[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 86 (Thursday, June 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7741-S7757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 14, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 14) to enhance the energy security of the United 
     States, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Graham (FL) Amendment No. 884, to strike the provision 
     requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an 
     inventory and analysis of oil and natural gas resources 
     beneath all of the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before we do that, I ask unanimous consent 
that the time on this matter, which is divided an hour on that side and 
30 minutes on this side, be divided equally.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S7742]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have two Senators who wish to speak 
on the pending amendment. The junior Senator from Texas wishes to speak 
for 5 minutes. I understand the Senator from California wishes to speak 
for 15 minutes immediately following the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will not object at all. I want to 
understand, I thought I already had 15 minutes from yesterday. I am 
just clarifying that point.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, some of the time has been used on quorum 
calls. That time was charged equally against both sides this morning. 
The Senator still has 15 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. We may not have 15 minutes for somebody else, but there are 
15 minutes for the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Quorum calls have been charged 
proportionately to both sides. At this time, the Senator from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 884

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words in opposition to 
the Graham-Feinstein amendment. I am opposed to this amendment for 
several significant reasons.
  This amendment would restrict our ability to conduct an inventory and 
analysis of our own energy resources. Section 105 of this bill will 
commission a comprehensive scientific study by the Department of the 
Interior concerning the energy resources of the U.S. Outer Continental 
Shelf. It will provide the groundwork for an informed debate on the 
offshore drilling issue.
  This amendment will only decrease our knowledge of these issues. That 
is why I call it a know-nothing amendment. The American public has a 
right and a need to know the status of its national resources. We 
survey, catalog, and inventory our forests, our fisheries, our coal 
reserves, and other valuable living and non-living natural resources. 
We should also allow for the study of our domestic offshore energy 
resources.
  The information that we currently have concerning our oil and natural 
gas resources is limited, dated, and lacks the specificity required for 
this important debate. This legislation will allow the Department of 
the Interior to use the latest technology, except drilling, to update 
its resource estimates using all the available scientific data.
  As we reexamine our growing energy needs for the future, the 
geopolitical reality of our Nation's dependence on foreign oil becomes 
all the more disturbing. The demand for natural gas in this country 
continues to increase, while domestic production continues to decrease. 
Decreased production will result in American increased prices for 
natural gas, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals and electricity.
  The OCS survey is vital to our energy future, and to our ability in 
the Senate to make energy decisions based on the best available 
information.
  The energy industry in my home State of Texas and all throughout the 
Nation has established a strong record on safety and environmental 
issues, and they are the most critical part of our continuing work to 
find alternative sources for energy.
  While we are debating this matter on the floor, Cuba has already 
launched well projects north of the island in the Gulf of Mexico. Just 
last month, the Castro regime invited oil companies from other nations 
to drill, just miles away from our own international borders. We should 
not restrict our Nation's knowledge and ability to make responsible 
decisions regarding energy policy, while other nations plow ahead, with 
no U.S. oversight, no U.S. safety regulations, and no U.S. 
environmental standards.
  With the prospect of energy challenges looming on the horizon, now is 
not the time to ransom our sovereignty over our energy resources for 
the sake of short term political gain.
  These natural resources belong to the American people, and they 
deserve an accounting of them. The debate over offshore drilling is a 
critical one, and it deserves our full attention.
  I oppose this amendment as imprudent and inappropriate. That is why 
it was defeated by a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate Energy 
Committee. That is why it deserves to be defeated again.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for being 
brief and to the point. I am also glad he went first because I could 
not disagree more with what he said. It gives me a really good jumping-
off place for my comments this morning.
  I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Graham's amendment to strike 
section 105 from the Senate Energy Bill, and I thank him and Senators 
Feinstein, Wyden, and Cantwell for their heroic efforts in the 
committee itself to remove this section so we would not have to have 
this fight on the Senate floor.
  The Senator from Texas called this amendment a know-nothing 
amendment. I call it an amendment that stands up for American values. 
What could be more of an American value than protecting and honoring 
the environmental legacy given to us by God, a legacy we must protect. 
It is our duty to protect. Section 105, which I wish to strike, would 
require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory and 
analysis of oil and gas reserves beneath the waters of the Outer 
Continental Shelf, including the moratorium areas. Let me repeat that. 
This is such a radical proposal that it would allow harmful analysis to 
go on, and I will explain why, beneath the waters of an area or areas 
in our country where they are so precious, they are so beautiful, they 
are so respected by the people we represent, that they have been 
subjected to moratoria by this Congress for 20 years now.
  By the way, that tracks how long I have been in Congress actually, 
just about. I have supported that all the time, and this provision 
undermines the premise behind these moratoria, which is to protect 
these magnificent areas from activities such as the ones authorized in 
this bill.
  It may sound very simple to say, oh, we are going to analyze what 
resources lie off our coasts and in our ocean, but when we realize the 
kind of work that will go on--seismic surveys, sediment samplings, 
other destructive exploration technologies that harm ocean habitat and 
marine life--it is worth getting upset about.
  To this point, this bill is really an abomination. I do not know how 
else to put it. I am known to be very direct. It brings back nuclear 
energy, and I compliment the Presiding Officer today for his work to 
try and strip the subsidies to the nuclear power industry from this 
bill. We do not even know what to do with the nuclear waste we have. It 
is dangerous. It lasts for thousands of years. We do not even know what 
to do with it, and now this Senate has decided to turn away from the 
Wyden-Sununu amendment and say to nuclear power companies, before we 
know what to do with this waste, we are going to back you up, we are 
going to give you a loan guarantee so if you want to build a nuclear 
powerplant, you can go get a $3 billion loan guarantee from the Federal 
Government. So if there is a crisis, if there is a problem, if the 
plant does not work, you are going to be bailed out by the taxpayers.
  Well, on behalf of the taxpayers of California, we are a State that 
has turned away from a couple of our nuclear powerplants because we 
have had problems--and now we are encouraging it. That is what this 
bill does. This bill has a safe harbor provision for ethanol.

[[Page S7743]]

Maybe ethanol will be fine, but we are not sure. A blue ribbon panel in 
EPA said they are not sure. If there are problems, if people get sick, 
if children are harmed, there is a safe harbor for the companies making 
ethanol. What a corporate give-away is this bill. And now we are 
turning our back on 20 years of bipartisanship and 20 years of 
leadership from Republican and Democratic Presidents and saying, go 
into those precious areas in the ocean, drill your heart away and we 
are going to tell you, as the Senator from Texas said, oh, that is a 
good thing for the country.

  Wrong. It is a bad thing for our country. It is a bad thing for our 
children. It is a bad thing for their children because we would be 
undermining the protections for these valued, sensitive coastal areas 
and ignoring again this bipartisan moratoria we have had for years on 
the Outer Continental Shelf.
  By the way, we beat this back 2 years ago. I cannot wait to tell the 
people of California what is happening. I am saddened by it, but I 
cannot wait to tell them because they need to hear it. This is another 
environmental rollback that is deadly serious. It was tried 2 years ago 
and it did not succeed, but I am not sanguine this time because we have 
had changes in this particular body.
  Two years ago, Senator John Kerry and I offered an amendment, which 
was included in the manager's amendment, to strip this deadly language 
out and to preserve the moratorium, and it passed.
  Now, I will tell my colleagues why my people in California are so 
adamantly opposed to drilling off our coast. A very long time ago, 34 
years ago, there was an incident that was so horrific that Californians 
who were around then will never forget it, and their children are told 
stories. In 1969, disaster struck when a major oil spill occurred from 
a platform 6 miles offshore from Santa Barbara, CA. Over 4 million 
gallons of oil poured into the ocean, contaminating the waters, killing 
thousands of animals and ruining over 200 square miles of Santa 
Barbara's coastline. Prior to that event, Santa Barbara's beaches were 
considered a recreational paradise with some of the most beautiful 
coastline in our country. After the spill, these same beaches smothered 
with a slick coating of oil, resulting in a loss of millions of dollars 
in tourism and recreation and broken hearts all over my State. Local 
governmental officials, community leaders, grassroots organizations, 
conservation groups, and citizens rallied for justice after the 
destruction of their coast. They decided then that absolutely no more 
drilling should be permitted off the coast.
  Due to the Santa Barbara spill in California, there is strong and 
enduring support for the protection of our oceans and our coastlines, 
and any candidate for any office coming into my State saying we ought 
to go back to the days of drilling off that coast is not going to get 
the support of Democrats, is not going to get the support of 
Republicans, is not going to get the support of independents, and 
everybody else in between. They can sugar-coat it any way they want. We 
know the truth. We saw it in Santa Barbara. We made a decision that any 
potential benefits that might be derived from future oil and gas 
development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal 
treasures. I will show a picture of my coastline because it is worth 
looking at.

  My friends on both sides of the aisle who support this underlying 
amendment, if they think they are helping the economy, they are not. 
The economy of mine and other coastal States relies on a beautiful and 
clean environment. The economic benefits of our California beaches are 
very clear. Two-thirds of California residents visit one of the State 
beaches at least once a year. In 2001, there were at least 132 million 
visits to California beaches by people from outside the State. These 
are your constituents. Maybe it is even you. Maybe you even came with 
your family to our beaches. These visits generated $61 billion in total 
spending in my State. That is an economic boom.
  There are some in this Senate who think the only economic boom to 
their States is drilling on precious areas. That is a good debate. But 
the people of California have made this decision. They have decided 
they do not want it. They understand the commercial fishing industry 
relies on a beautiful unspoiled coast and ocean. It is a $554 million 
industry with 17,000 jobs, and they say no to this bill; the shipping 
industry, 8.6 billion and 179,000 jobs. We are talking tourism, we are 
talking fishing, we are talking shipping, and we are saying no to this 
bill.
  This Graham amendment will help us preserve that economy. These are 
hard economic times in our State. The last thing we need is to go back. 
Tourism, beautiful beaches, a clean ocean, that is what my State is 
about. We saw what happened in Santa Barbara. We made that decision. We 
have permanently banned new oil and gas development in State waters. 
How can we go out adjacent to State waters to the Outer Continental 
Shelf and run the risk of destroying this value of our State? It is 
about California's economy. It is also about a beautiful environment.
  I will show a couple of other pictures of this breathtaking 
environment. This is our southern California coast. The picture we show 
now is Malibu Beach.
  We are talking about $61 billion in total spending each year because 
of our magnificent coast and our ocean. When it is added up, the 
underlying bill is destructive to our environment, which Republicans, 
Democrats, and Independents in my State agree must be preserved. It 
undermines our economy.
  By allowing predrilling activities to occur, our coast is threatened, 
commercial fishing jobs are at risk, fishing jobs are at risk, tourism 
is at risk, California's economy is at risk, and the beauty of 
California's coastline is at risk. That goes for every State along my 
coast, be it Washington, Oregon, or California.
  As I look back to the bipartisanship we have had with the President 
in the past, Republicans and Democrats, this is the first time we have 
seen this move.
  What is the history of Federal moratoria? For two decades Federal 
waters off the coast of California have been protected from additional 
offshore oil and gas development through a series of temporary bans. 
President George H.W. Bush signed an executive memorandum in 1990 which 
placed the 10-year moratorium on new oil and gas leasing. He did not 
try to go in there with seismic testing and destructive methods. He did 
not get up and say, we better drill there and find out what is there. 
He understood it. President Clinton understood it. He extended this 
moratorium to 2012.

