[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 40 (Friday, April 12, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2606-S2608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to have some time this
morning to speak about the important issue that is before the Senate
and has been for some time. It is very important legislation that will
help us set the course of our energy policy for perhaps the next
several decades.
While we have spent a great deal of time on this bill, I am glad we
have spent this time because this is one of the most, if not the most,
important issue we could be addressing at this time. It relates to our
national security posture and it relates to the issues that are before
our eyes and on our hearts: what is happening in the Mideast and around
the world.
Although I understand the leadership wanting to move to other issues,
hopefully, we can have the final votes and move on to other issues.
I have come to this Chamber a number of times to relay what people in
Louisiana are thinking and hoping for in this bill, and I have tried to
express their frustration in some ways over what they and I also
perceive as a conflicting policy.
It seems as though our Nation has a test of our will every 20 or so
years: Are we willing to take the steps necessary to become more energy
independent? The last time we had this test was in the 1970s when oil
spiked because of international circumstances. Our gas lines were very
long. It put a clamp on our economy, helped to raise interest prices
and threw our economy into a tailspin. We failed the test.
Over the last 25 years, we have not become more energy independent.
We have become more efficient. Our technologies have improved
significantly in terms of environmental impacts, but we have not passed
the test for energy independence. It is now 25 years later and we are
taking this test again.
It is my hope that as we cast these last important votes on this
energy bill that we will this time pass the test and move our country
on a steady and sure march toward energy independence.
Instead of reducing our reliance on imported oil over the last 25 or
30 years, we have increased our reliance on foreign oil and energy
sources, the exact reverse of what we were hoping to do. And we have
not increased renewables in our energy portfolio nearly to the point
where they can help us reach that self-reliance.
I do not have to explain to the Presiding Officer, who knows this
issue well, or to my colleagues, how important it is for us to pass
this test now because it has a direct relation to our national
security. It has a direct relation to our ability to fight clearly, and
without compromise, our war on terrorism. It helps us to broker a peace
and a compromise in the Mideast based on our values of freedom and
democracy.
I have a chart which I hope will help people understand how important
this is. As I said, 25 years ago we failed the test of trying to help
our country march towards energy independence. Instead of standing
still, we have actually taken a reverse course. In the last 30 years,
instead of putting more places on the map for production of oil, gas,
coal, and other traditional fuels, as well as nuclear power, hydro and
alternatives, we have actually taken places off the map.
So in 2002, we have this great, mighty, and very wealthy United
States of America that consumes more energy per capita than any nation
on Earth and any nation in the history of man, and yet we refuse to
produce it. We want to consume it. We do not want to produce it.
We have been misled to believe that we cannot produce oil and gas
without great environmental damage. This is simply not true.
What is true is when we began producing oil and gas in the 1930s, the
1940s, and the 1950s, prior to rules and regulations, before the
science was clear and before we were able to understand some of the
great negative consequences, we did make a lot of environmental
mistakes.
We have now minimized the risk financially, economically, as well as
environmentally in our drilling, whether it is onshore or offshore. Are
there still problems? Yes. Are there some environmental risks
associated with drilling? Yes.
I do not know any exercise in life that is without risk. The question
is: what is the measure and the weight of the risk? I say
unequivocally, coming from a State that has done a lot of oil and gas
drilling, the benefits of drilling outweigh the environmental risks if
rules are followed and polluters are prosecuted.
When we are free of Mideast-set oil prices it helps our Nation be
secure internationally. Every time violence escalates in the Mideast,
it drives prices higher causes our economy to tailspin.
When our economy takes a tailspin, as I have tried to explain, it is
not only charts and graphs where the lines start moving. Dreams are
shattered. Houses are lost. Businesses are lost. People lose their
jobs. Kids do not go to school. Families fall into despair. These are
serious issues. These economic trends affect real people, in my State,
and all over our country. Let us take a step now for more domestic
drilling.
We have no amendments to open these places shown here where moratoria
exist. But we must consider opening drilling both on and off of our
shores because there are rich, significant reserves of meaningful
proportion. Let me give one example.
In the Gulf of Mexico, where we see this blue area where we have been
drilling for many years, the red dots indicate all current and active
leases. Where it says ``gas, 105.52 trillion cubic feet,'' that is the
estimated reserves of the gas that is located in this part of the gulf.
Notice this is only the central and the western part of the gulf, not
the eastern part, off of the Florida coastline.
One hundred and five trillion cubic feet of gas is a lot of gas. In
the whole Nation, we use 22 trillion cubic feet a year. So in this one
small part of the gulf, if we drilled it in its entirety and were
committed to a good drilling program, we could supply enough gas for
the entire United States, according to my math, for between 4 and 5
years.
