[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the quorum call be rescinded.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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________