  Section 105 of this Energy bill completely ignores this moratoria by 
promoting destructive exploratory drilling in the Outer Continental 
Shelf. In a letter to me, the California Coastal Commission states the 
provision ``would seriously undermine the longstanding bipartisan 
legislative moratoria . . . that has been included in every 
appropriations bill for more than 20 years.'' We must defeat efforts to 
undermine the protection of our coast and the rights of coastal States 
and local governments to make decisions to protect their coasts. 
Section 105 of the Energy bill is intended for one purpose, I say to my 
colleagues, and one purpose only. You can dress up a pig and you can 
put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. In this case, it is to 
promote oil and gas development on our precious coast.
  Republicans in my State don't want that. Democrats in my State don't 
want that. Independents in my State don't want that. By allowing the 
Secretary of the Interior to use invasive, exploratory technologies, 
including the seismic surveys--sections 105 permits activities that 
have detrimental impacts on the marine environment, including air 
pollution from machinery and disturbance to the sea flora. While these 
seismic surveys sound innocent, let me explain what we are talking 
about.
  Huge boats with large acoustic equipment go out into the ocean, a 
high-pressure air gun sends out constant high-decibel explosive pulses 
through the water and deep into the sea floor. We know these sounds 
have been reported to cause significant damage to fish and their 
ability to locate prey and avoid predators. As a result, the survival 
of fish populations is threatened by this technology. That is why the 
commercial fishing business in my State opposes this bill. These 
explosive pulses are also within the auditory

[[Page S7744]]

range of many other marine species, including whales. In fact, when 
this technology was used in the Bahamas and off the coast of Mexico, it 
caused whales to become disoriented and as a result to be fatally 
stranded on beaches.
  Seismic surveys are accompanied by extraction of numerous samples 
from the sea floor. These samples are collected by dropping large 
hollow metal tubes from ships to vertically puncture the sea floor. 
Reports from Environmental Defense show the collection of these samples 
damages the ocean floor and harms the habitat of numerous species.
  The Graham amendment is supported by the California Coastal 
Commission, in addition to the Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Environmental Defense, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Sierra 
Club, Coast Alliance, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and the League of 
Conservation Voters.
  This is a serious issue for the most populous State in the Union and 
for the entire west coast. I urge my colleagues who say they care about 
what people believe, care about the values of the American people, to 
seriously look at the danger and the damage this is going to cause. We 
stripped it out of the appropriations bill a couple years ago, and it 
is back now. I hope my colleagues will strip it out again. If you do 
not, there are going to be a lot of outraged citizens in this country 
when they find out what could happen from the underlying bill. I again 
urge colleagues to support this Graham amendment.

  Since my colleague from Washington is in the Chamber, Senator 
Cantwell, let me say to her--I mentioned this in her absence--how much 
I appreciated the heroic effort she made in the committee to strip this 
out of the bill. I hope we will be successful today.
  I thank my colleague. I yield the remainder of my time to the 
managers of the bill, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I wish to comment on what I hope is the 
progress of our Energy Policy Act of 2003 that is before us. It is a 
policy that is essential to our Nation's energy security, to our 
economic security. I think it will play a vital role in where we go 
with energy.
  This is comprehensive legislation that has to do with production, 
particularly in the West; let's say domestic production. It has to do 
with research, which is what this amendment is about. It has to do with 
understanding where we go in the future with alternative fuels. We take 
a total look at where we are.
  One important provision calls for an inventory of the Outer 
Continental Shelf and the resources there for the United States. This 
requires the Secretary of the Interior to survey all the Outer 
Continental Shelf resources currently under production and under 
moratoria, and to develop an inventory of those reserves in the areas 
that are not in production. An analysis will utilize the latest 
available remote sensing technologies, but the legislation specifically 
states that drilling will not be permitted in conducting this 
inventory. The measure directs the Secretary of the Interior to submit 
a report to Congress on the inventory 6 months after enactment of the 
bill.
  Offshore production, of course, has played an important part in our 
domestic picture. The western and central Gulf of Mexico have proven 
world class areas for natural gas and petroleum production, accounting 
for over 25 percent of domestic production.
  It is believed substantial natural gas resources exist in the eastern 
gulf, Atlantic Ocean, and off the coast of California. However, 
exploration of these areas has been prohibited by previous Presidential 
moratoria. Senator Graham's amendment now on the floor will strike that 
inventory from the Energy Policy Act of 2003.
  Opponents contend the passage will violate the Presidential moratoria 
and open the door for development of coastal areas. This is completely 
untrue. The sole purpose of the offshore inventory in S. 14 is to 
collect data on domestic offshore oil and gas resources to fully 
understand the potential of these regions instead of making future 
policy judgments on information that is outdated and incomplete.
  A number of people are very interested in this. I understand that. 
But I think we are being misled a little as to what it means. It is a 
comprehensive scientific inventory. I think the public has a right to 
know what the status of our national natural resources are for the 
future. We need to reexamine them because many of the assessments that 
were done some time ago are not up to par in terms of current 
technology.
  We need to do this. A number of organizations are opposed to the 
amendment--the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation--simply because they 
are so dependent on energy in the future. This is something that really 
affects lots of people.
  I have to say once again, it is an inventory of the resources that 
are available, not a license to produce.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May I ask the Senator a question?
  Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You mentioned various organizations that support this. 
I wonder if it might be fair to say that, regarding future jobs for 
America, we might have some interest in knowing what our resources are. 
Those concerned about jobs for the future, might they also be 
interested?
  Mr. THOMAS. The Senator raises, of course, a basic question. As we 
talk about energy, what we are talking about is the future of our 
economy, in terms of jobs, in terms of doing the things we will want to 
do economically and environmentally.
  I have the same kind of feelings about my place in Wyoming. We have 
mountains and we have areas we are going to protect. But that does not 
mean we ought to avoid the idea of having a notion of where those 
resources are, and to be able to use some of them where they work 
together, preserving the environment.
  Certainly the U.S. Chamber, certainly the National Association of 
Manufacturers, are concerned about the future and the availability of 
energy so we can create jobs and continue to build the future economy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for his remarks this morning.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, is here. He asked if he might 
have time. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 17 and a half minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think it appropriate I make a few 
comments. My committee does have jurisdiction over any environmental 
aspects of the OCS. I consider this to be significant. I think it is 
very important for us. We hear all the stuff about the environment and 
we hear some extremist groups who are saying they don't want this to 
take place. There are some out there, maybe even some Senators, who 
might believe this somehow is going to authorize exploration or 
authorize drilling.
  Section 105 of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
conduct an inventory and analysis of oil and natural gas resources in 
the Outer Continental Shelf. It does not in any way authorize any type 
of exploration; it doesn't authorize any kind of drilling. It will 
provide the American people, for the first time, using new technology--
and we have new technology--a comprehensive overview of the country's 
offshore oil and natural gas resources.
  This 3-D seismic technology--I have heard the chairman of the Energy 
Committee talk about this modern technology. It was developed in the 
1990s and has allowed us to identify 100 trillion cubic feet more 
natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico than was previously found.
  We have surveys for the rest of the country's natural resources. We 
have surveys of how many forests we have, how many trees we have, how 
many fish we have, how much coal we have. Why is there so much 
resistance to knowing how many oil and gas resources or reserves are 
out there? How can we have a comprehensive national energy policy 
without knowing how much oil and gas the country has? That is really 
the key to this.
  I have criticized Republican and Democrat administrations alike for 
not having a comprehensive energy policy. I remember, during the Reagan 
administration, trying to get a comprehensive energy policy. We were 
not able to

[[Page S7745]]

do it. During the first Bush administration, we were not able to do it.
  Consequently, back when I was so concerned about our dependence upon 
foreign oil for our ability to fight a war, during the Reagan 
administration, our dependence was only 36 percent. Now it is 57 
percent. So it has just gotten worse and worse.
  Finally, I applaud the President for saying we are going to have a 
comprehensive energy policy, and I applaud the Senator, the chairman of 
the Energy Committee, for coming up with a well-thought-out plan. But, 
again, how can we have a comprehensive policy if we don't even know 
what resources the Nation has?
  Many colleagues are concerned that section 105 undermines the State's 
right to determine what happens in Federal waters off its shores.
  How can that happen? It is just a study. In fact, not knowing what 
oil and gas is off States' shores infringes upon a State's right to 
make an informed decision. Indeed. The liberal mantra here is the right 
to know. Given that, how can they oppose knowledge? No State has the 
right to infringe upon interstate commerce. That would be 
unconstitutional. If legislators are successful in prohibiting the 
access to the people's resources, then no amount of information about 
America's oil and natural gas reserves is going to change that 
protection.
  Secretary of the Interior Norton, in a recent letter to my 
colleagues, Senators Graham and Nelson, states:

       The language does not affect the moratoria.

  You have to understand that. I just hope the people of America are 
watching this because we are really just saying we don't want the 
knowledge. We are facing a natural gas crisis. I don't think anyone is 
going to stand up here and say that we are not. This crisis is 
universally acknowledged through widespread awareness. This crisis has 
really just begun in the past year or so.
  In a wonderfully bipartisan way, Congress has come together to try to 
reduce America's reliance on foreign sources of energy, including oil 
and natural gas.
  Limiting the American people's access to knowledge about the American 
people's resources, let alone the resources themselves, is a guaranteed 
way to increase dependence on foreign sources of energy. It is sort of 
an ``ignorance-is-bliss'' strategy.
  Also, many States are facing budget shortfalls. They turn to us for 
options for addressing these shortfalls. The ones I have talked with 
are appreciative of the fact that we need to know what resources are 
off our shores.
  Again, this amendment authorizes only a study and will allow us to 
make good and informed decisions about resources. I can't imagine 
anyone being against something which is merely shedding light on what 
we have and informing the people of America what the resources are so 
we can intelligently address those resources in the future.
  I certainly encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment which 
would strike the people's right to know what kinds of resources are out 
there.
  Again, I repeat that it has nothing to do with exploration. It has 
nothing to do with drilling oil. All it deals with is finding out what 
our resources are.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to support the Graham 
amendment. I thank my colleague from California for speaking so 
eloquently about how important it is for the entire west coast of the 
United States. I know Senator Graham is articulating those same 
concerns in Florida. I am sure we will hear from Members of other parts 
of the country. I find this debate almost amazing--amazing in the sense 
that Congress has enacted moratoria on drilling since 1982. In every 
instance since 1982, Congress has responded and said we don't want to 
explore for natural gas or oil off of our pristine coasts. So we go 
over this time and time again. Yes. We are going to go over it again 
today. People have raised these economic arguments. I can tell you what 
the people in Washington State think.
  We have a 7.4-percent unemployment rate. We want jobs. But I 
guarantee this is not where we think we are going to get jobs. In fact, 
we want protection from our high energy costs. My ratepayers have had a 
50-percent rate increase. Why? Because we were gouged by Enron 
contracts.
  To say to the people of the Northwest that somehow your economy and 
your future are going be taken care of because we are going to let you 
drill off the coast of Washington is ludicrous. We want economic 
relief. We want statutory relief from the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to do their job. We want them to basically say that the fat 
boys and these Enron schemes have been illegal and we are going to help 
you get out of your high energy prices.
  The fact that we are out here talking about this isn't really going 
to lead to drilling. Then why spend the taxpayers' dollars trying to 
study something we don't want to do. I don't want to drill off the 
coast of Washington. I don't want to spend the taxpayers' money 
assessing that situation. I don't think we ought to spend the 
taxpayers' money looking in the Great Lakes for oil. I don't know that 
we want to go and say let us valuate putting a nuclear powerplant in 
North Dakota because it might be close to the Missouri River and a 
water source.
  There are a lot of issues we can explore. The question is, do we want 
to follow through on those policies? I believe the answer is absolutely 
no, as to our pristine coastline. That coastline has already been a key 
part of our economy on the west coast. We have many fishing industries, 
shellfishing industries, and tourism dollars that all rely on that 
pristine coastline.
  The Federal Government has entered into treaties with the tribes on 
shellfish and harvesting rights. Are we going to abrogate those Federal 
obligations that we have signed onto?
  We also, as the Federal Government, implemented the Olympic Coast 
National Marine Sanctuary which encompasses most of the waters off the 
Northwest coast. It is a sanctuary for hundreds of species, including 
marine mammals. These mammals include the majestic orca whale, whose 20 
percent population decline over the past decade recently triggered a 
``depleted'' listing under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Now are 
going to say to the country that we think we should look at putting oil 
rigs and transportation of oil in an area that we, as a country, have 
already designated as a pristine national monument?
  If you want to know whether the people of my State are watching, they 
are watching. Guess what. They have a memory. They do remember. They 
remember thick carpets of oil, hundreds of dead birds and great shards 
of oil-blackened timber that followed the 1989 oil spill off of Grays 
Harbor. That disaster stained over 300 miles of coastline. An oil well 
blowout could be many times worse.

  While some argue that simply studying this just gives us information, 
my response is that we should not spend millions of taxpayer dollars 
that could be put towards something else. My constituents won't accept 
drilling rigs off the vibrant coastline of Willapa Bay, Neah Bay, or 
the mouth of the Columbia River. Rigs are unsightly and the risk of an 
ecologically disastrous oil spill is just too high.
  Instead of looking for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, my 
State is willing to do a variety of things.
  We are still the home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and we are 
spending billions of taxpayer dollars to clean up the nuclear waste. We 
are progressing on that in an aggressive fashion.
  We have one of the largest wind farms in the West. We are trying to 
be a leader in new energy technology. We are even willing to look at 
wave energy technology off the coast of Washington and in other areas 
where it might be more appropriate.
  I am a big advocate of moving forward on natural gas in Alaska to 
make sure we get a natural gas pipeline to give more natural gas 
resources to the lower 48 States. That is something which I think is 
critically important. The Pew Ocean Commission has recently highlighted 
the fragile nature of our oceans and coastal resources and recommended 
we look at our oceans in a holistic manner.
  I think that report, which came out less than 10 days ago, basically 
says that we don't have our act together as it relates to our oceans 
and the health of our oceans.