I have to assume that the geology does not stop at this line. Just
because the political boundaries divide Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida does not mean the geographic or geological
formations stop. So there are tremendous gas and oil reserves in this
part of the gulf. There are probably tremendous reserves all along our
Nation's shorelines. Does that mean we have to drill within sight of
the coast? No. It used to be that way 20 years ago, where drilling
would have to be in shallow water. But one of the great advances that
has occurred because of wise tax credits, encouragement, research, and
development is that we now can drill safely in deeper water.
What does that mean? That means we can have great beaches, wonderful
coastlines, a tremendous tourism industry, and never see an oil rig.
The technology is there to drill, and drill safely, and move gas and
oil throughout this country. We would not have to rely on Iraq or Saudi
Arabia and be held hostage to world oil prices.
We need more oil and more gas. It is simply hogwash when people say
it will not help. That is not true. It will help, and we can do it.
Regarding the ANWR situation, people might not be clear. It was not
to me until I visited Alaska and began to understand how huge Alaska
is. I asked my staff to place Alaska on the map of the continental
United States so we could appreciate how big the State is. We are lucky
to have purchased this land, this wonderful State with so many
resources. It is a great asset for the United States of America.
When we purchased Alaska, people thought it was a folly. We have the
last laugh. It has given us great natural resources, an abundance of
wildlife, timber, and oil and gas.
We cannot turn all of Alaska into a national park. We cannot afford
to do it. We have set aside some areas of Alaska. One area the size of
the State of South Carolina is a refuge. It is the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge.
Are we suggesting to drill in the whole refuge? No, the debate over
ANWR is regarding 1.5 million out of 19 million. That is what the fear
is about. A huge number of people say we absolutely, positively, cannot
drill in this little dot because a major catastrophe will befall our
environment or Nation.
[[Page S2607]]
Other nations hear this and say: What is the United States thinking?
They have so much land, so much more than we do, so many more resources
than we do. What is keeping them from drilling in a place far removed
from any urban population? If they will not drill here, the question
is, where will these people in America drill? That is my question.
While some of the Democratic leadership is getting blamed for this
position, neither party has been instrumental in opening up lands for
drilling. This motto of not in my backyard, not in anyone's backyard,
not now, not ever, is going to bring this country to its knees.
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but we cannot maintain the great
military strength we have, and the great economic strength we have, if
we refuse to produce the energy we consume. We have to produce more. We
have the land. We have the skill. We have the technology. We have
people who want jobs, good jobs. I have thousands of workers out of a
job. They want a job that can pay $20, $25, $30, $35, $40 an hour;
scientists who can make a fabulous living exploring new ways for
drilling; engineers, geologists, truckers, suppliers, small business
owners.
More domestic production in little areas like this or in places in
the gulf or in some parts of California and some parts of the east
coast would be very helpful. I hope we can do it.
In addition, we must diversify our fuel source. We need more oil and
gas. If anyone says we don't, they are leading you astray. We also need
more nuclear power. There is also a byproduct of hydrogen that will
help America move to hydrogen fuel cells in our transportation sector.
That is very exciting.
The Presiding Officer and Members from agricultural States know we
can help develop fuels from excess agricultural byproducts and help to
produce the kind of fuels for our automobiles, from corn, wheat and
sugarcane. This is a careful way to produce our food: consume what we
need, and use the excess to produce energy to run the new vehicles of
the next decade--this is truly exciting--and wean ourselves off of the
oil and gas that is so necessary today and will be for the next several
years.
The second important area is improving the transmission grid. I
compare it to the National Highway System. If you came to Louisiana or
Mississippi before we had a National Highway System, you would reach
the State line and the highway might end because we in Louisiana
decided to build the road in a different way. Imagine not being able to
get to Texas because we had our highway going north when we needed it
going west.
That is what would have happened. But we came together a number of
years ago and said: We are going to have a National Highway System so
we can move goods from the East to the West. To do that, the Federal
Government is going to have some say about how this highway system is
built.
We need to do the same thing with transmission. Let me show the
problem with transmission. Even if we drilled more, we don't have
adequate infrastructure to move electricity. Even if we increase our
production, we have to be able to move it from the source to the user.
What this chart shows is the increase in system demand. There is an
increase in demand. Why? Because we are using more electricity. This
country is moving aggressively to using more power, not less.
So, this is our demand curve. Here, though, is the net transmission
investment, which is going down, not up. This is what causes blackouts
and brownouts, this separation. The reason for this is 50 States are
doing their own thing.
