[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 104 (Tuesday, August 1, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8492-S8513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             GULF OF MEXICO SECURITY ACT OF 2006--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I note that the next Democratic speaker 
after me will be Senator Harkin, and the next Democratic speaker after 
Senator Harkin will be Senator Schumer.
  We are now in the final days and hours of this session of Congress. 
One of the bills that is circling, waiting for a place to land is the 
pension bill. We now know the pension bill has been passed by the 
House, and it is waiting to be taken up in the Senate, but we don't 
know when it is going to be taken up. It all depends on what we do 
about the estate tax.
  The pension bill--the bipartisan pension bill--must not become a pawn 
in the debate over other unrelated issues. This bill needs to pass, and 
it needs to pass this week. There is only one reason it is being held 
up: politics, politics, politics.
  The pension bill is being used as a pawn for reckless tax breaks for 
a few when the pension bill will help the many. We need to move this 
pension bill. I urge the Republican leadership to bring up the bill 
this week and to bring it up before any tax bill. The American people 
need it. We need to protect the pensions of millions of Americans, we 
need to provide relief and certainty to good-guy businesses, and we 
need to protect the taxpayers from having billions of dollars dumped on 
the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Promises made should be 
promises kept.
  America's pension system is in crisis. There are companies that are 
declaring bankruptcy and then dumping their pension plans on the 
taxpayers. We have the legislative framework to deal with this.
  We have had terrible problems. Bethlehem Steel didn't honor their 
books and declared bankruptcy. They dumped the pensions of 100,000 
workers and retirees on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. 
United Airlines declared bankruptcy in 2002 and dumped the pensions of 
122,000 workers on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation.
  One might say: What will this bill do? It will help to make sure that 
history does not repeat itself. I have been fighting alongside my 
colleagues for a long time to enact comprehensive, bipartisan reform. 
Senator DeWine and I held hearings over a year ago. The Senate passed 
its bill 7\1/2\ months ago. There was a HELP Committee bill and a 
Finance Committee bill.
  When we were waiting to pass the bill, Senator DeWine and I had a 
hold on it because we were concerned that it would place at risk 
certain come-back companies that were working their way out of 
bankruptcy and would force their pensions into junk bond status.

[[Page S8493]]

We had the assurances of our colleagues, Senators Grassley and Baucus 
from the Finance Committee, saying: Lift your hold. We need to pass the 
pension bill. We will work with you.
  So Senator DeWine and I trusted Senators Baucus and Grassley, and we 
did work it out. We were able to agree within the Senate on a 
bipartisan framework. Then we took it to the House conferees. It was a 
rocking-and-rolling conference but, again, we were able to get it done.
  Now, why can't we get the bill done in the Senate? We worked it out 
in conference, and it passed the House. Why can't it pass the Senate? 
It needs to pass the Senate by Thursday or Friday. Now is the time to 
pass the bill.
  The Republican leadership has decided that protecting a few 
zillionaires' estates after they die is more important than protecting 
pensions for retirees while they are still alive. Let's get our 
priorities straight. We are not only talking about the retirees who 
depend on us, we have workers right now in airlines who are wondering 
what is going to happen to them. What do you say to somebody who is 
working for an airline who might lose his pension? Think about that 
mechanic. Think about what he is concerned about.
  What about the stewardesses, the brave people we saluted on flight 
93? The last thing we can do is honor their memory and have a pension 
bill for those who fly every single day.
  What about the people who are working right now who are concerned 
that the rules of the game will be shifted on them? Our pension bill--
our bipartisan pension bill--will protect them.
  We really have to pass this bill. I urge the Republican leader to 
bring up the pension bill after we dispose of this coastal drilling 
issue. As I said, the time for delay is over, the time for politics is 
over, and it is time for us to take up and pass the pension bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support S. 3711, the 
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, and I also rise to put its 
provisions in perspective and to dispel some of the myths and simple 
inaccuracies that, unfortunately, have been propagated in many places, 
including on the Senate floor.
  It is important to understand what this important Energy bill does 
because it does do significant and important things, and it is also 
important to understand what this bill does not do because it does not 
do several things that opponents have claimed. So let's go down these 
two simple lists.
  This Energy Security Act does many important things. It brings new 
sources of domestic energy to the market over the next few years. All 
of us should agree that is a very important and necessary component of 
securing our energy future--not the only component, not the only thing 
we must do but a very important component of what we must do.
  This bill generates new revenue for the U.S. Treasury. There has been 
enormous misinformation about that. There have been claims that the 
producing States are somehow raiding the Federal Treasury. What the 
States are doing is producing more Federal revenue for the Federal 
Treasury. If that is a raid, let the raids begin, and we will soon 
erase the deficit.
  This bill promotes parity with nearly 90 years of onshore energy 
production policy by recognizing the importance of reinvesting in our 
offshore energy-producing areas to ensure the sustainability and 
liability of domestic energy production and independence.