[[Page S7746]]

  I find it very frustrating being from a State that has high 
unemployment and a State that has high energy costs. Those energy costs 
have been costing us and no one is trying to help give us relief from 
those contracts.
  Public documents say there has been market manipulation. Now somebody 
thinks they are proposing to us some panacea of studying drilling off 
the coast of Washington and you are going to have a great economy. It 
is a bunch of bunk.
  What we need to do is what Congress has done since 1982, enact a 
moratorium on drilling. Stand up and say it is not appropriate. Follow 
the Bush administration, follow the Clinton administration, and follow 
the previous Bush administration. I am not sure where this Bush 
administration is, but basically say we don't want drilling off of our 
pristine coastline.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields to the Senator?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I understand the Senator from New 
Mexico has 11 minutes remaining. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madam President. I would like 5 of those 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, today I rise in opposition to Senate 
Amendment No. 884, offered by the Senator from Florida. Everywhere you 
turn these days you hear talk of a natural gas crisis facing this 
country. On May 21, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve testified 
before Congress that he was ``quite surprised at how little attention 
the natural gas problem has been getting,'' he said, ``because it is a 
very serious problem.'' Yesterday, while testifying before the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee, he went on to add that the increase in 
gas prices--more than double what they were last year--have put 
significant segments of the North America gas-using industry--chemical, 
fertilizer, steel and aluminum--in a weakened competitive position 
against industries overseas.
  What Mr. Greenspan is referring to is the looming gap between natural 
gas demand and supply in this country. Currently, we produce about 84 
percent of the natural gas we consume. By 2025, the Energy Information 
Administration, EIA, projects that imports of natural gas will provide 
22 percent of demand. Quite simply, we are facing the prospect of our 
natural gas market following in the footsteps of our oil market where 
imports continue to account for a growing percentage of supply.
  For years we have pursued a policy that is in conflict with itself. 
On the one hand, we encourage the use of natural gas in this country to 
meet our energy needs and environmental goals. It is viewed as a clean 
fuel to improve air quality and a low carbon-dioxide fuel to meet 
climate change targets.
  However, we have ignored the supply side of the equation. National 
output has remained stagnant since 1995 but one of out of every two 
homes in the United States is now heated by natural gas. The amount of 
natural gas used to generate electricity has increased 33 percent in 
the past 5 years and will likely grow an additional 60 percent by 2015.
  So, we now find ourselves living in a state of denial when demand 
outstrips supply and volatile prices occur.
  In my State of Louisiana, chemical plants, which use natural gas as 
both a fuel and a feedstock, face record-high prices. Because of tight 
supplies, the average natural gas price--NYMEX--for the first quarter 
of 2003 was $5.91 per million Btus. This represents a staggering 129 
percent increase over the average natural gas price for the first 
quarters of the previous 10 years, which was $2.58.
  For ammonia plants in particular, the cost of natural gas can 
represent 70 to 90 percent of the total cost of manufacturing its 
products. Since 1998, the number of Louisiana Ammonia Producers, who 
account for approximately 40 percent of the U.S. production of ammonia, 
has gone from 9 companies employing more than 3,500 employees to 3 
companies employing less than 1,000.
  Thanks to the good work of the Energy Committee, led by Chairman 
Domenici, I believe there are some provisions in this Bill, that if 
enacted, would stimulate natural gas production in the short term. For 
example, I offered an amendment at committee that was accepted and 
would encourage deep gas production from wells in shallow waters on 
existing leases. Provisions such as this one can bring gas to market 
quickly.
  While there are some conservation and efficiency measures we can take 
to try and slow high prices in the short term, we cannot continue to 
pretend that the supply imbalance does not exist. Believe it or not, 
the fight today is not over whether to produce more natural gas but 
instead focuses on a mere study, albeit a critical one.
  The proponents of the amendment before us would have you believe that 
enacting the inventory called for under section 105 of the bill would 
open Pandora's Box and lead to oil and gas production everywhere on the 
Outer Continental Shelf, regardless of whether an area is currently 
under moratoria.
  The fact is the inventory will do nothing of the sort. Section 105 
will in no way affect existing moratoria on oil and gas activity in the 
OCS, nor will it diminish the rights of those states that oppose 
drilling off their coasts. Section 105 does not provide for the use of 
exploratory wells. The real truth behind section 105 is simply to 
inform the American public about how much potential oil and natural gas 
there is within these areas of the United States.
  I believe that the American people should have the most up-to-date 
and accurate projections of these public assets. An amendment such as 
the one pending before the Senate sends a signal to America's 
consumers, homeowners and manufacturing industries that Congress is out 
of touch and not committed to addressing a problem that only continues 
to get worse.
  The question might arise, why do we need to re-examine our offshore 
resources when many assessments of oil and natural gas resources off 
our coasts have been done? The answer is most, if not all, of these 
assessments relied solely on the geophysical and geological data 
yielded by company exploration and production efforts. In some areas, 
where moratoria have been in place for some time, the data is very 
old--10 years or more--and the estimates may no longer be accurate.
  Since this frontier was officially opened to significant oil and gas 
exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed as much to the 
nation's energy production as the OCS. The OCS accounts for more than 
25 percent of our Nation's natural gas and oil production.
  With annual returns to the federal government averaging between $4 to 
$5 billion annually, no single area has contributed as much to the 
federal treasury as the OCS. In fact, since 1953 the OCS has 
contributed $140 billion to the U.S. Treasury.
  In light of these tremendous contributions, it is particularly 
interesting to realize that almost all of our OCS production comes from 
a very concentrated area of the OCS, the western half, which really 
means offshore Louisiana and Texas. Ninety-eight percent of the 
nation's offshore production comes from this half of the Gulf of 
Mexico. In fiscal year 2001, offshore Louisiana accounted for almost 80 
percent of total OCS gas production.
  By taking this inventory, maybe we discover there are more resources 
on the OCS than we originally thought or maybe we actually learn less 
is out there. Regardless, we owe it to ourselves to find out.
  Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I want to reserve the remainder of our 
time. However, I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her 
excellent remarks. The real issue is knowledge: What should the 
American people know about their future in terms of our own resources?
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern over 
provisions

[[Page S7747]]

included in the Senate Energy bill that threaten the existing moratoria 
on leasing and preleasing activities related to oil drilling on Georges 
Bank, off the coast of Maine, and other areas of the outer continental 
shelf.
  Section 105 of the Energy bill requires the Department of the 
Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in 
the entire outer continental shelf. This provision would allow 
potentially damaging seismic technology in the vital fishing grounds of 
Georges Bank.
  Georges Bank is a magnificent American resource. The unusual 
underwater topography and tidal activity of Georges Bank create an 
almost self-contained ecosystem, unique within the ocean that surrounds 
it. It is one of the most productive fisheries in the world, where 
Mainers and many others harvest cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, 
scallops, lobsters, swordfish, and herring.
  Mainers have fished Georges Bank for hundreds of years. Hundreds of 
small communities in New England depend on fish from Georges Bank for 
economic support and their maritime-based way of life. In recent years, 
Maine's fishermen have made significant economic sacrifices to work 
toward sustainable and healthy fish stocks. I am extremely worried that 
any drilling activities, even preleasing activities, could destroy 
their work.
  An oil spill on Georges Bank would have catastrophic effects on the 
Georges Bank ecosystem and the economies of the coastal communities of 
New England. Georges Bank experiences some of the most severe weather 
in the world, and the frequent storms, strong currents, and high winds 
would cripple any post-spill cleanup effort. For this reason, and 
because of its great biological value, many scientists, fishermen, and 
other persons concerned with and knowledgeable about the unique 
ecosystem of Georges Bank have urged that no drilling activities occur 
in this region.
  I have long worked to protect Georges Bank from the potentially 
devastating impacts of offshore oil and gas drilling. In 1999, when the 
Government of Canada was considering whether or not to drill on Georges 
Bank, I introduced a resolution in the Senate that asked the Government 
of Canada to impose a moratorium on drilling on the Canadian side of 
Georges Bank until 2012. I was very relieved when, several months 
later, Canada did indeed impose such a moratorium. The United States 
also has a moratorium on drilling Georges Bank until 2012.
  This issue again arose in May of 2001, when the Outer Continental 
Shelf Policy Committee recommended to the Secretary of the Interior 
that she encourage congressional funding to assess the oil and gas 
potential of offshore areas covered by the moratorium. The 
recommendations also included a suggestion to explore lifting parts of 
the existing moratorium.
  In response, I worked to include language in the fiscal year 2002 
Interior Appropriations bill that would prohibit the use of funds for 
offshore preleasing, leasing, or related activity on Georges Bank. 
Along with Senators Kerry, Kennedy, and Snowe, I cosponsored an 
amendment that prohibits the Department of the Interior from spending 
any funds on leasing, preleasing, or related activities in Georges Bank 
and the entire North Atlantic, as well as the West Coast off 
California, Oregon, and Washington, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Our 
amendment was signed into law, and similar language has been included 
in subsequent Interior Appropriations bills.
  I believe that Section 105 of the Energy bill is contradictory to the 
Interior Appropriations bill language and the expressed will of the 
Senate against the expenditure of funds for the use of preleasing 
activities in Georges Bank. I am pleased to join Senators Graham, 
Feinstein, Dole, and many others in cosponsoring an amendment that will 
remove these provisions from the bill. I urge my colleagues to support 
our amendment.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, would the Chair indicate how much time 
remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 4 minutes 20 
seconds; the Senator from Washington has 5 minutes, and the Senator 
from California, Mrs. Feinstein, has 13 minutes.
  Mr. REID. So a total of 18 minutes on this side, 4 on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that the leader 
wants to vote at 11:15.
  Mr. DOMENICI. My understanding is we would like to change the time to 
11:15, assure the time at 11:15.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time, 
after whatever time expires that has already been allocated, be divided 
equally between the two sides.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Between now and 11:15?
  Mr. REID. Not the time between now and 11:15. Whenever the time 
expires--we have 18 minutes and you have 4 minutes; so 22 minutes--so 
it would be about 13 minutes would be allocated evenly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I trust, with the time being so much 
more on their side, a Senator from that side will soon come to the 
floor and talk.
  Mr. REID. Yes. I say to my friend, Senator Feinstein is due here 
momentarily. Senator Graham is expected. But I think, in fairness to 
Senator Domenici, that their time--they should be here, so I will 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think that is fair, and I thank the Senator for 
suggesting it.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, how much time 
does the Senator from California have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from California, if she 
needs more time, there is time available. Does the Senator know how 
much time she will need?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I may need another 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining to the 
Senator from California be a total of 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid.
  I wish to speak as cosponsor of the Graham-Feinstein amendment to 
remove the inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources 
from the Energy bill. I deeply believe that this proposed inventory 
threatens our coasts and should not be part of this Energy bill. The 
House already stripped the studies out of the Energy bill. The Senate 
should do the same.
  The Energy bill's current language requires a new inventory of all 
the Outer Continental Shelf resources and a study of impediments to 
production. We oppose these studies because the purpose of the studies 
is really meant to undermine the moratoria which is in place. Many of 
these moratoria have been in place with bipartisan support on both 
coasts for 20 years.
  Proponents of the inventory argue that it is meant to provide 
information and nothing more. However, the real intent is clear: The 
Minerals Management Service is specifically directed to inventory 
moratorium areas that are not available for development. Inventorying 
these areas does not make sense unless you want to overturn the 
moratoria.
  The provision's second study on impediments to production makes the 
intent of the studies even clearer. In section 105, the popular 
moratorium that now protects our States' coastal resources is 
disparaged as ``an impediment to production.'' An impediment is 
something to be removed. So this is a hint as to the intention of these 
studies.
  Perspective is important in this debate. The moratorium is there to 
protect our coast, not just to impede production of oil and gas. Facts 
are that

[[Page S7748]]

we do not need the information these studies would provide to make an 
informed decision. We have inventoried the Outer Continental Shelf's 
resources before. In fact, the Minerals Management Service already 
publishes an update of this inventory every 5 years. We have a good 
idea what resources are out there, and we do not need additional 
studies.
  Californians are also too familiar with the consequences of offshore 
drilling. An oilspill in 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara killed 
thousands of birds, as well as dolphins, seals, and other animals. We 
know this could happen again, and how well I remember that cleanup 
effort on those beaches.
  A healthy coast is also vital to California's economy and our quality 
of life. One of our major economic areas is the visitor industry--
conventions, tourists. People do not want to see oil rigs off the coast 
of California, and they do not come there for that purpose. The ocean-
dependent industry is estimated to contribute $17 billion to our State 
each year. So the economics of what the ocean produces in its pristine 
state are critical to our State.
  In 1991, the California Department of Parks and Recreation found that 
almost 70 percent of Californians participated in beach activities and 
25 percent of our population did some saltwater fishing. So 
Californians know what is at stake, and we made an informed decision: 
We do not want drilling off our coast.
  As Mike Reilly, chairman of the California Coastal Commission, said 
to me in a letter:

       The energy bill's provision is directly contrary to 
     California's strong interest in safeguarding its precious 
     coastal resources from offshore oil and gas-drilling related 
     activities, and for that reason we oppose this study.

