure also claim drilling for natural gas will not have any negative environmental impact on our shores. With all due respect, that assertion is just simply not rooted in science, and it couldn't be more wrong. Massive amounts of waste muds and drill cuttings are generated by drilling operations. Most of this waste is dumped untreated into surrounding waters. Drilling muds often contain toxic metals, including mercury, lead, and cadmium. Mercury in particular has been found in very high concentrations around rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and has raised significant concerns about contamination of fish.
In our own State of New Jersey, one of the challenges--and I know Virginia has very significant port activity as part of its economic generation--where there are ports, in the nature of the activity that takes place in those ports, there is often contamination of various sites. We had that reality as we dealt with the Port of Elizabeth in Newark and the Port of Newark in New Jersey, the megaport of the east coast. So the reality is that drilling muds often contain toxic metals, and mercury in particular is one of those.
A second major polluting discharge is called produced water. Produced water typically contains a variety of toxic pollutants, including benzene, arsenic, lead, naphthalene, zinc, toluene, and can contain varying amounts of radioactive pollutants. All major field research programs investigating produced-water discharges have detected petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic metals, and radium in the water column down-current from the discharge. Again, these pollutants have a devastating effect on fish populations that are already under considerable stress, particularly along the eastern seaboard, and those industries are very important, not only to the economies and the jobs they create and the economies of those States but to the consumers of those States who seek to have fish as part of their daily diet.
Now, even if offshore areas are leased for gas exploration, there is always the possibility that oil could also be found, and if oil is found, the exploration company will surely drill for it since there has never been an instance where a lease prohibits--prohibits--an oil company from developing oil if oil is found in a ``gas-prone region.'' Without such a restriction included in the lease, there would be no assurances that oil, in fact, would not be developed, raising the possibility of an oil spill.
According to the Department of the Interior, 3 million gallons of oil spilled from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999. Oil is extremely toxic to a wide variety of marine species. Even if oil is not found, liquid natural gas condensates and can also spill. These gas condensates are highly toxic to virtually all forms of marine life.
Those are just some of the environmental concerns. But beyond these environmental impacts, the Department of Defense has specifically expressed grave concerns about drilling off the coast of Virginia. In a letter drafted on April 10, 2006, to the Minerals Management Service, the Department of Defense made it clear that drilling off the coast of Virginia would interfere with the Department of Defense training and testing exercises.
The letter states in part that proposed drilling would compromise the Virginia Cape's operations area. The Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps all use the Virginia Cape's operation area for critical training that could not be accomplished elsewhere.
The letter makes clear that any structures built in the water where these types of activities are conducted would severely restrict military activities to test missile systems or have amphibious or air training missions. The letter by the Department of Defense concludes by saying:
[b]ecause hazards in this area to operating crews and oil company equipment and structures would be so great, the department opposed oil and gas development activity in this Outer Continental Shelf planning location.
The moratorium this amendment would begin to undo began in 1981, and it has continued ever since then. Congress has imposed restrictions on the Outer Continental Shelf leasing in sensitive areas off the Nation's coasts. These moratoria now protect the east and west coasts of the United States and a small portion of the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida.
The moratoria reflects a clearly established bipartisan consensus on the appropriateness of OCS activities in sensitive areas of the country, and they have been endorsed by an array of elected officials from all levels of Government and diverse political persuasions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MENENDEZ. In a moment, I will be happy to. I strongly oppose lifting these protections because not only is there concern for my home State of New Jersey, which has enormous consequences, but at the same time, the incredible domino effect it can have as it relates to the overall moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. Anyone who believes it can just be done for Virginia and that others will not pursue it and they have at least under this amendment's procedures very little to say--they can raise a clamor, but they have no real ability to do anything.
My amendment simply says, if we are going to let this happen, those States within 100 miles from where the drilling should take place should have some significant say, the ability to have a significant say about their future as well, their economies as well, and the right to be good stewards of the land for future generations of their States and of this Nation as well.
I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a couple questions for the Senator. I am very taken with his response to this amendment offered by my dear friend, one of the senior members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I feel the Senator from New Jersey has hit on a number of points, and I wish to go over them. So if we reiterate, I think it is important.
This Energy bill is supposed to be about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, not increasing it. It seems to me that by turning to the same old, same old is ignoring the fact that our coastlines and our shores and the area out 50 miles where this will kick in are huge economic engines for our various States.
So doesn't my friend believe, to restate his argument in a slightly different way, that we are going back to the same old solutions and ignoring what has happened in the last 20 years since we protected our coasts, that the economic engines of our coastal States have driven jobs and tourism and all the good things that come with a protected coast?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the Senator's question. The reality is that for a quarter of a century, we have had a moratorium exactly because we have come to understand that the values that are generated by our coastal regions, in economic terms, in terms of the environment, in terms of marine and aquatic life, in terms of all the ripple effect that means, has a greater value than any of the deposits that might exist there.
The Senator from California is absolutely right as well, if all we are going to do is go back to what this bill seeks to undo, which is our dependency on oil, whether that oil is foreign or that oil is domestic, at the end of the day, it is a nonrenewable source, it is a highly polluting source, and it has consequences to the ozone. Yes, the Senator is absolutely right. That is why I oppose it.