  For decades and decades, producing States onshore, on Federal land, 
have shared 50 percent of the royalty produced on those Federal lands. 
This begins to achieve some parity with that by allowing coastal 
producing States 37.5 percent.
  This provides dedicated revenue streams for the State side of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. That fund makes grants available to 
all of our States for 50 percent of the costs of parks, soccer fields, 
and other recreational opportunities.
  This fully complies with the budget resolution we passed last year 
and the reserve fund amendment I included in the Senate's budget 
resolution this year, and it all reduces America's dependence on 
volatile foreign energy sources.
  Those are all very important goals. Those are all goals achieved by 
this bill.
  Just as importantly, there are many things this bill does not do 
which opponents have confused in the debate.
  This bill does not in any way affect offshore California, the west 
coast, the Northeast, or anywhere on the east coast. This bill is 
focused on the Gulf of Mexico and has the support of the Senators from 
all of those Gulf Coast States.
  This bill does not change offshore policy in any area other than the 
Gulf of Mexico, which today provides up to 30 percent of our energy.
  This bill does not raid the Federal Treasury of funds from current 
revenue streams. It does not increase the deficit. As I said, what this 
bill does is the opposite. It allows production activity which would 
not occur otherwise. What does that mean? That means increased Federal 
revenue--$1 billion toward deficit reduction--not decreased Federal 
revenue.
  This bill does not provide funds for the expansion of Federal land 
acquisition programs through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  I find, quite frankly, the opposition to this bill enormously 
frustrating. So many of these same Members of the Senate--others in the 
broader debate--are some of the loudest voices about high, increasing 
energy prices, oil prices at the pump, natural gas prices and what that 
does to our competitiveness. I agree with those concerns. Those are 
very legitimate concerns. Yet we bring a bill to the floor of the 
Senate that can absolutely have a short-term impact, a positive impact, 
bringing prices down, and, no, they have to oppose it. That is not 
good. That cannot be part of the solution.
  The cost of natural gas has increased 400 percent over the last 
several years. Natural gas is a mostly continental commodity. Its 
importation through LNG is possible, but that alone cannot have enough 
of an impact to bring down prices the way we want to see them come 
down. So we need to produce more domestically. This bill will do that 
and help bring down natural gas prices.
  Gasoline prices have increased from $1.28 in 1996 to over $3.60 in 
some areas of the country today. Of course, these surges were 
exacerbated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  These huge spikes don't impact us just at the gas pump or when we pay 
our heating and cooling bill. They affect us everywhere--at the grocery 
store, when we buy clothes, at the hardware store, the airlines when we 
go on trips, restaurants when they pay higher energy bills, and also in 
the job picture. When we decry jobs moving overseas, high natural gas 
prices in this country are a huge factor, particularly in select 
industries such as our chemical industry.
  Yet, again, the folks who run to the floor of the Senate to beat on 
these issues and try to take advantage of them politically the most are 
among those who are opposing this bill. It makes no sense to me, and it 
is enormously frustrating to me.
  They also seem to be opposed to this bill because they are just 
opposed on virtual religious grounds on more oil and gas production.
  We need to do a lot of things to secure our energy future, and 
certainly that involves research and new technology and new forms of 
energy. But as we do that--and we are doing that, and we will do more, 
and we must do more--as we do that, the fact is, for the next several 
years and several decades we will have an economy in some ways 
dominated by oil and gas.
  So if we want to give consumers relief, if we want to secure our 
energy independence in the short term, we also at the same time need to 
attack that side of the question, and this bill does that, domestically 
increasing our independence.
  It is just completely irresponsible for people to say we can't 
address that side of the equation. We must, as we must address the 
longer-term side of the equation, with new technology, new sources of 
energy, new science and engineering. Those both have to be necessary 
components of a solution.
  I would have a little more sympathy with some of these arguments if 
Senators from many of these other States,

[[Page S8494]]

not in the directly affected region in the gulf, were producing at 
least other forms of energy. They don't like oil? They don't like 
natural gas? There are other things folks in different parts of the 
country can do. There is nuclear. There is solar. There is windpower. 
The fact is, so many of the critics from these other places do not 
contribute to the Nation's energy needs in any of these categories.
  The Department of Energy has some interesting statistics. State by 
State, what does a State consume in energy and what does it produce? 
California consumes eight times more energy than it produces. 
Massachusetts is the winner. It consumes 65 times more energy than it 
produces. Florida consumes 11 times more energy than it produces.
  This is not being part of the solution. This is not sustainable. It 
is particularly ironic when some voices from these very same places 
decry a bill as we have on the floor which can be part of the solution, 
which can lower energy prices even in the short term and can get us to 
the longer term as we transition to new energy sources.
  Finally, as I mentioned, there is a whole myth that many of these 
same opponents bring up that somehow we are raiding the Federal 
Treasury. If bringing in more Federal revenue is raiding the Federal 
Treasury, then let the raid begin. That is what this bill does. It 
increases Federal revenue--$1 billion more for the Federal Treasury, $1 
billion more of deficit reduction. That is the plain and simple fact. 
Why is that? Because this bill expands production which expands revenue 
which, even in the new rules of revenue sharing under this bill, 
increases Federal revenue and decreases the deficit.
  For any opponents to claim that this somehow increases the deficit 
and raids the Federal Treasury is simply untrue. It is factually 
incorrect. There is more Federal revenue, bringing down the deficit.
  S. 3711 is positive. It is concrete, it is taking action now. It is a 
step forward. It can have an impact that can make life better for 
average Americans, even in the short term, and help bring down energy 
prices, help increase our energy independence, help produce new 
revenue, not just to the producing States; but also to the Federal 
Treasury--help reduce the Federal deficit.
  This is a win-win-win-win, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
important energy legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak in 
opposition to the so-called Energy bill that we have before us, on 
which we will be voting cloture later this afternoon. I want to make my 
position very clear. I am certainly not against drilling for oil and 
gas here in the United States or in the Gulf of Mexico. Fossil fuels 
are an essential component of our Nation's energy infrastructure, and I 
support appropriate steps to build our supply and use. For example, I 
have repeatedly, for several years, called for the construction of the 
Alaskan natural gas pipeline. I voted for last year's Energy bill which 
contained numerous incentives and provisions for the development of 
fossil fuels. In fact, I voted for previous Energy bills over the past 
several years.
  However, unlike those previous Energy bills, the bill before us today 
is not comprehensive. Far from it; it is a narrow bill, focused 
strictly on drilling for oil and gas in certain portions of the Gulf of 
Mexico. There simply is not that much gas being made available under 
this bill.
  I mentioned a moment ago the Alaska natural gas pipeline. Every day, 
they are reinjecting into the ground gas already discovered in Alaska 
that could be shipped to the lower 48 if we had a pipeline in place. In 
fact, if we had started on this several years ago we would just about 
be completed with that pipeline right now. The pipeline is projected to 
provide some 2.2 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable gas 
each year for the next 100 years. But the bill before us today would 
provide perhaps 5 or so trillion cubic feet lasting less than 3 years.
  What does that all mean? It means there is about 40 times the amount 
of natural gas in Alaska than we would ever get from this bill before 
us in the Gulf of Mexico. That may not even be including the Mackenzie 
gas bill in Canada.
  The Minerals Management Service indicates the gas made available 
under the bill before us, if you project 50 years into the future, 
could be about 2\1/2\ months of supply. In other words, of all the 
natural gas we are going to need for the next 50 years, the bill before 
us will provide about 2\1/2\ months of supply. Over the next 15 years--
another way of looking at it--we get about 9 days' worth. And we won't 
get any at all until 2012. This is not going to have any significant 
impact on our supply.
  As Senator Bingaman noted, in order to get access to this very modest 
amount of gas--as I said, perhaps 5 trillion cubic feet--we are locking 
away 21 trillion cubic feet in the eastern gulf until 2022 by placing 
these areas under a 16-year moratorium. What a deal for the American 
consumer. What a deal. We can get 5 trillion cubic feet, but in 
exchange for that we are going to lock away, for 16 years, up to 21 
trillion cubic feet that could be made available in the eastern gulf. 
That is not a very good deal for the American consumer.
  I think the better bet is for Congress to find a way to get the 
Alaska natural gas pipeline built. Yet we have done nothing on that. 
Unfortunately, key parties in the State of Alaska are not getting the 
job done, and we have not done anything to really move them in that 
direction. My understanding is that the legislature there is not 
satisfied with the concurrent contract proposal negotiated by the 
Governor, and he is not satisfied with them. It goes back and forth and 
back and forth.
  Earlier this year, Senator Snowe and I wrote a letter to the Energy 
Committee asking them to investigate this and hopefully to come up with 
some suggestions so that in some way we here in Congress might break 
that logjam.
  Anyway, there is little hope for them getting it settled by the end 
of the year, but we are focusing on this--5 trillion cubic feet, when 
we have 40 times that amount in Alaska that could be piped down. That 
is just one facet of how bad this bill is.
  Second, this drilling legislation would drain the Federal Treasury of 
billions of dollars in lost revenue that would otherwise be available 
for urgent national priorities--priorities, I might add, such as 
agricultural and rural development assistance, health care and 
education, in addition, of course, to real energy security.
  I know a number of farm groups--my farmers--need more natural gas. We 
use it to make fertilizer. We use a lot of it to make ethanol, also. 
The point here being that the amount of money we are going to lose 
under this bill means that we are going to be draining money away from 
the Federal Treasury that we will need in the next farm bill, which is 
coming up, which we are going to need for a safety net for farmers, 
which we are going to need for conservation payments, which we are 
going to need to provide more incentives for ethanol and biodiesel and 
biomass production.
  Again, the offset is not good. Agriculture really comes up a loser.
  The reason I say that--one other bad facet of this bill is that it 
provides 37.5 percent of the revenue from the new leases in areas 
beyond their areas to four Gulf Coast States. In other words, four 
States are going to get 37.5 percent of all the revenues from gas and 
oil that is way, way beyond their territorial waters.

