[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.

                          ____________________