[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 11, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1369-E1370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DEEP OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 29, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4761) to 
     provide for exploration, development, and production 
     activities for mineral resources on the outer Continental 
     Shelf, and for other purposes:

  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. I believe the 
measure deceptively undermines States' rights to protect their 
coastlines, compromises fragile coastal environments, and ultimately 
would cost taxpayers billions in lost revenue, adding to the already 
record-setting national deficit.
  H.R. 4761 presents the illusion of granting States more control over 
drilling, when in actuality it makes it more cumbersome for States 
choosing to continue protecting their coastlines. States desiring to 
opt-out of drilling would be required to pass legislation every 5 
years, subject to approval by their governor, and present it to the 
Federal Government. If State legislatures and their governors are 
unable to come to agreement on drilling policy within one year of this 
bill's enactment, they would lose their right to decide as the Federal 
Government would then have authority to begin granting leases within 50 
to 100 miles off their coastlines.
  This bill attempts to bait States, already suffering fiscal 
restraints due to the Majority's consistent practice of cutting States 
funding for vital services like Medicaid/Medicare and public education, 
with a greater share of revenue if they are willing to sacrifice their 
coastal protections. It would take the second largest funding source of 
the Federal Government, after income taxes, and redistribute those 
funds only to the coastal States that will allow drilling. This comes 
as a sacrifice to all other States as the Interior Department has 
estimated the alteration of current Federal-State revenue sharing 
provisions on royalty payments will result in a loss of approximately

[[Page E1370]]

$70 billion in revenues over the next 15 years; adding to the public 
debt burden.
  It is important to note that 80 percent of known oil and natural gas 
reserves are in areas where drilling is already permitted. The 
Department of the Interior has already offered leases for 267 million 
acres of the outer-continental shelf; however, energy companies have 
only taken the initiative to explore 24 million of those acres already 
available to them. It would be insensible to risk these coastal 
environments before companies have even exhausted the exploration of 
areas they are already permitted to drill.
  America's families need real relief from high-energy costs. Even if 
this measure had addressed this issue in the most optimal manner, 
offshore exploration remains an expensive, slow, and risky way of 
addressing the nation's energy crisis. The Federal Government should be 
investing resources to advance energy efficiency, conservation, and the 
development of alternative fuels, which can provide immediate relief to 
American citizens, not reinforcing our nation's gluttonous appetite for 
oil.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4761.

                          ____________________