  The California Coastal Commission is the State governmental agency in 
charge of the coastline. I myself served on one of the regional boards 
of the Coastal Commission, so I know it well.

  Even without the threat of future drilling, we would oppose 
conducting these studies in moratorium areas. We have moratoria to 
protect our coasts. The studies would harm resources we want to 
protect.
  I wish to focus for a moment on the destructive studies required by 
this provision. The provision's original language would have allowed 
for exploratory drilling. I appreciate that the current version no 
longer allows for exploratory drilling. However, the bill still 
requires invasive study methods that will harm our coastal resources.
  The provision specifically calls for 3-D seismic testing. One might 
ask, What is that? This technology requires a sparker or air gun and 
loud repeated pulses of underwater sound. These sounds can be heard for 
miles under water.
  Seismic surveys harm marine mammals and have been linked to 
strandings of whales on beaches on multiple occasions. Seismic testing 
also hurts fish. Recent studies show these surveys damage the ears of 
at least some fish species, and that the damage may well be permanent. 
Fish rely on their hearing for survival. Additional seismic testing 
would threaten our fishery resources and our commercial fishing 
industries. This is a $17 billion industry in California, so we cannot 
afford threats to our fisheries and our fishing industry.
  The inventory would also likely include something called dart core 
sampling. Dart cores are collected by dropping large metal tubes from 
ships. The tubes sink fast enough to penetrate the sea floor to a 
substantial depth, remove a column of rock, and then are retrieved to 
the ship. This is suspiciously similar to drilling. So that is what is 
going to go on. This is not just a benign study of people sitting at 
their desks on land studying something. They are sinking these tubes 
down to some depth, obviously to examine core samples to determine the 
presence of natural gas or oil.
  Dart core sampling also damages organisms and habitat on the ocean 
floor. The dart cores also create silt plumes that smother nearby 
organisms.
  Protecting our coastlines is not a partisan issue. The Governors of 
both Florida and California oppose these studies. Furthermore, the 
successful effort to defeat the studies in the House was a bipartisan 
effort. A broad coalition of Senators, including the distinguished 
Senators from Florida and North Carolina, opposes the studies in this 
provision. We should not override the wishes of the most affected 
States and people to protect their own coastlines.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote for our amendment to strike the Outer 
Continental Shelf study from the Energy bill. Directly following my 
remarks, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the League of 
Conservation Voters dated June 10 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2003.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.


 re: support an amendment to S. 14 to protect sensitive coastal areas 
                       from oil and gas drilling

       Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is 
     the political voice of the national environmental community. 
     Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental 
     Scorecard, which details the voting records of members of 
     Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is 
     distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and 
     the press.
       LCV urges you to support an amendment that will be offered 
     by Senators Graham (FL), Feinstein, Cantwell, Wyden, Nelson 
     (FL), Lautenberg, Boxer, Edwards, Kerry, Murray, Lieberman, 
     Leahy, Snowe, Dodd and Chafee to strike section 105 of S. 14. 
     This provision would undermine the existing bipartisan Outer 
     Continental Shelf (OCS) moratorium that currently protects 
     some of the nation's most sensitive coastal and marine areas.
       Section 105 requires the Interior Department to inventory 
     potential oil and gas resources of the entire Outer 
     Continental Shelf (OCS), including the moratorium areas, 
     using seismic surveys, sediment sampling, and other 
     exploration technologies that can damage sea life and ocean 
     habitat. Section 105 also requires the Secretary to report to 
     Congress on ``impediments'' to the development of OCS oil and 
     gas, including the moratoria, and the role coastal states and 
     localities have played in stopping environmentally harmful 
     offshore oil-related activities. This lays the groundwork for 
     an attack on the moratoria, as well as on the rights of 
     coastal states and local governments to raise legitimate 
     objections to offshore development and related onshore 
     industrial development that affects their coasts.
       Since 1982, Congress has included language in the Interior 
     Appropriations bill that prevents the Department of the 
     Interior from conducting leasing, pre-leasing and related 
     activities in areas under moratoria. President George W. Bush 
     included the traditional legislative moratorium language in 
     his FY 04 budget request.
       Section 105 is clearly inconsistent with more than 20 years 
     of bipartisan legislative and administrative actions that 
     protect sensitive coastal areas around the country from 
     offshore oil and gas activity. Please support the Graham 
     amendment to strike this damaging provision when the energy 
     bill comes to the Senate floor, and please oppose this dirty, 
     dangerous energy bill.
       LCV's Political Advisory Committee will strongly consider 
     including votes on this issue in compiling LCV's 2003 
     Scorecard. If you need more information, please call Betsy 
     Loyless or Mary Minette in my office at (202) 785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
                                                        President.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That letter, of course, on behalf of the League, 
which has stood fast in defending and advocating important 
environmental issues solidly is in support of the Graham-Feinstein 
amendment.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time 
remains now for debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If there are any Senators who wish to speak who favor 
this amendment, we will give them some of our time if they want to get 
down here and take a few minutes. It is a very interesting and exciting 
issue.
  I will take a few minutes now. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Chair inform me when I have used 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so inform the Senator.

[[Page S7749]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a lot has been said about this. A lot is 
not true. In a very few minutes, I will go through exactly what is true 
by reading specifically what the bill says and the interpretations that 
we have.
  I do not believe there is any right-thinking American, knowing the 
dangerous nature of our reliance upon both oil and natural gas, who 
would not want to know tomorrow morning, if they could, how much in 
resources we have if we ever needed them. We only want to know about 
certain ones. We do not want to know about those who might want to 
drill out in the ocean. We just want to know about some of them. I 
think every American would say: Tell us how much we own, and then later 
on we will discuss whether it is worthwhile trying to use them.
  The provisions in this bill do not lift the moratorium. It simply 
authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study. This language prohibits 
the use of drilling to obtain data, and it also directs the Secretary 
to use existing data. It is a prudent move to take an inventory of our 
domestic resources and where they are located. Technology has changed 
significantly over the years, and resource data that were developed in 
the 1970s are totally outdated. We did not have the advantage of 3-D 
seismic analysis, and MMS has never included 3-D data in its assessment 
of the Atlantic OCS resources.
  Nearly 60 percent of our oil is imported today. Supply disruptions 
left the world oil markets in short supply. Not too many years ago, it 
also left lines in America where in New York they started waiting in 
lines at 4 in the morning. They got so mad at each other, they even 
shot each other because one was jumping ahead of the other in line. 
Just think of what would happen if that were the case and if then 
somebody stood up on the floor of the Senate and said, well, if 10 
years ago that amendment would have passed and they would have taken an 
inventory, we could at least be taking a look to see whether we could 
use our own oil that is in the ocean that we already know how to get 
out without destroying anything.

  Experts agree that the country faces a crisis. Over time, 
technological advances have allowed us to identify additional oil and 
gas in areas where they once were thought to be in limited supply. In 
1995, the Federal Government estimated that the Gulf of Mexico 
contained 95 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas. Five 
years later, in 2000, which is not too long ago, that number was 
increased to 193 trillion of undiscovered gas, an increase of 100 
percent.
  Restrictions on preleasing activities do not preclude environmental, 
geological, physiological, economic engineering, or other scientific 
analysis studies and evaluations. Congress passed its own drilling 
moratoria. It included language in the conference report that 
specifically provided for new studies. The statute says what I just 
stated, that restrictions on preleasing activities do not preclude 
environmental, geological, physiological, economic, and engineering 
activities.
  I am convinced that with the energy supply, a short supply in our 
country, the shortages in the 2000 and 2001 and the higher prices again 
this year, we are going to need to take prudent steps.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is no surprise that informed people know what 
America's concern is, such as the American Chemistry Council, American 
Iron and Steel Institute, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Fertilizer Institute, the American 
Gas Association, the Farm Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Federal 
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has also spoken out, not on this issue 
but on natural gas prices and the shortage. He said: I am quite 
surprised how little attention the natural gas problem has been getting 
because it is a very serious problem.
  That is a true statement, and because of a committee that was asked 
to do work to plan a policy, we are doing something that Alan Greenspan 
said. He said he was surprised we are not doing more. We want to do 
more. This more is a simplistic more. It is a let-us-know-what-we-have 
more. That is all there is to it. Knowledge is better than no knowledge 
when it comes to problems. Knowledge of what you own is better than not 
knowing what you own, and that is the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
vote is scheduled for 11:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time will expire at 11:15; that is correct.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to close on the 
amendment that is sponsored by Senator Graham, and a number of other 
Senators, including this junior Senator from the State of Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, there are a lot of States that 
are quite concerned about this so-called inventory, or so-called 
survey, to be done with regard to oil and gas drilling in the Outer 
Continental Shelf off our respective States. Why are we concerned? In a 
bipartisan way, we have heard Senators from each of these coastal 
States stand up in this debate that started last night and has 
continued through today tell the reasons, and they usually will boil 
down to two reasons. I will give a third today.
  The two reasons are usually: No. 1, the harm to our environment if 
oil is spilled as a result of offshore drilling. In the experiences 
this country has had, we clearly understand what that does to the 
coastal environment.
  There is a second reason that has been articulated in this debate, 
and it is that it will so devastatingly affect our State economies. In 
most of our coastal States, the travel and tourism industry is 
inextricably entwined with the viability and the beauty of our beaches. 
In the case of Florida, a coastline only exceeded by the coastline of a 
place such as Alaska in number of miles, we have a $50 billion annual 
tourism industry. A lot of that is reflective upon the desirability of 
people to enjoy our beautiful beaches.

  So, too, in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. 
And so, too, with the extraordinary environment in New England, 
especially in places such as Maine.
  On the gulf coast of the United States, the Gulf of Mexico is 
generally divided into the eastern gulf, the central gulf, and the 
western gulf. There are 2,000 oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. All are 
in the central gulf off of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and in 
the western gulf off of Texas. Those particular States' populations 
support offshore oil drilling; on the eastern gulf, Floridians do not.
  The Senate should listen to the coastal States. That is the first 
part of the argument. The second part of the argument is, where is the 
oil and gas? The geology shows it is not in the eastern Gulf of Mexico 
off the State of Florida; it is where the oil wells are now in the 
central and western gulf.
  We did a survey in the year 2000 and we are scheduled to do another 
survey in the year 2005, 2\1/2\ years from now. What is the rush? That 
is why we are suspicious. We think it is the inevitable push by the oil 
interests playing out here, wanting to start drilling for oil and gas.
  The debate articulated thus far is the environment and our economies. 
I mentioned a third reason. The third reason is the defense of this 
country, in the preparation of the defense of this country and the 
training that takes place off the coast of the United States. The 
military cannot train with a carrier if there are oil rigs out there. 
Since the naval training facility at Vieques, Puerto Rico, is being 
shut down, a lot of that training is now off the east coast of the 
United States and the gulf coast. Specifically, a lot of that training 
will occur off the coast of Eglin Air Force Base at Fort Walton Beach, 
the Pensacola Naval Air Station at Pensacola, and Tyndall Air Force 
Base at Panama City. We are able to do this because of the advance of 
technology. You can virtually create the target area desired, although 
it is in unrestricted airspace over the waters--in this case, the Gulf 
of Mexico. Can we have that kind of training if there are oil and gas 
wells out there? The answer is no.