  I can't blame my friends from those States for fighting hard for this 
bill. I can't blame the Senators from Texas and Louisiana and 
Mississippi and Alabama--they are making out. This is a heck of a deal 
for them. Like I said, I can't blame them, but what about the rest of 
the Senators here? We represent other States.
  This is not unique. This came up once before back in 1952, when the 
President of the United States was Harry S Truman, from Missouri. The 
issue again was, to whom do these minerals, oil and gas, in the Gulf of 
Mexico belong? I want to read this for the Record. Here is what a 
courageous, gutsy President had to say:

       The minerals that lie under the sea off the coast of this 
     country belong to the Federal Government--that is, to all the 
     people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and 
     reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States . . .

  I am quoting Harry Truman. He said:


[[Page S8495]]


       If we back down on our determination to hold these rights 
     for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great 
     national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They 
     want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of 
     States, where the powerful oil interests hope to exploit it 
     to suit themselves.
       Talk about corruption. Talk about stealing from the people. 
     That would be robbery in broad daylight--on a colossal scale. 
     It would make Teapot Dome look like small change.
       I got a letter from a fellow in Texas today, who is a 
     friend of mine, and he was weeping over what the 
     schoolchildren of Texas were going to lose if Texas didn't 
     get its oil lands 9 miles out from the shore.

  Nine miles. Here we are talking about 100 miles, and more. This was 9 
miles. Listen to what Truman was saying about the oil and the gas 9 
miles off the shore:

       And I composed a letter to him, and then didn't send it. I 
     said what about the schoolchildren in Missouri and Colorado, 
     and North Dakota and Minnesota and Tennessee and Kentucky and 
     Illinois, do they have any interest in this at all? Evidently 
     not, it should all go to Texas. Well, it isn't going there, 
     if I can help it.

  Boy, why don't we have a President like that today? Talk about 
telling it like it is. And Truman did veto it.
  Here is his closing.

       I can see how the Members of Congress from Texas and 
     California and Louisiana might like to have all the offshore 
     oil for their States. But I certainly can't understand how 
     Members of Congress from the other 45 States can vote to give 
     away the interest the people of their own States have in this 
     tremendous asset. It's just over my head and beyond me how 
     any interior Senator or Congressman could vote to give that 
     asset away. I am still puzzled about it. As far as I am 
     concerned, I intend to stand up and fight to protect the 
     people's interest in this matter.