Senator Bingaman he has some wonderful language in this bill to help
us build, if you will, an interstate, national transmission system to
move electricity to the places that need it.
I would like to improve upon this language, so I am going to be
offering an amendment next week that will produce more transmission
capacity through participant funding.
The current electricity pricing system is a tremendous obstacle to
enhanced transmission capacity. This system dictates that new
transmission capacity be rolled in, or socialized across the system,
but when power moves from one system to another, customers who receive
no benefit, like those in my State, still shoulder the burden of the
cost of building more transmission. This situation leads to state
utility commissioners and consumer groups to oppose badly needed
expansions of the transmission grid.
Prior to recess, I introduced an amendment, along with Senator Kyl,
to establish an option of participant funding, whereby the utility
customers who give rise to, and benefit from the expansion of
transmission, pay the associated costs.
Now let me clear about one thing: this amendment does not mandate
anything. Rolled-in pricing would continue to be the rule while
participant funding would become an option.
Unfortunately, there has been a persistent tendency to misread or
misinterpret this amendment to the contrary. In order to clarify this
issue, I have made a series of changes to the amendment which make
absolutely clear, beyond any doubt, that the amendment is not a
mandate.
We are building support for this amendment. Again, besides increasing
production, we have to build a national transmission system, similar to
our highway system, and we have to do it in this bill right now or all
the discussions about energy reliability are going to be for naught.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to show another part of the
problem: the need for some reinvestment in our energy infrastructure.
Let me put up the chart that shows drilling in the gulf. All of these
red dots represent wells that are being drilled out in the gulf. It is
really a sight to see. There are thousands of people working out in the
gulf on these rigs. But they do not just get there from heaven. They
have to come from some shore, usually from Texas, Louisiana, or
Mississippi where the pipes, the supplies, and helicopters are located.
We serve as the platform that allows this activity to go on. We are
happy to do that.
But we have been doing it now for 50 years and getting no
compensation whatsoever. In other words, all the taxes paid in this
area do not come back to Louisiana. We do not see a penny of the
royalties that are paid, and it is a lot of money. It is $120 billion,
since 1955; $120 billion since 1955 has been paid to the Federal
Government from the drilling. Some of it is off the shore of Florida,
but most of it is off Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
Since 1955, these wells and energy have produced, for Washington,
$120 billion. Yet for the parishes, the States, and the communities
that support that drilling, we get zero. It has to change. It is just
not fair, it is not right, and it makes no sense.
This is what happens. This is Highway 1, the highway that goes down
the boot of Louisiana to the gulf. This is what the highway looks like
because we cannot get one penny, under the current law, to broaden or
improve this highway. This is what happens when there is an accident on
this narrow two-lane highway. These are all workers in these trucks.
This is what we cause our citizens to have to deal with because we
refuse to design a system, for coastal States, that interior States
have.
Interior States, when they drill for resources, get to keep 50
percent of their money. That goes to help them fund their highways,
their schools, to counter any negative environmental impacts, to invest
in those local communities. Coastal States, for some reason, have not
been able to share in that way.
My amendment, which is in this bill, establishes an authorization for
that. I am going to ask this body to take a further step and make a
direct appropriation--if we are going to drill in the gulf--for
Alabama, for Mississippi, for Louisiana, and for Texas. We certainly
deserve to keep a portion of those revenues so we can invest back in
our communities and make this situation more tenable for the workers
and for the community of people who produce energy for this Nation. We
think it is our patriotic duty, but we cannot continue without just
compensation.
[[Page S2608]]
That is a picture of what Highway 1 looks like on a bad day when
there has been an accident. Frankly, on a good day when there has not
been an accident, it looks a lot like that. There can be 1,000 trucks a
day trying to get down to the gulf to produce oil.
First, we need to drill more in this Nation in places where we can.
We can have protected waters so the beaches of Florida or the coast of
Louisiana or places in Alaska can be protected and preserved. But we
can drill in places where we can become more energy independent and
self-sufficient.
Second, we should double our efforts to diversify our sources of
energy and concentrate on developing renewables.
Third, we should create a transmission grid much like our national
highway system so that wherever the power is created, we can move it to
wherever the Nation needs it, efficiently and at low cost.
It will be fabulous for our consumers and for our businesses.
Finally, we need to make sure we compensate the States such as
Louisiana that are producing and give them a fair share of these
revenues so we can invest in our economic future, fix highways such as
Highway 1, and restore the damage to our coastal wetlands.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the attention and the time to speak
on this important issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from
Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given up
to 15 minutes to address the Senate as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________