Mrs. BOXER. I have a further question. I would like to get the attention of Senator Bingaman, if I may, on this particular question because there are some people in this Chamber who think this particular amendment just deals with Virginia. Is it not so, if we look at page 2, it deals with any coastal State, and it is defined here to mean Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida? So we are not just dealing at all, as I understand it, with one State. It appears as if we are dealing with a number of States on the east coast, if not all the States that border on the coast.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I think the latest copy of the amendment that was filed, the final copy that was filed by Senator Warner only says the State of Virginia, if I am not mistaken, on page 2 at line 21. But I do believe, however, that the consequence of opening the Outer Continental Shelf, even for one State, has a ripple effect to all the States the Senator mentioned.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. That is why I took the floor to ask some questions because my staff reading of it was not correct. I am glad it only applies to Virginia.
However, my next question I was going to ask of my friend from New Jersey is this, because I think it is very important: We have one country from sea to shining sea. It seems to me my friend is pointing out, even with comments from other States, if, in fact, one particular Governor prevails, will there not be impacts most likely on other States?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. The answer, in my view, is clearly yes. I appreciate that Senator Warner says this is drafted only for the State of Virginia. It is drafted only for the State of Virginia so far as that State will make a determination as to whether to exempt itself from the moratorium. But the consequences of that action clearly have, in my mind, consequences to other States that will be absolutely neutered in their ability to do anything more than to vociferously object but without consequence. So, therefore, a drilling takes place. Even the Senator recognizes by virtue of having in his amendment a provision where some of the royalties go to the State of Virginia, some go to a fund for the purposes of damages done by a spill. So, therefore, there is a recognition of the possibility of damage, and who is that damage to? To other States.
I don't want to be in a position of having to draw on a fund because my State has been damaged. I wish to avoid the damage in the first instance, and that clearly cannot be done under the amendment as offered. That is why my second-degree amendment is so critical to States for them to have a say as well about their well-being.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MENENDEZ. I will not ultimately object, but I would note that it is not just the potential from drilling and it is not just the potential of oil spills from drilling. I have listed in my remarks a series of other consequences environmentally from drilling, but it is also the consequence of when drilling takes place and then we have, during hurricane seasons, the consequences to those drill rigs and how that can create a disruption.
So there are many facets that are involved that are not addressed by the National Academy of Sciences information. But as it relates to the Senator's unanimous consent request, I will withdraw my objection so that he may enter that into the Record, and I will reclaim my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate the Senator from Florida asking a question and raising a concern. I expressed it in my comments. I am familiar with the letter of the Department of Defense to the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior that made clear that drilling off the coast of Virginia would interfere with the DOD's training and testing exercises, and it went on for a variety of reasons and then concluded by saying:
Because hazards in this area to operating crews and oil company equipment and structures would be so great, the Department opposes oil and gas development activity in this OCS planning area.
So, yes, I am aware, and it is an additional concern. However, I know the Senator from Virginia has an exceptional record, which we all admire, in his support of the Nation's military forces. I am sure that somehow he believed he could overcome that objection. Nonetheless, it is an objection on the record in addition to the objections of States such as my own.
What I hope, in reality, is that the second-degree amendment I have offered to the amendment from the Senator from Virginia would be accepted and we could move forward because it still would allow Virginia to move forward, but it would give those States whose coastline is within 100 miles of the coastal waters of Virginia the real opportunity to work between States to come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. I think that is a reasonable effort to try to achieve some compromise.
I know the Senator from Virginia raised previously with the chair of the Environment Committee: Well, does it mean that we shouldn't drill anywhere else? Well, the gulf coast had already been drilling. It had been well established. But there is a reason there is a moratorium for other parts of the country, and the distinguished Senator from Florida wanted to preserve what is a critical part of the Florida coastline, which means so much to Florida's economy and to all of us who visit, as Americans, the great State of Florida--what it means to us as Americans, as one Nation.
Yes, there isn't a one-size-fits-all policy, I say to my friend from Virginia. Just because the gulf coast has for quite some time pursued it, there are limitations, limitations the Senator from Florida created to ensure its coastline.
Last, we talk about the cost. What is the cost of an oilspill? What is the cost of a leakage? What is the cost of the consequences? What is the cost of a hurricane? What is the cost to the other States, not just New Jersey, but the other States within 100 miles of the coastal waters of Virginia?
I believe our amendment allows Virginia to move forward, but it has to move forward in concert with those States that can most profoundly be hurt, potentially, as is recognized by the amendment of the Senator by virtue of the fact of creating a fund for damage, so they can work together and come to a conclusion.
In the absence of that amendment being accepted, I have to notify the body that this is such a critical issue to my State and to others along the Outer Continental Shelf that this Senator is willing to spend as much time on the floor as is necessary to pursue the full discussion of this matter and, if necessary, to raise it to a 60-vote level because it is that critical an issue.