  President Harry Truman, May 17, 1952.
  Where is Truman when we need him today? Yet we read history and look 
back and say: Boy, that Truman, he was brave, he was courageous, he 
fought for real people. He was on our side. How, he said, can Members 
of Congress from other States--Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, 
Illinois--how can they vote for something like this to give away a 
national asset to four States? Truman said it in 1952. Here we are back 
again, back again.
  As I said, 37.5 percent goes to these four States. As Truman said--
how did he say it? He said here, ``Talk about corruption. Talk about 
stealing from the people. That would be robbery in broad daylight--on a 
colossal scale. It would make Teapot Dome look like small change.''
  Truman had it right then. He is right today, too.
  Another reason to be opposed to this bill is it is such a narrow and 
controversial bill when we consider the components of what we really 
need for a 21st century sustainable energy policy for our Nation. By 
that I mean an aggressive and continuing effort to promote conservation 
and to ramp up renewable energy. It is as true today as it was 10 years 
ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago. It is cheaper right now to 
conserve a barrel of oil or a trillion cubic feet of natural gas than 
it is to go out and drill for it. It is easier and cheaper--cheaper to 
conserve. Yet we have this bill before us, this very narrow bill, very 
contentious bill, that gives all this--37.5 percent of these 
royalties--to these four States.
  You might say the average American out there listening to this debate 
would say: Harkin, why don't you amend it? If you feel so strongly 
about this, offer an amendment; see what happens.
  Guess what. We can't offer any amendments. Yes, that is right. You 
may wonder, Is this the Senate? You mean we can't offer an amendment? 
That is right. I cannot offer an amendment to this bill because of the 
games the leader on the other side played in terms of how he brought it 
up under cloture and filled the tree, as they say. That is just 
gobbledygook, meaning the majority leader is able to engineer the way 
the bill is brought up so we cannot offer amendments to it. When the 
bill comes up for a vote, it is up or down. We can't even offer an 
amendment. We can't offer an amendment on conservation or renewable 
energy or to say maybe it shouldn't be 37.5 percent for four States, 
and maybe other States something else. Fifty amendments were filed on 
this bill. None of them will be considered.
  We have time to talk for days around here about flag desecration and 
about gay marriage. I am not saying those aren't important issues. But 
let's get real, folks. We are talking about something here that affects 
every American every day. People are hurting out there with an 
unusually hot summer. People are struggling to pay these big gasoline 
prices--upwards of about close to $3 a gallon, 71 cents more than a 
year ago. Natural gas prices are the highest of anywhere in the world 
right here in America. Yet how do we go about achieving some energy 
price relief for my Iowans or other Americans? How do we go about it?
  We have this bill--this very narrow bill. We should be discussing 
other parts of what we need for energy. The Senate leaders, Senator 
Frist and Senator Reid, were asking last week that we include a period 
for energy debate while addressing the measure before us. Again, we 
spent all this time this year debating this and that. And if we have 
time for those, we surely have time to debate America's energy security 
challenges, offer our amendments, debate them, and let's see what comes 
out of the process.
  I filed two amendments to this bill. One contains the Biofuels 
Security Act. It is a bipartisan measure to improve our ability to 
deliver renewable fuels to motoring consumers. I am not going to 
explain every little bit of it, but basically it would increase the 
amount of renewable fuels we make.
  Second, it would make E-85 ethanol available at gas stations across 
America.
  Third, it would require the automobile companies to make more 
flexible fuel cars such as they are doing in Brazil right now so we 
could have E-85 pumps across America.
  I filed a second amendment that would require the EPA to adjust the 
fuels standards to meet a 10 billion gallon target by 2010. That 
shouldn't be too much. We are going to meet that, anyway. We should do 
it higher.
  We need to spur growth of cellulosic biofuel production--fuels made 
from fibrous materials such as corn stover, wheat straw, wood waste and 
switchgrass.
  Lastly, in terms of conservation, I cosponsored an amendment with 
Senator Obama and others to increase vehicle fuel economy standards for 
the first time in two decades. Imagine that. We have not increased fuel 
standards in this country in 20 years. Yet here is a bill on energy and 
we can't amend it.
  Conservation of energy coupled with increased availability of 
renewable fuels is the pathway to the future while at the same time 
doing what we can to increase our natural gas production.
  The best thing would be the pipeline from Alaska.
  As I said, I am not opposed to drilling for gas and oil in the gulf, 
but I am the way this bill is set up. If you do not have a component in 
the bill for renewable energy production, biomass, biofuels, wind 
energy for electricity and others, photovoltaics as a component of it, 
and also conservation, all this bill says is basically we are going to 
continue to do what we have been doing in the past--getting more fossil 
fuels. We may need fossil fuels, but the sad truth is that this bill 
before us is a missed opportunity to do big things for our energy 
future and our energy security.
  Again, I assume that the votes are cut and dry on this the way they 
have it. I just want to make sure people know we can't offer 
amendments. We are being precluded from doing so. But hopefully we will 
be back and hopefully we can have a more serious discussion and debate 
about how we provide for America's energy security in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, would my colleague yield for a brief 
question?
  Mr. LOTT. I would be happy to yield, without losing the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Does the Senator know how long he will speak?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as a Member of the Senate, I must say I 
never know how long I am going to speak. I will not speak that long, 
but I may get excited and go a little longer. My guess is not more than 
15 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak immediately after the Senator from Mississippi 
finishes his remarks.

[[Page S8496]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to speak on this very important 
legislation, S. 3711. But like others today, I may decide I need to 
comment on some other issues that will be discussed later on this week.
  First, I must say that this week I have been thinking repeatedly 
about that great line from Rudyard Kipling's ``If.'' ``If you can keep 
your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on 
you''--
  And it goes on. It is a great poem, it says that if you keep your 
head when everybody else around you is losing theirs, you shall inherit 
the Earth, my son.
  That is what I would encourage my colleagues to do today. Let's keep 
cool. Let's not lose our heads. Every one of us is going to get up to 
speak, and there is going to be somebody on the other side of the issue 
or on the other side of the aisle who is going to say, That Senator 
lost his head. Let's keep our cool.
  I just heard a speech saying we shouldn't pass this bill because it 
is not big enough. Yet you are going to hear a speech later this week 
saying we shouldn't pass one of the next bills because it is too 
comprehensive.
  This is not a bill that is going to solve all of our energy needs. 
This energy problem has not developed in the past year, or 10, or 20, 
or 30. It has been coming for years. We have made speeches on this 
floor about how we are becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil. 
We were all worried that it would go up to 40 percent, then 50 percent, 
and now it is 60 percent. If we don't do anything about it, it is going 
to continue to go up.
  Do I think it is dangerous? Yes. I believe we should address it in 
every way we can.
  As I have said before in some of my speeches here, I personally 
believe that the way to deal with our energy needs is to produce more 
of everything--make the pie bigger; quit trying to find ways to shrink 
it; more gas production; more clean coal technology; more hydrogen 
plants; more nuclear plants; and, yes, alternative fuels--biomass, bio-
diesel, conservation; the whole package.
  In my opinion, the first option has always been to produce more. That 
is the way I was raised. You do not have to do with less. You can find 
more natural resources, you can find more alternative fuels, and we 
ought to try to do that. I think we can get together on this.
  As far as I am concerned this is not a comprehensive package, we 
passed a big energy bill last year, a very costly bill, with several 
good provisions in it.
  This very morning I met with people saying they were interested in 
several tax credits. They said they could change automobiles so they 
could work using propane. We have the infrastructure to do this. There 
are lots of good ideas out there. We are going to have our first 
ethanol plant in Mississippi. We are all trying to find a way to do a 
better job.
  This bill will also help our new ethanol plant. It will produce lots 
more oil and gas, millions of barrels of oil, and trillions of cubic 
feet of natural gas. Why shouldn't we do that? Because it does not 
include all the coasts or all kinds of other resources? That is not 
good enough.
  This bill is a step in the right direction. It will lead us toward 
more production which will make us less dependent on foreign oil. Why 
don't we do that? It will have an impact pretty quickly. It will have 
an impact on the futures markets. I think we can get some of that 
oil and gas out of the Gulf of Mexico in this designated area sooner 
than a lot of people think, and in larger quantities.