[[Page S7750]]

  The environment, the economy, and the preparation of our military to 
engage in the defense of this country are three obvious reasons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the floor and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 884.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Liberman) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Edwards
     Lieberman
       
  The amendment (No. 884) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 824

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 p.m. 
today the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar item No. 83, 
S. 824, FAA reauthorization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of 
amendments that I will send to the desk be the only remaining first-
degree amendments in order to S. 14 other than any amendments which may 
be pending at the time this agreement is entered; that any listed 
first-degree amendment be subject to second-degree amendments which 
must be relevant to the first degree to which offered; and that if any 
first-degree amendment on the list is described as ``relevant,'' that 
the definition of ``relevant'' be ``related to the subject matter of 
the bill'' and/or ``energy related''; provided, further, that following 
the disposition of the amendments which may be offered from the list, 
the bill be read a third time; further, that the Senate then proceed to 
the consideration of calendar No. 85, H.R. 6, the House Energy bill, 
and that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 
14, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; I further ask that H.R. 6 
then be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. FRIST. I will suggest the absence of the quorum shortly, and we 
will have a discussion in a few minutes among ourselves.
  Mr. President, in terms of the course of the day, we would like to 
work out the unanimous consent request just objected to, which had to 
do with getting the amendments on both sides of the aisle, which we 
have finally done after about a week and a half of discussion. That is 
real progress. It allows us to focus and give some order to the range 
of issues that must be discussed on the Energy bill. They are all very 
important amendments.
  It is absolutely critical that we come to an agreement on what those 
amendments are so we can further that discussion.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to ask a question about the issue 
of relevancy. That piqued my interest because we have had experience 
here with respect to the definition of relevancy on amendments.
  Could the majority leader explain it to me so that I understand the 
unanimous consent request that he had propounded dealing with 
relevancy? I think there is some merit in the discussions going on to 
try to get a list. I am not wanting to be destructive to that effort, 
but I would like to understand the discussion about relevancy. That has 
become an increasingly important issue for many of us.
  Mr. FRIST. Indeed, Mr. President. In response to my distinguished 
colleague, the issue of relevance has become an issue. Therefore, in 
the unanimous consent request I said, `` `relevant be related to the 
subject matter of the bill' and/or energy related.'' That is really to 
add what I think the Senator's concern is--is this relevancy going to 
be so tight that something having to do with energy will be excluded? 
By adding this clause, ``energy related,'' it is the understanding that 
we will consider other amendments on the list.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield further, 
that would satisfy my concerns, if I understand exactly what is 
intended by the leader. As I indicated, we have some concerns about the 
relevancy issues and the determination of what is relevant. If the 
wording is as the majority leader suggested, that would satisfy my 
concerns.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, do I 
understand correctly that there are 350 amendments pending?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Has anybody looked at those and decided which ones are 
relevant?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, normally, we look at them when we get 
them--both sides--and we make decisions and talk with the proponents 
and we winnow down the list. The answer is, not yet.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is my concern then, Mr. President. In all fairness 
to the Parliamentarian, the definition of relevancy, even as we define 
it may turn out to be a lot different when individual amendments are 
actually offered. I would object to the UC if it includes reference to 
relevancy until we have had a chance to look and determine whether my 
amendments or any others are irrelevant. Amendments have been written 
and a decision can be made.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection was already heard on the proffered 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, my understanding from the 
majority leader is that it is not the relevancy determined by the 
Parliamentarian, but they must be related to the subject of energy, 
which is infinitely a broader definition. That is my understanding.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, there is one other 
clarification I think is important, and that is we have had a lot to do 
with putting the list together. There is no relevancy requirement for 
first-degree amendments. If it is stated as an amendment to the Energy 
bill, it can be on any subject matter. If it says relevant, then

[[Page S7751]]

we will use, as the distinguished majority leader has noted, the 
criteria he has laid out, subject generally to the energy issue.
  So the relevancy requirement is only a requirement in those areas 
where relevancy is listed as a factor in the amendment itself. There is 
no relevancy with regard to first-degree amendments.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the yield.
  Mr. FRIST. I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the leader, in reference to second-degree 
amendments, is there a relevancy requirement?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there always has been on the first 
degree to which they are offered.
  Mr. FRIST. Once again, I renew the unanimous consent request that I 
propounded and the proposal as spelled out before.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, first of all, I'll comment on this 
relevancy issue. I believe there is an understanding among the managers 
and the leadership. So I am confident we will be able to take care of 
the concerns just expressed.
  With regard to the schedule, we will be turning to one more amendment 
on energy, which Senator Campbell will be putting forward in a few 
minutes.
  After that, at 12:15 today, we will be turning to consideration of 
the FAA reauthorization. My intent is to complete this FAA 
reauthorization before we leave for the weekend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I briefly want to thank the leaders, 
particularly the majority leader, for helping to get the last Senators 
to sign up. This means we will get an Energy bill that contains plenty 
of what people want. It has ethanol and, before we are finished, it 
will have all of the what people want with reference to the 
continuation of wind and related energies.
  This just means people will have every opportunity to look at 
amendments, and they have listed everything under the sun. There will 
be a chance to work on them. We thank everyone for cooperating. It 
looks to me that, with the majority leader and minority leader helping 
us, after we return from the recess, we can complete this bill in a 
week, based upon us finally having this list. I thank everybody.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 886

(Purpose: To replace ``tribal consortia'' with ``tribal energy resource 
          development organizations,'' and for other purposes)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 886.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I will try to explain the amendment. 
Indian lands comprise approximately 5 percent of the land area in the 
United States but contain an estimated 10 percent of all energy 
reserves in the United States, including 30 percent of the known coal 
deposits located in the western portion of the U.S.; 5 percent of the 
known onshore oil deposits of the U.S.; and 10 percent of the known 
onshore natural gas deposits in the United States.
  Coal, oil, natural gas, and other energy minerals produced from 
Indian land represent more than 10 percent of the total nationwide 
onshore production of energy minerals.
  Even though in 1 year alone over 9.3 million barrels of oil, 299 
billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 21 million tons of coal were 
produced from Indian land, representing $700 million in Indian energy 
revenue, the Department of the Interior estimates that only 25 percent 
of the oil and less than 20 percent of all natural gas reserves on 
Indian land have been fully developed.
  I have put up a pie chart to show the relationship of realized 
revenue and potential or unrealized revenue.
  Despite what we may read once in a while in the Washington Post or 
New York Times about the so-called ``rich Indians'' and Indian 
gambling, it is also indisputable that Indians are the most 
economically deprived group in the United States, with unemployment 
levels far above the national average--in some cases well over 70 
percent--and per capita incomes well below the national average.
  The Labor Department just released the latest unemployment figures 
for the United States, which were about 6.1 percent, and they say that 
is the highest in 10 years. If you think 6.1 percent is bad, try 70 
percent. For every tribe that is doing pretty well, there are 10 that 
are just barely making it through their daily lives.
  Indian country suffers from the highest substandard housing, poor 
health, alcohol and drug abuse, diabetes and amputations, and a general 
malaise and hopelessness, even a high suicide rate among teenagers. 
Given the vast potential wealth residing in energy resources which 
could change this deprivation, it has long been a puzzle why these 
resources have not been more fully developed.
  The answer lies partly in the fact that the energy research 
development is, by its very nature, capital intensive. Most tribes 
simply do not have the financial wherewithal to fund extensive energy 
projects on their own and so they must lease out their energy resources 
in return for royalty payments.
  History also plays a big part in the evolution of this problem. 
Toward the end of the 19th century, Indian tribes were forcibly 
relocated to isolated areas and reservations where it was believed they 
would not hinder the westward expansion of the U.S. Government.
  The natural resources on those lands were taken into trust by the 
Federal Government, to be administered for the benefit of Indian 
tribes. The ostensible reason for the trust was the belief that Indians 
were incapable of administering their own resources and would be 
susceptible to land and resource predators.
  A legal and bureaucratic apparatus was formed to administer this 
trust, and over a century later this apparatus remains in place.
  In her capacity as trustee of Indian resources, the Secretary of the 
Interior must review each and every lease of Indian trust resources to 
ensure the terms of the lease benefit the tribe and that the trust 
asset is not wasted.
  However, this review and approval process is often so lengthy that 
potential lessees or investors that otherwise would like to partner 
with Indian tribes to develop their energy resources are reluctant to 
become entangled in the bureaucratic redtape that inevitably 
accompanies the leasing of tribal resources.
  Hence, the framework that was originally designed to protect tribes 
has also become a disincentive to the development of tribal resources.
  This is a case now, of course, of what fit the 19th century does not 
fit the modern day, and the Indians have the ability and right to make 
their own decision.
  To help remedy these problems, earlier this year I, along with 
Senator Domenici, introduced the Indian Tribal Energy Development and 
Self-Determination Act of 2003 to provide assistance and encouragement 
to Indian tribes to develop their energy resources. This not only would 
help the tribal economy but it would help make us less dependent on 
foreign energy.
  The assistance included the establishment of an Indian Energy Office; 
grants, loans, and technical assistance; capacity building; and 
regulatory changes to the rules governing the leasing of Indian lands 
for energy purposes.
  At the same time, the other Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, 
introduced his own Indian Energy bill, S. 424, that mirrored my bill. 
After several hearings and much debate, I merged the best of these two 
bills into a composite bill that came to be title III of the bill 
before us.
  There are two major differences between the Bingaman bill, which was 
offered as a second-degree amendment yesterday, and our bill. That 
second-degree amendment was defeated, by the

[[Page S7752]]

way, as my colleagues know. If I had not withdrawn my amendment we 
would not need to proceed any further than we did yesterday.
  One of the most important features of title III of S. 14 is section 
2604 which deals with leases, business arrangements, and rights-of-way 
involving energy development and transmission.
  Section 2604 establishes a voluntary process for those tribes that 
choose it to help develop their energy resources. No tribe is required 
to participate. They do not have to if they do not wish to, but if they 
do participate, under the process, an Indian tribe must first 
demonstrate to the Secretary of the Interior that it has the technical 
and financial capacity to develop and manage its own resources. Once it 
meets this burden, the tribe can negotiate energy resource development 
leases, agreements, and rights-of-way with third parties without first 
obtaining the Secretary's approval. That will not, however, circumvent 
the NEPA process. It will simply transfer the responsibility of NEPA 
compliance to the Secretary of the Interior.
  By the way, this second chart points out very clearly under existing 
law that Indian tribes do not have to come under the jurisdiction of 
NEPA. If they use their own money on their own land, they are treated 
as State land, private land, or non-Federal land. They do not have to 
comply with NEPA. Only if they go to outside investors to get 
investment money do they have to comply with NEPA.
  This bill will provide streamlining to the leasing process that is 
now burdened with this disparity in Federal regulation. Under current 
law, in order to be valid, all leases, business agreements, and the 
rights-of-way involving tribal trust or restricted lands must be 
submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
  Section 2604 provides tribes with the option of submitting to the 
Secretary a proposed government-to-government agreement, a ``tribal 
energy resource agreement,'' called TERA, that will set forth mandatory 
provisions for future leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way 
involving energy development on tribal lands.
  If approved by the Secretary, the TERA will govern the future 
development of that tribe's energy resources. The TERA, by virtue of 
this section, will require tribal leases and agreements to have certain 
business terms, require compliance with all applicable environmental 
laws, notice to the public, and consultation with the States as to the 
potential off-reservation impact.

  That was one of Senator Bingaman's concerns yesterday, consultation 
with off-reservation groups. That is covered in this amendment.
  Remember, current law does not require tribes to comply with NEPA if 
they use their own land. However, neither the TERA nor any provision of 
title III would operate to subject the tribe's decision to enter into a 
particular energy lease or agreement to the provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Secretary, in deciding whether to 
approve the TERA, would be required to examine the potential direct 
impacts of her decision under NEPA. The tribe would have to develop an 
environmental review process. It would have to follow it thereafter. 
The tribe itself would not be subject to NEPA but, as I said, that 
responsibility would be transferred to the Secretary.
  There have been disincentives for poor tribes because they simply 
cannot afford to develop energy on their own land and thereby not 
comply with NEPA. It does not diminish the NEPA process at all. Under 
current law, if an Indian tribe chooses to develop its own energy 
resources using its own funds and, as I mentioned, there is no lease or 
Secretary approval, NEPA is not necessary.
  It is not mineral development per se that triggers NEPA; it is the 
Federal action, the approval of the Secretary is what triggers NEPA.
  I wish to mention there was also a concern that section 2604 would 
somehow diminish tribal sovereignty. I know that was Senator Inouye's 
concern. It dealt really with trust responsibility. But the amendment I 
am offering today does not weaken the Government's obligations to 
Indian tribes to absolve it of its duties.
  I point out on page 14, line 18 to page 15, line 3. If my colleagues 
cannot clearly read this, I will read it for them:

       (6)(A) Nothing in this section shall absolve the United 
     States of any responsibility to Indians or Indian tribes, 
     including those which derive from the trust relationship or 
     from any treaties, Executive Orders, or agreements between 
     the United States and any Indian tribe.
       (B) The Secretary shall continue to have a trust obligation 
     to ensure that the rights of an Indian tribe are protected in 
     the event of a violation of federal law or the terms of any 
     lease, business agreement, or right-of-way under this section 
     by any other party to any such lease, business agreement, or 
     right-of-way.
       (C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the United States 
     shall not be liable to any party (including any Indian tribe) 
     for any of the terms of, or any losses resulting from the 
     terms of, a lease, business agreement, or a right-of-way 
     executed pursuant to and in accordance with a tribal energy 
     resources agreement approved by the subsection (e)(2).