I thank the Senator from Florida for his observations. I thank him for his leadership in this regard, both past and present.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WARNER. I wonder if I might reply to my good friend for a minute, and I will then likewise yield the floor so my colleague from Florida, my good friend, can continue in his own right.
First, I think I have worked out with the Department of Defense an answer to your question. I simply do not have with me at this time the documents, so therefore I am going to have to indulge the Senate by either laying my amendment aside or some other parliamentary procedure to let the Senate go forward until I can come back with that. I thank the Senator for bringing that up because it is an important consideration. We have a significant command there, the Atlantic Command.
I wish to go to the amendment of my good friend and read the last paragraph:
Requirement.--The Secretary shall not approve a petition under this paragraph unless the Governors of all States within 100 miles of the coast waters of the State-- presumably the State making the petition-- have approved the petition.
That gives all the Governors a veto power on this; Mr. President, would that be correct? I pose that as a question to my colleague.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to answer. What it is is an opportunity for those Governors within 100 miles of the coastal waters of the State of Virginia to work together to ensure that their interests are protected and maybe come to a collaborative approach as to how it might be done, which the Senator from Virginia does not, under his amendment, permit in any way whatsoever.
Mr. WARNER. There is a difference between the amendments. My amendment generally states the Secretary of the Interior, who is the final arbiter of this whole issue, would entertain the petitions from the several Governors, whatever geographic area, as he, the Secretary of Interior, makes a decision.
But I think the Senator has gone a step too far. If there is anything left of States' rights after this sort of paragraph, I don't know what it would be. Listen to what you say:
The Secretary [Interior] shall not approve a petition under this paragraph unless the Governors of all States within 100 miles of the coastal waters of the State have approved the petition.
It doesn't say anything about working it out. It is flat veto power put in the hands of such Governors within 100 miles.
Mr. MENENDEZ. If I can respond to my friend from Virginia, I would say under the amendment of the distinguished Senator, clearly there are no States' rights for those States that will be affected by the amendment of the Senator. Second, there can be no negotiation of any consequence if there is not some sound footing under which one can negotiate. If you have no right, then there is very little to negotiate.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am enjoying this debate, perhaps to educate the Senate. But I bring up another situation to my good friend who has recently joined this body. I don't know how many times I have gone to the floor and contested the right of the several States north of my State, largely, to ship through Virginia thousands of tons of garbage by truck, by rail, leaking, exuding methane gas in my State.
You have the good fortune of a clause in the Constitution on interstate commerce, by which you can throw up your hands and say it is the exercise of that constitutional power. You say my State cannot object to your shipping garbage through it every day. The Senator knows New Jersey ships through 1,000 tons of it. Yet you are saying to me, we cannot go through a process--working with the Federal Government of the United States and the Department of Interior--to drill offshore unless your Governor and all others, any one of the Governors within 100 States--if he has not given the approval, this thing stops?
Mr. MENENDEZ. If the Senator will yield, first of all it is all Governors within 100 miles, not 100 States.
Mr. WARNER. No, 100 miles.
Mr. MENENDEZ. But the distinguished Senator from Virginia has a very significant port operation in his State, and his trucks come through the interstate into the State of New Jersey and do quite a bit of damage on the roads of New Jersey along the way, in terms of the wear and tear, in terms of the movement of its product. Some of that product is not the most fanciful product we might all enjoy. That is the collectivity of our consequence as a Nation.
There is a reason there is a moratorium that we, collectively as a body, the Congress, have adopted for 25 years. The distinguished Senator, whom I admire so much on so many issues, wants to aggregate what the Congress has done as a body for his State, without recognizing there are consequences to others. I simply offer an amendment that says we will allow Virginia to do what they want, but they must do it in concert with those within 100 miles of its territorial waters. I didn't say the whole eastern seaboard but within 100 miles of its territorial waters, to make sure those States rights are not affected.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I hope all States within the Outer Continental Shelf understand the passage of the Warner amendment begins the undoing of the moratorium. For if one State is able to do this, the domino effect that could undo the whole basis of the moratorium that has existed for a quarter of a century will begin to be undone.
Secondly, this is not simply about Virginia's waters. These are Federal waters. This is the Federal Outer Continental Shelf. It is a national context in which we look at it. That is why we have a national moratorium.
Thirdly, even the Senator from Virginia recognizes that damage to other States can take place, because he creates a fund in his amendment to mitigate damages that may take place as a result of such drilling. I don't want my State or any other coastal State to have to deal with damages and to mitigate damages. I want to prevent those damages.
Fourthly, anyone who believes we are going to drill for gas and then maybe find oil and plug it up and not pursue the oil is living under a different set of illusions. That is the reality.
Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the April 10, 2006 letter from the Department of Defense to the Department of the Interior opposing such efforts for drilling off of Virginia.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MENENDEZ. I believe on all of these scores, this is not pursuing the renewable energy sources the underlying bill is all about. This undermines the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. This puts at risk other States. This is not about Virginia alone. This is about the entire Federal Outer Continental Shelf. Other States have interests when one shore can ultimately create consequences on the rest of that coastline. Also the Department of Defense takes the position that it is in opposition. For all of those reasons, it is fitting and appropriate that we oppose the Warner amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source