  I urge my colleagues to quit trying to find the perfect. This is good 
enough. This is a magnificent effort, and it is bipartisan.
  I talked to my friend, former Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, a 
Democrat, this morning. I said, We finally figured out how to bring 
together a bipartisan package without you. Twenty-two Democrats voted 
to move to this legislation yesterday. Seventy-two Members of the 
Senate said let's cut out the frivolous debate, and let's go to the 
substance here. This is an opportunity to get something done.
  Why are we whining about it? Why aren't we high-fiving and 
congratulating each other and saying to the American people that it is 
not the end but it is a beginning? It is good. Let's do that. We need 
to address this overall energy problem.
  I have heard some other interesting opposing ideas to this bill. One 
of them is: Well, if we do this, it will be cutting revenue coming to 
the Federal Government. Let's see. The math on that one eludes me. If 
we don't do this, we are not going to get any revenue from this area--
none, zero.
  If we do it, we will have a substantial impact on the Federal budget 
with revenue coming in. Yes, some of it will go to the States in the 
region and some of it will go to States all over the country. However, 
there will be a huge impact on revenue coming in from the royalties if 
we pass S. 3711, to open up millions of acres in the south central part 
of the Gulf of Mexico.
  This, once again from the standpoint of helping the Government and 
the people, is a winner because revenue will also be coming into the 
Federal Treasury.
  Some have argued: Why should the States in the area benefit? We 
should benefit because we haven't benefitted in the past; because we 
have not been treated fairly; because we are the ones who take the 
risks. We are the ones who have a tremendous coastal impact problem 
which we must now address: hurricane prevention, protection and coastal 
replenishment. We have estuaries in Louisiana that are disappearing. We 
have a huge problem on our hands. With the revenue from off-shore 
drilling we can pay for it. We are taking the risks, therefore we 
should have the benefits. At least some benefit. These risks may be 
very minimal, but we need the revenue to take care of ourselves.
  I like the fact that not all of the revenue from this area goes to 
the Gulf States or the Governors. It goes to the local people. Twenty 
percent will go to the local people, the supervisors. The individual 
counties will decide what part of preservation, restoration, 
prevention, or recovery they will put this revenue into.
  For years, the royalties from on shore exploration in the West stayed 
within the States where drilling was taking place. They got 50 percent 
of it. Yet, in the Gulf where oil and gas exploration has taken place 
for years, we have been getting zero except for the tiny percentage we 
got out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Basically nothing.
  Now we would like to have something similar to what they've had out 
West. However, we are not saying that it all either has to go to the 
states or to the Federal Treasury. Part of the revenue will go to the 
Gulf States, part of it will be going to the Federal Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, which will go to States all over the Nation, and 
part will go to the Federal Treasury. For the first time, the Gulf of 
Mexico States would be getting a fair deal. I am proud of that. All of 
us from that region--Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama--are 
supporting this package.
  Without us, it probably wouldn't have happened. A lot of credit goes 
to the Senators from the region, particularly the Senators from 
Louisiana, Mary Landrieu and David Vitter. 
  This is also an acceptable arrangement for Florida, which has not 
been easy. It has been tedious. They want to protect the area that is 
used for military training. They want to protect their beaches, which 
are crucial to their tourism. I understand that. I may not agree with 
them in terms of how far away it has to be, but they believe this is a 
fair agreement for their state.
  That was not easy to achieve. It has taken a lot of time and effort. 
It is a principled one, from an economical, energy security and 
environmental standpoint.
  All of this drilling will not take place unless it is at least 100 
miles from our coast, or 125 miles away from the Florida shore.
  By the way, back in the real world, China is prepared to start 
drilling off the coast of Cuba, which is within 60 miles of Florida. Is 
that going to happen? Yes. Yet we are prohibiting the drilling for the 
gulf oil and gas even 125 miles away for the Coast of Florida. This 
legislation is a good effort. I am proud to be part of it.
  Let me speak a little bit about this week. Colleagues, there will be 
plenty

[[Page S8497]]