  Subparagraph (C) is basically new. If the Secretary has no input at 
all in developing the agreement, then we are concerned that the Federal 
Government should have a liability component if they did not have 
anything to do with helping decide the issue.
  In any event, I remind my colleagues that Native Americans are the 
only group in the United States who believe that the Earth is their 
mother, and they certainly do not need to be told how to take care of 
the Earth because it is in their religion. It is in their nature and 
has been for thousands of years. It is in their culture. It is a 
cultural thing with which youngsters grow up. For that matter, they do 
not need the Senate to tell them how to take care of the Earth either. 
An Indian mandate to take care of the Earth comes from a higher order 
than the Senate, and it is sometimes found insulting to be told that 
they need the Government to oversee what their own religion and culture 
teach them from childhood.
  That is why so many tribes do support the Campbell-Domenici 
amendment, and I will list them, as I did the other day. A few more 
have come in: The National Congress of American Indians, which 
represents over 300 tribes; the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, 
which represents 50 energy-producing tribes. We have a number of 
individual letters from the Cherokee Nation, which is the largest 
Indian tribe in the United States; from the Chickasaw Nation, another 
very progressive and highly respected tribe in Oklahoma; from the 
Mohegan Tribe; from the Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, which is in New 
Mexico; the Jicarilla Apache Tribe; the Oneida Indian Nation; the 
Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, which 
receives a very large share of its governmental revenues from oil and 
gas production on its tribal lands; also from the National Tribal 
Environmental Council, an organization in Albuquerque, whose membership 
includes over 180 tribal governments; the Southern Ute Indian Tribal 
Council; the Native American Energy Group; the United South and Eastern 
Tribes, an organization consisting of 22 tribes located on the eastern 
seaboard from Maine to Florida. Also, support continues to come in. One 
non-Indian group that has submitted support is the U.S. National 
Chamber of Commerce.
  I ask unanimous consent that those letters of support be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the record, as follows:
                                              National Congress of


                                             American Indians,

                                                     June 2, 2003.
     Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: This letter is to offer general 
     support for the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-
     Determination Act of 2003 (Title III). Sine the release of 
     your mark in April, NCAI has been working feverishly to offer 
     a solution to the concerns expressed by tribal 
     representatives. NCAI engaged in this effort so that we could 
     provide general support for this significant piece of 
     legislation once these concerns were addressed. Through this 
     collaborative process, we believe this legislation has the 
     potential to enhance economic development initiatives and 
     will be of great benefit to economic development in Indian 
     country.
       As you may be aware, concerns were raised by a number of 
     tribes and tribal advocates regarding some provisions of the 
     Chairman's mark for this measure. We shared in their concern 
     regarding provisions that significantly limit the United 
     State's liability and

[[Page S7753]]

     release the Secretary of Interior from any accountability to 
     Indian tribes for actions that she is required to undertake 
     pursuant to the legislation. Additionally, we were concerned 
     about the definition of ``tribal consortium'' which differed 
     greatly from the definition that is traditionally employed in 
     legislation affecting Indian tribes and offers federal money 
     to non-tribal entities that should be going to Indian tribes. 
     In addition to these two central concerns, we were not 
     satisfied with provisions pertaining to environmental review 
     and we had some general drafting-related issues.
       Given these concerns, NCAI has convened several conference 
     calls with tribal representatives including the Navajo 
     Nation, Council of Energy Resources Tribes, and the 
     Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, and developed a series 
     of tribal recommendations for modifying Title III. We also 
     convened with your staff and Senate Energy and Natural 
     Resources Committee staff to discuss the tribal 
     recommendations. Thereafter your staff held a conference call 
     for those same representatives and staffers from the Senate 
     Energy and Natural Resource Committee. Although we are 
     pleased that we were able to craft better language for the 
     trust responsibility provisions, we are still concerned with 
     some of the limitations.
       Nonetheless, we realize that in this political climate, the 
     language as currently revised is likely the best compromise 
     that can be reached. We appreciate the effort of your staff 
     and other committee staffers to negotiate language that 
     attempts to address the tribal concerns in light of the 
     current political environment. Again, I want to underscore 
     that the tribal support comes from working with a group of 
     tribal representatives and organizations from diverse 
     perspectives, but not all perspectives. Because of this, our 
     revised version of your mark may not reflect the needs and 
     desires of all tribes who wish to utilize this legislation to 
     develop their energy resources.
       We would like to thank you and your staff for all of their 
     hard work on this very important issue. I cannot stress 
     enough how grateful we are to your commitment to developing 
     legislative solutions to age-old problems in Indian country. 
     Title III is just one more example of how Indian tribes 
     benefit from your championship.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jacqueline Johnson
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                            Council of Energy Resource Tribes,

                                         Denver, CO, June 3, 2003.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: On behalf of the 53 CERT member 
     Tribes, I am writing to express CERT's support for the Title 
     III Indian Energy provisions of S. 14.
       As you know, there are some provisions in section 2604 of 
     the Title III of the bill as reported that has caused concern 
     among CERT member Tribes. Fortunately, we believe those 
     concerns have largely been addressed by language agreed to 
     between Committee staff and representatives of CERT and 
     several member Tribes. At this time, we believe we have 
     reached agreement that addresses the concerns of CERT and the 
     Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Navajo Nation and the 
     Jicarilla Apache Nation. We expect you will hear from each of 
     those Tribes as well.
       CERT has agreed to language that insures that the Tribal 
     Energy Resource Agreements (TERA) process is a voluntary, 
     opt-in program for development of Tribal energy resources. We 
     have also agreed to language to be certain that the public 
     comment opportunities go to the environmental and other 
     impacts of the development and not to the terms of the 
     business agreements themselves. CERT accepts the revised 
     language that better describes the Secretary's trust duties 
     under this section. Finally, the scope of the Secretary's 
     NEPA review of the TERA is settled.
       While drafting final language for this section has been 
     somewhat difficult, we compliment the staff of both the 
     Senate Energy Committee and the Senate Indian Affairs 
     Committee for their dedication to resolving the remaining 
     differences between us on language relating to trust 
     protections and environmental issues.
       Again, we are pleased to support Title III with these 
     changes to section 2604 and appreciate your steadfast support 
     of the right of Indian Tribes to gain a better measure of 
     control over the development of energy resources on their own 
     lands.
           Sincerely,
                                                  A. David Lester,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                              Cherokee Nation,

                                      Tahlequah, OK, June 2, 2003.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Vice, Chairman, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman: It has come to my 
     attention that several changes have been made to Title III of 
     the Senate Energy bill. I understand that these changes will 
     reduce any risk to Tribes, and wish to offer the Cherokee 
     Nation's continued support of S. 14, the Energy Policy Act of 
     2003.
       I thank the Committee for its hard work on this issue and 
     for incorporating tribal recommendations into the bill. Your 
     leadership is greatly appreciated.
       Please feel free to contact my office if you have any 
     questions or comments, I may be reached at (918) 456-0671.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Chad Smith,
     Principal Chief.
                                  ____

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                         The Chickasaw Nation,

                                            Ada, OK, June 5, 2003.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We support the inclusion of Title III, 
     as it is, in Senate Bill 14. Thoughtful development of our 
     tribal natural resources serves all Americans.
       We are grateful for the opportunities and support Title III 
     provides to the Chickasaw Nation, and for all of Indian 
     Country, as we explore and develop our natural resources. The 
     language allows us to exercise our own progressive style in 
     development and regulation; yet, it provides for those tribe 
     which prefer the more traditional approach.
       Having a voice in the U.S. Department of Energy will 
     highlight and expedite tribal energy issues. This is an 
     opportunity for every tribe to enter into the nation's 
     economic mainstream with the support of the federal 
     government.
       Your help, and that of Senators Bingaman and Domenici, is 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Bill Anoatubby,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                                            The Mohegan Tribe,

                                     Uncasville, CT, June 5, 2003.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Mohegan Tribe supports the inclusion 
     of Title III in S. 14, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. 
     Offering flexibility and support in developing natural 
     resources throughout Indian Country, Title III creates 
     opportunities in which all Indian nations can benefit. We 
     also appreciate the hard work of Senators Domenici and 
     Bingaman in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark F. Brown,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                           Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Inc.,

                                     Bernalillo, NM, June 5, 2003.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Inc. 
     supports the inclusion of Title III in S. 14, the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2003. We appreciate all aspects of the language 
     and the flexibility it creates with obvious regard for the 
     individual strengths and needs of each tribe.
       We are grateful to Senator Domenici and to Senator Bingaman 
     for their thoughtful hard work and leadership on our behalf.
       Having Title III in the Energy bill provides every tribal 
     nation in this country an opportunity to enter into the 
     nation's economic mainstream through development of their 
     natural resources.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,

                                         James Roger Madalena,

                                               Executive Director,
     Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Inc.
                                  ____



                                  The Jicarilla Apache Nation,

                                          Dulce, NM, June 9, 2003.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate,
     Senate Hart Building, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Domenici: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Jicarilla Apache Nation (``Nation'') to express our general 
     support for the Indian Energy Title in S. 14. This 
     legislation will provide a strong policy directive for the 
     Department of Energy to formalize and institutionalize its 
     support of tribal energy development needs, and the 
     legislation will provide critical resources and tools for 
     Tribes to access for these purposes. We applaud your focus on 
     Indian energy and commitment to addressing the energy needs 
     of Indian Tribes in New Mexico and across the country.
       Oil and gas development on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation 
     is critical to our tribal governmental operations. Our 
     Reservation is located on the eastern edge of the Sam Juan 
     Basin, the second largest gas field in the lower 48 states. 
     The Nation relies on revenue generated from the development 
     and production of our oil and gas to provide essential 
     government services to our members and other residents; 
     revenue from royalties and taxes accounts for over 90% of the 
     Nation's operating budget. Clearly, the legislation at hand 
     is extremely important to the Nation.
       During the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
     markup of the Indian Energy Title in late April, the Nation 
     expressed concerns with some of those provisions. In the past 
     month, the Nation joined a tribal workgroup which included 
     the National Congress of American Indian (NCAI), the Council 
     of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT), the Navajo Nation, the 
     Southern Ute Tribe and other tribal representatives in 
     developing language to address some of our mutual concerns. 
     The tribal workgroup presented and

[[Page S7754]]