of time and plenty of opportunity to say: It is your fault, it is this 
leadership, that leadership, it is Democrats, Republicans, it is this 
chairman, it is the House of Representatives; recriminations, blame all 
over the place. We need to put aside the blame game. We need to put 
aside our own pitiful pride, where we are defending our turf, insisting 
on the correctness of our position.
  If it were my call, I wouldn't set this week up the way it is, but 
someone has to make that call, and it has been made and I support it. 
This could be an incredibly good week. If anyone thinks we are going to 
do better in the elections this year by doing nothing, you are sadly 
mistaken. Does anyone around here not see where Congress is rated? 
Between the two parties, it is a question of who is the lowest, not who 
is the highest.
  We need to produce. We used to be able to do that. We used to be able 
to reach across the aisle and find a way to make it happen. That is 
what we need to do this week. Envision this: Dream that at the end of 
this week we will have passed an energy bill that will help reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil; we will have passed a defense appropriations 
bill that will help us in the war on terror, and support our troops 
wherever they stand vigil this very night; we will have passed pension 
reform that has been years in coming that is in the best interest of 
corporations and employees all over this country, that is good for 
aviation and automobile manufacturers, but most importantly of all, 
working people, people out there making it all happen, people who are 
worried about their retirement, worried whether their pensions will be 
there, will it be at the level they were promised? What will it be? How 
can you transition from defined benefits into defined contributions, 
401(K) plans, IRAs? They would sleep better if this dream came through 
and we finished this week up passing this pension reform with the 
aviation pension part of it included. And the so-called trifecta.
  I don't know much about betting. I must admit that I don't even know 
what a trifecta is, but I know it is three of something. I suspect that 
in a trifecta bet the return on a dollar is huge. That is what will 
happen if we pass this bill.
  It has a minimum wage increase, $2.10 over the next 3 years. A lot of 
small business men and women are concerned about that. How will they 
cope with that? Will they take it out of the bottom line? Will they lay 
off people? Will they raise their prices? They are not sure, but the 
fact is we have not passed a minimum wage increase in 10 years. I was 
here when that happened. There are a lot of people who feel it is time 
we do this. We can debate that. We will debate that. But if we are 
going to get a trifecta, that is part one.
  Part two is extenders. That is more Senate talk in Washington for tax 
provisions, but they are not just insignificant tax provisions; they 
are the tax credit for research and development, which is about the 
future of America. If we want to be competitive, we better be doing 
research and development because the Chinese, the Japanese, even the 
Russians are beginning to do things in that area.
  It has a deduction for college tuition. I thought we were for that. 
For the first time we are on the verge of getting a fair capital gains 
rate for timber. I thought we were for that. That part of the trifecta 
has so many things that will be beneficial for working men and women of 
America, the people who own a few acres of timberland, for people who 
want to send their kids to school. We need it. It will produce I don't 
know how much more revenue than would be expended in tax credits or 
deductions. You never get finished reaping the benefits of helping your 
kid go to college and getting an education. It benefits the revenue of 
our Federal Treasury for years to come. I am one of those. I had a 
school loan to get through college. I paid it back a few times over 
through the years. So we ought to do the extenders.
  We ought to do a reasonable compromise on the death tax. We will hear 
ranting and raving about how horrible it is that we would reduce taxes 
on the wealthy. I am not one of those. I don't have anyone in my blood 
family who will qualify. I do have a couple of in-laws who would 
probably qualify for it. But I have never been able to conceive but one 
other tax worse than the death tax. Just the idea that you work all 
your life, you produce, you save, you have a house, a farm, a small 
business, whatever, and the Government shows up when you die and says, 
give me a huge chunk of it--the principle is wrong. I have never talked 
to men, women, young or old, all kinds of different races, who say the 
death tax is a good idea. That is a bad idea. The only tax I know that 
is worse is the income tax, of course, and the day will come when we 
will have to fix that, too.
  Can I argue about parts of it? Sure. Can I argue against some of the 
things in the death tax and the minimum wage and how it is constructed? 
Sure. But is it good enough? Will it help America? Yes.
  We can have a vision this week that leads us to do these four things 
and leave here on a high note. That would be good for America and good 
for everyone who participated in the effort.
  I urge my colleagues to keep calm this week. Let's hold down on 
accusations. Let's try not to get mad at each other. Let's try to 
cooperate as much as we can between our leadership. Let's see if we 
can't do something right for a change in this institution.
  I still have faith that the majority of the Senate wants to do what 
is right for our country, not what is right for our party or our region 
to the disadvantage of other regions, and certainly not what we are 
told by our leadership.
  Sometimes we do not agree with our leadership, but these guys and 
ladies have a very tough time. They have to review a lot of things the 
rest of us don't know about. We have to be prepared to follow. This 
week they may be pulling against each other, but maybe we can help get 
them back together and produce a final product.
  I would like to urge my colleagues to vote for S. 3711. In fact, I 
suggest that we vote for everything this week. That would be novel.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, by unanimous consent I understand the 
Senator from New York has reserved the time coming up. I visited with 
him. He needed to attend a meeting, so I ask unanimous consent I be 
allowed to proceed, to be followed by Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi counseled me 
to stay calm. I am a reasonably calm guy. I don't get too excited about 
much of anything--at least that is what my wife would suggest. But let 
me tell you something that happened to me last night that caused me to 
be a little less than calm.
  I drove, like most Americans, to a gas station. I pulled up to the 
pump, I swiped my credit card, and $39 later I filled an economy car 
full of $3.25 per gallon gas.
  I must tell you and tell the Senator from Mississippi, I wasn't calm. 
This Scotchman's blood began to rile a bit when I realized that I and 
all other Americans are paying more for their gas today than ever in 
the history of this country and it is Government policy that caused it.
  It is an attitude over the last 20 years that somehow America was 
going to conserve its way out of this problem. We didn't have to 
produce, we didn't have to refine, and, by the way, you can go out and 
buy a bigger car and it will burn a little more, but don't worry about 
it, it will be there. We lulled ourselves into this sense of false 
security that somehow gas is always going to stay at $1.25 or $2 a 
gallon.
  While we were in a sense of false security, we did something else 
that was politically stupid. Where the greatest potential for domestic 
oil production exists today, we said take it out of bounds, take it 
offline. Seventy-five percent of the Outer Continental coast of America 
today, where our greatest reserves exist, is off limits, all in the 
name of the environment, even though we have applied technology, 
science, and engineering in a way today that was proven during the 
tremendous storm of Katrina when we knocked thousands of wells offline 
in the gulf, and not one drop of oil was spilled.
  Why, then, did we do this all in the name of the environment if, in 
fact, we can retrieve oil from our deep waters off the Continental 
Shelf and coast

[[Page S8498]]

today and not damage the environment? It was the politics of the 1970s, 
the 1980s, and the 1990s. During that time, not only was gas relatively 
inexpensive compared to today's prices, but our consumption levels went 
up and we began to buy more and more oil from foreign supplies, foreign 
producers, dominantly from the Middle East but some from Central and 
Latin America.
  Today, with all of these red areas off limits, where there are 
potentially billions of barrels of oil, we said ``no'' and we find 
ourselves dependent today with speculative oil prices going through the 
roof because wars are being fought, people are killing people in one of 
the most insecure areas of the world, an area we have grown to become 
dependent on for the supply of our primary economic resource, oil. What 
is wrong with that picture, America?
  Pogo once said: I have found the enemy and the enemy is us. Maybe 
that is to paraphrase it a little bit. The enemy for oil prices is us, 
if I can say it in those terms. It is not only public policy in America 
today that has created the ``no'' zone to production, it is the 
attitude in America that somehow energy prices are always going to stay 
inexpensive and we don't have to produce anymore, even though our rate 
of consumption continues to grow.
  Then along come the late 1990s and the early 2000s and the Chinese 
economy takes off, the European economy takes off, and the Indian 
economy takes off, and they are now all large consumers of oil. We all 
buy it from the same pool, and the price goes up.
  Today, before the Senate, this afternoon at 5 o'clock, we have an 
opportunity to begin to slowly but surely correct a very big problem we 
built up in the decades of the 1970s, the 1980s, and 1990s, a self-
inflicted wound we can now bind up and heal while we work our way out 
from increasing dependence on foreign resources. That legislation is S. 
3711.
  What does it do? It takes us right down here to this tiny little 
green square in the Gulf of Mexico called lease sale 181.
  We say to the oil companies of America: You can go out there and bid 
and lease and drill. Our geological survey determines that there are 
trillions of cubic feet of gas out there and, potentially, billions of 
barrels of oil. We can bring it on line and send it to our gulf coast 
refineries and begin to process it and move it into our distribution 
systems. And for a moment in time we will become just a little less 
dependent on Saudi Arabia or Iraq or anywhere else in the world in 
which we are buying oil today.
  Why did we do it? Times change. Attitudes shift. Technology changes. 
Today, there is absolutely no reason to have a no-zone around the 
United States because we not only can produce it, we can do it in an 
environmentally sound way. Here is what we believe--not me; we, the 
U.S. Geological Survey, our Federal agencies that study where our oil 
reserves and potentials are--here is what they say we can do. They say 
there are, potentially, in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge--2,200 
little acres that we can drill out of millions of acres--potentially, 
tens of billions of barrels of oil up there; and in the OCS, 115 
billion barrels of oil, of which this one little spot down in the gulf 
we call lease sale 181 that is embodied in this legislation, S. 3711, 
will be able to reduce this maybe down to 110 billion barrels because 
maybe we can get 5 billion barrels out of there.
  Of course, a few months ago I came to the floor and said: Why are 
American companies not being allowed to drill in the northern 
properties off Cuba--where Cuba is now leasing that area out to China 
to drill, 50 miles off the U.S. shore. Why are not Americans out there 
doing that? That is another potentially 4.6 billion to 5 billion 
barrels of oil.
  Add it all up, if we were able to use our skill, our talent that we 
have developed in the decade of the 1990s, and 2000 and beyond, for 
deepwater drilling, we could bring this much oil on line in a 
relatively short period of time.
  But California says no. Florida, in large part, has said no, although 
the Senators from Florida have worked with us, and Mel Martinez has 
done a beautiful job striking the balance to protect the environment of 
Florida and to drill in lease sale 181 off the coast of Florida.
  But, then again, in these areas up through here, where there is 
tremendous potential off of the northeastern coast of our country, what 
do Vermont and Maine and New Hampshire and Rhode Island and Connecticut 
say? No, even though their consumers are paying $3.25 to $3.30 a gallon 
for gas. Where is the logic? Where is the sensitivity of that? Where is 
the sensibility of it?
  I know America wishes we could snap our finger and this energy 
problem or crisis would be over. And it will not be. It took us 30 
years marching down a path in which production was a negative, in which 
we said we simply did not have to produce; we could go someplace else 
and buy it. It is going to take a while to turn that around.
  Last year, this Senate made a major step to turn that around. The 
National Energy Policy Act of 2005, known as EPAct, today, is bringing 
ethanol refineries or distilleries on line all across the Midwest as a 
part of producing into the whole energy supply of our country. Twenty 
percent of America's corn crop, being raised right now in the fields of 
Illinois and Iowa and Kansas and other places, will be used for ethanol 
production to go into the gas tanks of the American automobile. So we 
are moving in the right direction.
  Last year at this time, as it relates to electrical production, we 
had about two reactors on the drawing board; that is, nuclear reactors. 
Folks, today there are 24 on the drawing board. Ten or 12 of them will 
be built, but it will take 10 or 12 years to build them. You do not 
overnight correct the problems you have created over the last 30 years.
  The American consumer, in their sense of frustration, today is 
saying: Fix it. We like inexpensive energy. And I do not blame them. So 
do I. Last night, at $3.25 a gallon for that regular gas I put in my 
gas tank, I did not like it one bit. That is the bad news: high gas 
prices. The good news is: high gas prices. Today, we would not be on 
the floor debating lease sale 181 if gas were still $1.25 a gallon or 
even $2 a gallon. It was at $3 a gallon when the folks in Florida 
scratched their head and said: Maybe we could allow a little drilling 
out there. Maybe we could bring a little more on production. Maybe we 
ought to sit and listen to the reality of the environmental skills that 
our deepwater drillers have today in the production of oil, and we can 
do that and protect our environment at the same time. And we can. This 
legislation is going to do just that.
  That is why what we pass this afternoon is critically important to 
the long-term stability and security of this country, to the strength 
and security of the average American family and consumer out there. It 
isn't that they will pay less after we do it; it is that they probably 
will not pay more.
  In trying to level these prices and get this country back into 
production, I would hope that Americans quit saying no. I would hope 
that Senators would quit saying no and look at all of the alternatives 
out there today in a diverse energy portfolio of ethanol, of gas, of 
hydrogen, of nuclear generation for electricity, of wind and solar, and 
all the things we ought to bring into production in this country that 
we are working hard to do at this time.
  I am not going to ask Americans to be patient. We are not a patient 
people. We are very impatient as a country. But it is going to take 
some time. It is going to take the concerted efforts of Senators such 
as Pete Domenici and myself and Mel Martinez and others who have worked 
this issue as hard as we have to convince this Congress, that 
oftentimes is very resistant to change or very resistant to having to 
go out and face the very powerful environmental community and say: You 
know, you are just flat wrong. We can produce energy, and we can 
produce it cleanly for Americans, and provide it abundantly at a 
reasonable price--if we let the marketplace work, we put the parameters 
around it as it relates to what we expect from them in the safety and 
security of our environment but we do not say no. And for too long we 
have.
  Finally, this afternoon, at around 5 o'clock, we are going to vote on 
S. 3711 and, hopefully, we will say: Yes, let's bring it on line. Let's 
produce it. Let's put trillions of cubic feet of gas into the gas 
pipelines and let's bring billions of barrels of crude into the 
refineries of the gulf coast.
  Senate: Say yes. You have been too long saying no. Americans are 
frustrated and angry they are now having