     discussed our proposed language in several key discussions 
     with staff from both the Senate Indian Affairs and Energy & 
     Natural Resources Committee. We appreciate your efforts and 
     that of your committee staff to work with the Tribes and 
     be responsive to our concerns.
       We arrived at a compromise that was deemed to be the most 
     political viable approach given that the energy bill is 
     currently being debated on the Senate floor and the fact that 
     the House has already passed its energy bill which does not 
     include a comprehensive Indian energy title. The Nation 
     believes that this collaborative effort addressed most of the 
     central concerns that we raised.
       Specifically, the Nation's primary concern relate to 
     section 2406, the provisions on leases, business agreements, 
     and rights-of-way involving energy development or 
     transmissions. The policy goals of this measure, as stated in 
     Section 2602(a), would be ``to assist Indian tribes in the 
     development of energy resources and further the goal of 
     Indian self-determination.'' Section 2604 would establish a 
     voluntary program, through a Tribal Energy Resource Agreement 
     (TERA) submitted by a Tribe for approval by the Secretary of 
     the Interior. The TERA approach provides a mechanism for 
     participating Tribes to streamline the approval process for 
     energy development on Indian Reservations. While the Nation 
     does not take issue with these important objectives, we have 
     concerns about Section 2604's impact on the United States' 
     Indian trust responsibility.
       For instance, Section 2604(7)(A) would absolve the 
     Secretary of any liability ``for any loss or injury sustained 
     by any party (including an Indian tribe or any member of an 
     Indian tribe) to a lease, business agreement, or right-of-way 
     executed in accordance with tribal energy resource agreements 
     approved under this subsection.'' Section 2604(7)(B) would 
     further bar an Indian Tribe ``from asserting a claim against 
     the United States on the grounds that the Secretary should 
     not have approved the Tribal energy resource agreement.'' The 
     Nation, along with NCAI, CERT, the Navajo Nation and others 
     strongly objected to these provisions because they would 
     significantly limit the United States' liability and release 
     the Secretary from any accountability to Indian tribes for 
     actions that she is required to undertake pursuant to the 
     legislation.
       To address these concerns, the tribal workgroup first 
     proposed to delete the language that would bar an Indian 
     Tribe from asserting a claim against the Secretary for her 
     failure to abide by the statutory directive in the 
     legislation itself. Second, we proposed a more concrete 
     recognition of the general Indian trust responsibility and 
     language reaffirming the Secretary's specific trust 
     obligation ``to ensure that the rights of an Indian tribe are 
     protected in the event of a violation of federal law or the 
     terms of any lease, business agreement or right-of-way under 
     this section by any other party to any such lease, business 
     agreement or right-of-way.'' With regard to the release of 
     the Secretary's lability, we limited such release of 
     liability to ``any of the terms of, or any losses resulting 
     from the terms of, a lease, business agreement, or right-of-
     way executed pursuant to and in accordance with tribal energy 
     resource agreements'' approved under section 2604(e)(2). Our 
     proposed language would limit the liability question to the 
     specific terms agreed to by a Tribe in the TERA itself, and 
     would not affect existing statutory and regulatory duties and 
     obligations of the Secretary in the management of trust 
     minerals and other assets. We understand that these 
     changes were deemed to be acceptable by Committee staff.
       These changes are vitally important to the Nation's on-
     going activities in auditing and overseeing royalty 
     collections of our oil and gas leases. The Nation has a 
     cooperative agreement with the Secretary pursuant to Section 
     202 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 
     (FOGRMA), to carry out inspection, auditing, investigation, 
     enforcement and other oil and gas royalty management 
     functions. Under this statutory scheme, the Nation has taken 
     a lead role in performing these functions, and even has an 
     office set up in the Mineral Management Service (MMS) in 
     Dallas, Texas. The MMS provides operational costs to the 
     Nation under the 202 Agreement, and works closely with us to 
     ensure compliance with leases and the various statutory 
     royalty payment requirements. FOGRMA does not release the 
     Secretary from liability for the functions taken over by the 
     Nation, but rather embraces an approach that provides an 
     avenue for tribal self-determination while keeping the 
     federal Indian trust responsibility fully intact. If the 
     Nation were to consider entering into a TERA at some point in 
     the future, we would likely do so without releasing the 
     Secretary of her responsibility under the 202 Agreement. 
     Therefore, the language crafted by the tribal workgroup is 
     extremely important to ensure the vitality of these specific 
     FOGRMA provisions as well as relevant judicial decisions that 
     delineate the Secretary's obligations in the leasing of oil 
     and gas on our Reservation.
       The Nation also endorses other revisions negotiated by the 
     tribal workgroup regarding the definition of ``tribal 
     consortium'' and the provisions pertaining to the 
     environmental review process. We believe our central concerns 
     have been satisfied to ensure that federal money authorized 
     by the legislation be directed to Indian Tribes and not to 
     non-tribal entities that may use Tribes as a front for these 
     purposes. We also worked to ensure that Tribes not be overly 
     burdened in the environmental review process and that public 
     notification and commenting requirements be limited to the 
     environmental document while ensuring that a Tribe's 
     proprietary and business dealings be protected from public 
     disclosure. With regard to our concerns about the 
     legislation's lack of capacity building assurance, the Nation 
     will continue to raise such concerns in the context of the 
     appropriations process to implement the legislation.
       While not a part of the Indian Energy Title, the Nation 
     continues to pursue and support the enactment of a federal 
     tax credit for Indian oil and gas production to stimulate 
     additional domestic production. We supported your bill (S. 
     1106) in the 107th Congress to establish a federal tax credit 
     based on the volume of production of oil and gas from Indian 
     lands. This type of a credit would make our reserves more 
     competitive and increase the return on our nonrenewable trust 
     resources. Generating significant new revenue to tribal 
     mineral owners, in the form of tax credits, royalties, and 
     tribal taxes, tax incentives would stimulate tribal economies 
     and increase the overall domestic oil and gas supplies, 
     thereby reducing the United States dependency on foreign 
     sources of energy. We urge your continued support for this 
     measure during the floor consideration of the energy tax 
     provisions.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views. As always, 
     we appreciate your strong leadership and understanding of our 
     needs. Please contact me in Dulce at (505) 759-3242 if you 
     have any questions or need additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                              Claudia Vigil-Muniz,
     President.
                                  ____

                                             Oneida Indian Nation,


                                      Oneida Nation Homelands,

                                        Veruna, NY, June 10, 2003.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Campbell: On behalf of the Oneida Indian 
     Nation of New York, I am writing in support of S. 14, 
     specifically Title III, the Indian Tribal Energy Development 
     and Self-Determination Act of 2003. This bill will 
     significantly strengthen the ability of Indian tribes to 
     develop the energy resources that are currently going 
     underutilized on their land.
       Your legislation will create a mechanism to allow Indian 
     nations access to grants and low-interest loans from a newly 
     established Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. The 
     legislation would allow certain tribes to cut through the red 
     tape that has discouraged third parties from investing in 
     Native American energy in the past.
       In addition, under the legislation, federal agencies may 
     provide preference in Indian firms when purchasing energy; 
     this will help the new industry get started while also 
     promoting national energy self-sufficiency. Energy production 
     is a capital-intensive industry, and without the assistance 
     of your bill, too many tribes will remain mired in dismal 
     economic limbo.
       The bill will help to bring electricity to the 14.2 percent 
     of Indian homes that now have none. And by encouraging the 
     vertical integration of tribal energy resources, the bill 
     will help to bring jobs to reservation communities, where 
     unemployment levels have reached as high as 70 percent.
       The Oneida Indian Nation of New York appreciates your 
     leadership in tackling the myriad challenges facing Indian 
     Country. The Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-
     Determination Act of 2003 is a positive step that not only 
     makes sound national energy policy but would provide Indian 
     nations with additional tools in their efforts to become 
     self-sufficient and self-determining.
           Naki'wa,
                                                   Ray Halbritter,
     Nation Representative.
                                  ____

                                                     June 9, 2003.
     Re supporting Campbell-Domenici amendment to Title III--
         Indian Energy Title to S. 14, The Energy Policy Act of 
         2003.

     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Senate Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Domenici: On behalf of the Eastern Shoshone 
     Tribe of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, I am writing 
     in support of the Campbell-Domenici amendment to the Indian 
     Energy Title in S. 14. Our Tribe participated in the tribal 
     workgroup effort which resulted in the amended language 
     embodies in this amendment. We appreciate your efforts and 
     that of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources and Indian 
     Affairs Committee staff to work with our tribal workgroup to 
     resolve some of the earlier controversial provisions.
       The Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe 
     share the Wind River Reservation, which encompasses over 2.2 
     million acres with significant quantities of oil and gas 
     reserves. The production of oil and gas reserves on the Wind 
     River Reservation is the primary source of revenue for the 
     Tribes accounting for over 90% of the Tribes' governmental 
     revenue. Accordingly, the Wind River Reservation Tribes have 
     a keen interest in supporting the enactment of comprehensive 
     energy legislation for Indian reservation development.
       In summary, we believe that the Campbell-Domenici amendment 
     addresses our primary

[[Page S7755]]

     concerns regarding the United States trust relationship owed 
     to Indian Tribes in the context of mineral production, 
     protection of sensitive tribal business dealing, and a sound 
     environmental review process. Specifically, the amendment 
     eliminates language that would have barred an Indian Tribe 
     from asserting a claim against the Secretary for her failure 
     to abide by the statutory directive in the legislation 
     itself. The amendment also provides a specific affirmation of 
     the United States' trust responsibility and duty to ensure 
     that the rights of an Indian tribe are protected against 
     statutory or lease violations of leases executed pursuant to 
     secretarial approved Tribal Energy Resource Agreements 
     (TERA). Moreover, the Campbell-Domenici amendment 
     appropriately limits the release of the Secretary's liability 
     to the specific terms agreed to by a Tribe in the TERA 
     itself. Accordingly, this language would not affect existing 
     statutory and regulatory duties and obligations of the 
     Secretary in the management of trust minerals and other 
     assets. Finally, the Campbell-Domenici amendment addresses 
     our concerns that a Tribe's sensitive commercial business 
     dealing are protected from public disclosure and that Tribes 
     not be subject to overly burdensome environmental review 
     requirements.
       The Eastern Shoshone Tribe remains concerned with capacity 
     building for Tribes interested in pursuing a TERA. Given the 
     immediate movement of the legislation, however, we do not 
     believe these concerns should prevent Congress from acting 
     favorably on the entire Indian Energy Title. We will urge 
     full support for tribal capacity during the appropriations 
     process.
       I would also like to take this opportunity to apprise you 
     of our efforts with Senator Thomas to secure an amendment in 
     the energy tax title for a federal tax credit for oil and gas 
     produced on Indian lands. This provision is similar to the 
     bill, S. 1106, you introduced in the 107th Congress which 
     would structure the credit based on the volume of production 
     of oil and gas from Indian lands. This type of a credit would 
     make our reserves more competitive and increase the return on 
     our nonrenewable trust resources. The proposal would not only 
     generate new revenue to tribal mineral owners, it would also 
     stimulate tribal economies and contribute to the Nation's 
     domestic oil and gas supply. We are awaiting the revenue 
     estimate from the Joint Taxation Committee, and we urge your 
     continued support for this proposal during the floor debate 
     on energy tax provisions.
       In closing, I want to again express our appreciate to you, 
     and recognize the efforts of Senator Thomas, in moving 
     forward with the historic piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Vernon Hill,
     Chairman, Eastern Shoshone Tribe.
                                  ____

                                                   National Tribal


                                        Environmental Council,

                                    Albuquerque, NM, June 5, 2003.
     Hon. Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nighthorse-Campbell: On behalf of the National 
     Tribal Environmental Council, we are writing in support of 
     the Title III Indian Energy Provisions in S. 14.
       The National Tribal Environmental Council is a not-for-
     profit organization with a membership comprised of over 180 
     tribal governments. As such, we strongly support the 
     principle embodied in the authorizing language of the 
     amendment that Tribes can develop their energy resources in a 
     manner that respects the ecological integrity of their 
     reservation environments as well as their sacred sites, 
     cultural resources, historical, archeological resources and 
     other cultural patrimony.
       We condition our support of Title III to acknowledge that 
     we are aware of the serious concerns of the Navajo Nation 
     that this legislation has the potential to legislate the 
     recent Supreme Court decision against their interests. We 
     respectfully request you consider clarifying the legislative 
     history to reflect the fact that the Secretary must continue 
     to act in the best interests of the Indian tribe, as was 
     similarly included in the Indian Minerals Development Act of 
     1982.
       Another concern we have with the provisions of Sec 2604 of 
     the Title III is not the delegation of federal authority 
     based on the voluntary opt-in program but the potential for 
     the federal responsibility to transfer to the tribes without 
     the commensurate resources to ensure an adequate the tribal 
     regulatory infrastructure.
       As you know, tribal governments have been struggling but 
     succeeding in their efforts to develop complex and tribal-
     specific environmental programs with very limited resources. 
     Maintaining the trend of increasingly sophisticated and 
     consistent implementation of tribal environmental processes 
     and standards on a national scale is dependent on increased 
     funding. Adding additional needs to the tribal governments at 
     this time--without adequate funding--is cause for concern. 
     This is a concern, however, that we will voice as part of the 
     appropriations process and it should not be viewed as 
     undermining our support for the Senate amendments to S. 14.
       Thank you for this opportunity to support this important 
     initiative for Indian Country and for your on-going efforts 
     to recognize and include Indian Country in these important 
     national policy debates.
           Sincerely,
                                                  David F. Conrad,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               Southern Ute Indian


                                               Tribal Council,

                                        Ignacio, CO, May 27, 2003.
     Re Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination 
         Act of 2003; S. 14, Title III.

     Chairman Pete V. Domenici,
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Domenici: Approximately one month ago, the 
     Southern Ute Indian Tribe submitted a statement of 
     conceptual, but qualified, support for the Indian Tribal 
     Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2003. Our 
     Tribe's activities have shown that tribal energy development 
     can provide tremendous economic development opportunities for 
     tribes while simultaneously assisting the Nation in meeting 
     its energy demands. For tribes that have demonstrated the 
     capacity to represent themselves effectively in energy 
     development activities, we have long-advocated legislation 
     that would provide the option of bypassing the stifling 
     effects of the Bureau of Indian Affairs approval requirements 
     applicable to tribal leases, business agreements and rights-
     of-way. The reference legislation addressed this very matter, 
     however, as Section 2604 of Title III emerged from the Senate 
     Committee of Indian Affairs and the Senate Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources, it contained a number of 
     provisions that were objectionable to the Indian community.
       Over the last month, committee staff members and 
     representatives of tribes and Indian organizations have 
     engaged in an intense dialogue about the problems in the 
     draft legislation, and, as a result of their tireless 
     efforts, proposed amendments have been developed that would 
     eliminate the problems previously identified. A list of those 
     proposed amendments is attached for reference purposes. Among 
     the different matters resolved to our satisfaction have been 
     the following: (i) confirmation that Section 2604 is a 
     voluntary program available to Tribes on an opt-in/opt-out 
     basis; (ii) inclusion of pre-approval public notice and 
     comment opportunities regarding the environmental impacts of 
     a proposed tribal mineral lease, business agreement or right-
     of-way, but preservation of the confidentiality of the 
     business terms of such documents; (iii) acceptable balancing 
     of the limitations on and ongoing responsibility of the 
     Secretary to perform trust duties associated with a 
     participating tribe's activities undertaken pursuant to this 
     legislation; and (iv) confirmation of the appropriate scope 
     of NEPA review that would be associated with the Secretary's 
     decision to approve a Tribal Energy Resource Agreement 
     (``TERA''), which is the enabling document permitting a tribe 
     to proceed with independent development of mineral leases, 
     business agreements, or rights-of-way. Again, we helped 
     develop and wholly support these amendments.
       During the course of debate on this legislation, some have 
     suggested that Section 2604 will eliminate effective 
     environmental protection on affected tribal lands. We want to 
     assure the members of the Senate that this is not the case. 
     Energy resource development by a tribe generally carries with 
     it a deep commitment to preserving one's backyard. Tribal 
     leaders are directly accountable to their members for 
     preserving environmental resources. In the Four Corners 
     Region, it is not unusual for private landowners or BLM 
     lessees to comment enviously on the environmental diligence 
     employed by our Tribe in the development of our energy 
     resources. We renew our invitation to members of the Senate 
     to visit our Reservation and see first-hand our energy 
     resource projects.
       In conclusion, with the referenced amendments, we strongly 
     support S. 14, Title III. We urge other members of the Senate 
     to also support this legislation, and we commend those who 
     have worked toward its development and passage.
           Sincerely,

                                      Howard D. Richards, Sr.,

                                            Chairman, Southern Ute
     Indian Tribal Council.
                                  ____

                                                   Native American


                                            Energy Group, LLC,

                                    Ft. Washakie, WY, May 7, 2003.
     Senator Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: Native American Energy Group (NAEG) 
     is an Indian owned company working with tribes and allottees 
     throughout the country to determine how best to develop oil 
     and gas reserves and help provide for the energy security of 
     this country while also protecting the interests of mineral 
     owners. The recent Indian provisions of the Energy Bill are a 
     big step in the right direction to accomplish positive 
     results for the Indian people of this country.
       One of the areas of contention is the environmental area 
     with many people stating that these provisions will gut the 
     NEPA process. While this is a legitimate concern, nowhere 
     have I read or heard that this is the intent of these 
     provisions. In fact recent language in the Bill clearly 
     denotes compliance with all applicable tribal and federal 
     environmental laws. Even without this new language though my 
     understanding was always that the intent was not to gut 
     environmental laws. Tribal governments with energy resources 
     are pro-development but by the same

[[Page S7756]]

     token they are also pro-environment. This may seem a 
     dichotomy of sorts but my read on this bill is that the 
     language will strengthen tribal sovereignty, develop tribal 
     capacities and make tribal and allotted oil and gas 
     operations more accountable with less impacts. In addition, 
     the federal trust oversight will not be diminished which is 
     always a concern of tribal governments.
       NAEG appreciates the work and coordination that goes into 
     an effort of this magnitude and you and your staff are to be 
     commended for the recent provisions as presented in the bill. 
     The history and discussions surrounding this bill recognize 
     the importance of bringing tribes into the mainstream of the 
     energy picture of this country and providing the mechanisms 
     for the technical, administrative and legislative efforts to 
     occur.
       The research your staff has undertaken in support of this 
     bill very well explains the amounts of energy resources 
     situated on tribal and allotted lands. This largely untapped 
     resource can be a boost for this country as we seek to 
     provide jobs and diversify our economy, while helping America 
     meet its energy needs. Please share with the rest of the 
     Senate Indian Committee our support for these endeavors and 
     if there is any information we can provide to assist you in 
     your work please do not hesitate to call me.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Wes Martel,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                  United South and


                                         Eastern Tribes, Inc.,

                                      Nashville, TN, June 9, 2003.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Vice Chairman, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman: I am writing on 
     behalf of the United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. (USET), 
     an intertribal organization comprised of twenty-four 
     federally recognized tribes from twelve states. I am writing 
     in support of the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-
     Determination Act of 2003, Title III and its inclusion in S. 
     14, the Energy Policy Act of 2003.
       We understand that tribal energy development can provide 
     tremendous economic development opportunities for our member 
     tribes while simultaneously assisting tribes in meeting 
     energy demands. Our tribes are aware that other tribes have 
     concerns regarding the provision of Title III to which tribal 
     input has been solicited and received to address the issues.
       Our tribes support the compromises reached by the parties 
     and we call upon the leadership of the committee to further 
     engage and respond to tribal concerns. We hope that 
     compromises on the remaining outstanding points may be 
     reached whereby all of Indian Country can support inclusion 
     of Title III in S. 14.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James T. Martin,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2003.
     To the Members of the United States Senate:
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation, representing more than three million businesses 
     of every size, sector, and region, supports an amendment to 
     S. 14, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, offered by Senators 
     Domenici and Campbell. This amendment would add an Indian 
     Energy title to the bill that facilitates energy exploration 
     on Indian lands while ensuring the same level of 
     environmental protection as is provided in the state in which 
     the lands are located.
       The Domenici-Campbell amendment is a sensible component of 
     a comprehensive national energy policy. While Indian land 
     accounts for five percent of the land area of the U.S., it 
     contains 30 percent of the nation's identified coal deposits, 
     five percent of its oil deposits, and 10 percent of its 
     natural gas reserves. However, the Department of the Interior 
     estimates that less than one quarter of these assets have 
     been developed. This amendment will spur domestic energy 
     development by removing bureaucratic obstacles on Indian 
     lands and by providing grants and loan guarantees for 
     building the necessary energy infrastructure.
       An amendment to the Domenici-Campbell amendment is 
     anticipated that would require a tribe to comply with the 
     National Environmental Policy Act each time it enters into an 
     energy project with a private sector company. Such an 
     amendment is simply an attempt to force a tribe into 
     undertaking an environmental impact statement as if it was a 
     federal government agency. If such an amendment passes, it 
     will subject tribes to years of bureaucratic study followed 
     by years of litigation, notwithstanding the fact that the 
     project has complied with all federal and state environmental 
     permitting laws.
       Our nation will need 43 percent more energy in the next 
     twenty years and will need it from all sources, including 
     coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and alternative fuels. These tribal 
     territories are sovereign and the federal government must 
     allow them the means for adequate economic development so 
     they can participate in the many benefits of our nation, 
     including the right to economic self-determination.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges you to support the 
     Domenici-Campbell amendment that would increase domestic 
     energy supplies in an environmentally compatible manner and 
     reject all weakening amendments.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten,
                                         Executive Vice President.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know we will be back on this bill. I 
note that the Indian tribes and organizations listed are not in full. 
We have additional ones since this was prepared, and they will be added 
in due course.
  I compliment the distinguished Senator, Mr. Campbell. I am pleased to 
be his cosponsor, and I say for those who are going to now look at this 
bill, I hope our Indian leaders also are aware that there will be those 
who look at it from the standpoint of how can they make it more 
difficult for the Indian people to be able to develop their resources. 
That is what some of the time and effort will be spent on during the 
intervention between this bill and its final vote. How can 
organizations that do not want the Indian people to produce their raw 
materials into energy and resources, thus jobs and opportunity for the 
Indian people, get their hands on this bill and try to offer amendments 
to try to harm this bill? I am certain some will do that.
  We will be vigilant, we will be aware, and we are asking the Indian 
leaders who support this to inform their Senators that this is the bill 
they want as part of America's policy on energy. We are asking every 
Indian leader to advise those Senators who have been with them in the 
past to support this bill. This bill is their bill. It is for their 
future. It is for jobs and money and resources for them. We need them 
telling their Senators that this is the bill they want. If they do 
that, come July we will have a real Fourth of July celebration for the 
Indian people, for in a sense they will be free, free to develop their 
resources, where heretofore their hands have been tied.
  There will be those during the intervening time who will look for 
ways to put more ties and strings back into the Campbell bill. We want 
to tell our Indian leaders to tell their friends in the Senate they do 
not want that; they do not want changes to this bill that will make it 
harder for them to develop their resources in partnership, singularly 
or otherwise, with other Americans.
  This amendment is the product of many hours of negotiation and 
cooperation among the interested tribes, the Indian Affairs Committee 
and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  I am also pleased that this amendment enjoys the support of numerous 
tribes including the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Cherokee Nation, the 
Southern Utes, the Chickasaw Nation, the Native American Energy Group, 
the National Congress of American Indians, Dine Power--a Navajo 
Corporation, the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, which represents 
nearly 50 energy producing tribes and The National Tribal Environmental 
Council, which represent 180 tribe,
  I am pleased that Indian tribes across the country will play an 
important role in our national energy plan. By passing this 
legislation, we will streamline the tribal leasing process that outside 
parties have more incentive to partner with tribes in developing energy 
resources and provide investment in critical energy infrastructure on 
Indian land.
  Indian lands contain some of the richest energy reserves in the 
Nation. Although Indian land accounts for only 5 percent of the land 
area of the U.S. it contains: 30 percent of identified coal deposits; 5 
percent of our nation's oil; and 10 percent of our natural gas, which 
is in very tight supply.
  Despite the fact that reserves are present, the Department of the 
Interior estimates that only 20 to 25 percent of these assets have been 
developed.
  Energy projects are capital intensive and most tribes do not have the 
financial capability to develop the resources.
  Tribes face an additional burden in attracting partners and that is a 
result

[[Page S7757]]

of the paternalistic lease approval system that requires the Secretary 
of the Interior to approve all tribal leases. This delays action and 
creates investment uncertainty.
  In an attempt to resolve this out-of-date process, the Indian Affairs 
Committee and the Senate Energy Committee have taken key elements of 
both Senator Campbell's legislation S. 522 and Senator Bingaman 
proposal, S. 424.
  The title adopts Senator Bingaman's proposal to create the Office of 
Indian Energy Policy and Programs within the Department of Energy. This 
office will provide grants and loan guarantees to tribes to facilitate 
the development of their energy resources and infrastructure.
  Section 303, of this title will change the existing lease agreements 
between the Secretary of the Interior and tribes to allow tribes to 
enter into a lease or agreement without the approval of the Secretary 
so long as those leases or business agreements conform to regulations 
promulgated by the Secretary.

  The section establishes a process by which a tribe may submit a plan 
governing leases and rights-of-way to the Secretary for approval. It 
also requires the tribe to demonstrate to the Secretary that the plan 
includes provisions regarding lease and contract terms, environmental 
regulation, and public notification and comment.
  I think that is very important to note that this entire proposal is 
voluntary. Let me repeat that. This proposal is completely voluntary. 
Tribes will not be forced to adopt this proposal if they feel it would 
not benefit the tribe as a whole.
  We have numerous letters from tribes who support the proposal and I 
am confident they will benefit. However, any tribe that opposes this 
proposal probably will not participate and can continue to operate 
under the status quo.
  This amendment also protects the environment. I think the statement 
of President Joe Shirley of the Navajo Nation before the Senate Indian 
Affairs Committee accurately captures the environmental 
responsibilities all tribes must comply with. President Shirley stated,

       Tribes may already promulgate regulations that are more, 
     but not less, stringent than Federal regulations governing 
     the same subject matters (environment). The following is a 
     list of some of the federal statutes that already control 
     regulations for land use, both State and tribal: National 
     Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, 
     Endangered Species Act, Federal Land Management and Policy 
     Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Native American 
     Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Surface Mining 
     Control and Reclamation Act and the Indian Mineral Leasing 
     Act.

  Clearly, the tribes must fully comply with our environmental 
statutes.
  Following markup of S. 14, the Indian Affairs and Energy Committees 
have worked to address concerns regarding the trust responsibilities 
between tribes and the Secretary of the Interior. These agreed-upon 
changes make up the amendment Senator Campbell has offered.
  This amendment deserves the strong support of the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for Senator Campbell 
to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, who 
is a stalwart supporter of this movement.
  There is no question, if we do not take this back up between now and 
July, if there is a second degree offered at that time, we will be 
giving the opponents of this bill--instead of giving Indians an 
opportunity to get up off their knees and get some jobs--an opportunity 
to gin up some opposition. I think that is what the delay is for. I 
appreciate the support of the Senator from New Mexico.

                          ____________________