[[Page S8499]]

to pay a price they are not used to, and certainly have an abundance 
and a sense of security that most Americans have come to enjoy and 
expect of themselves living in this great country of ours, living with 
a system that works, and with a government that tends to be responsive 
to their needs. That is what this legislation is all about this 
afternoon.
  So when the Senator from Mississippi counsels patience, I am an 
impatient guy, especially when it comes to my pocketbook. And I know 
most consumers are. I don't like paying $3.25 a gallon. I would like to 
find the boogeyman and blame somebody for it. We have ourselves to 
blame because the no-zone was created by public policy, not by the big 
oil companies. No. They would like to be there drilling and using the 
latest technology. No. The no-zone was created by public policy: no to 
the billions of barrels of oil that exist, as shown on this chart, in 
Alaska, in the Outer Continental Shelf, in the northern area off from 
Cuba, and in lease sale 181.
  The reason we are not there today is public policy, is an 
environmental attitude that simply says ``we don't have to produce any 
more.'' Well, we do have to produce, but we need to do it cleanly, 
responsibly. That is what this legislation is about. That is what the 
energy policy of last year was about. This Government, thank goodness, 
has been listening and has finally heard the consumer and his and her 
frustration.
  I would hope this afternoon we turn a no vote into a yes vote. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to vote for S. 3711. It means a lot to 
the average family who is paying the price today for bad policy at the 
gas pumps of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Schumer is 
supposed to go next. So I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
recognized following Senator Schumer or, if the other side would like 
me to go first, I would go first. But it is my understanding the time 
should be charged to the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator Schumer immediately follow me on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my very strong 
support for S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, 
sponsored by our very able chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources, Senator Domenici. I was pleased to cosponsor S. 
2253 with the chairman, which was an earlier version of this bill.
  We must all recognize that the global oil market has changed 
dramatically, and we must pursue an energy-security strategy that takes 
into account a new set of realities.
  We are now faced with the prospect of a long-term oil shortage 
conjoined with a serious lack of spare capacity among even the world's 
most reliable suppliers.
  As OPEC's ability to respond to growing global demand for crude has 
slackened, so, too, has OPEC's ability to maintain a price band and the 
resulting political and price stability on which our Nation--more than 
any other--has been dependent. It is imperative we face the fact that 
even exhaustive efforts to conserve and increase renewable fuel 
production will still fall far short of bridging the gap between global 
supply and our world's swelling demand for liquid fuels.
  Oil and natural gas have production. limits. We do not manufacture 
oil. In order to produce oil and natural gas we must go through a 
lengthy process of exploration and extraction. Increasingly our search 
for replacement light sweet crude has been coming up short.
  Just as it is important to recognize the magnitude of our global 
energy shortage, it is equally important to recognize that North 
America has solutions that are being ignored. The passage of S. 3711 
would allow us to benefit from one of the best solutions available.
  Within our reach, in the Gulf of Mexico, we have an abundance of new 
sources of oil and gas. It is time we develop these new sources in 
order to help American families as they struggle against the rising 
cost of energy.
  Mr. President, increasing our domestic supply of oil and gas will 
have a positive impact on every American and every American business. 
Unfortunately, Canada, one of our major natural gas suppliers, has 
struggled to increase production and deliver it to the United States. 
As a result, gas imports from Canada have dropped in recent years.
  I don't see how this Congress can turn away an opportunity to gain 
access to the 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that this 
legislation would make available. This is enough natural gas to heat 
and cool nearly six million homes for 15 years.
  And how can we ignore 1.26 billion barrels of oil which would become 
available through this proposal?
  I understand there may be members of this body who will oppose this 
measure but I wonder why.
  But if the Senate is to get serious about reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil, we must pass this legislation.
  Reducing our foreign dependence by means of conservation, alone, will 
not work.
  Conservation is a part of the solution, but it is only a small part.
  The fact is, if we do not actually increase our domestic supply of 
oil and natural gas in a significant way, as soon as possible, our 
Nation will pay a very heavy price.
  I have been a strong advocate of conservation and increasing 
efficiency.
  Seven years ago, I recognized that about two-thirds of all our oil 
consumption is taken up by the transportation sector, and I began to 
draft the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car 
Technologies Act, or CLEAR ACT.
  The CLEAR ACT was made law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
and it is now providing strong tax incentives for the purchase of 
alternative fuel and hybrid-electric vehicles, for the installation of 
new alternative fueling stations, and for the use of alternative fuels 
in vehicles. We have had an explosion on the development of hybrid 
vehicles and alternative fules. The CLEAR Act had a lot to do with it.
  It took me and my cosponsors substantial effort and political capital 
to pass the CLEAR Act, but we did it because we knew it was important 
to increase the efficiency of our transportation sector.
  But I have never lost sight of the fact that our Nation absolutely 
must increase our domestic oil and gas production if we hope to 
continue to prosper and remain competitive.
  Also, there are several longer term solutions to our Nation's energy 
needs, such as our vast resources of unconventional oil, that need to 
be implemented.
  The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that recoverable oil shale in 
the western United States is somewhere between 800 billion and 1 
trillion barrels of oil, but it is not counted among world reserves 
because it is not yet commercially developed.
  I should point out that the world's oil reserves stand at just about 
1.6 trillion barrels. That means, at a minimum, the U.S. can increase 
the world's oil reserves by 50 percent by implementing an aggressive 
policy to recover our own oil shale. We in the west understand that in 
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, that tri-State area, is an estimated 1 
trillion barrels of recoverable oil from tar sands and oil shale.
  Chairman Domenici and Senator Allard worked with me to ensure that 
the Energy Policy Act included strong provisions to promote the 
development of these unconventional resources.
  However, even if the development of oil shale and tar sands is a 
success, as I believe it will be, it would not occur in time to save us 
from our current supply shortage.
  S. 3711 is one of the few opportunities we have to improve our 
Nation's energy situation in the near term. I believe it represents an 
excellent compromise among the various interests

[[Page S8500]]

involved, and I applaud the parties involved for bringing us to this 
point.
  I hope this body will not throw this opportunity away. This is a way 
of helping our country, helping our citizens. This is a way of 
stabilizing the price of oil and of natural gas.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of 
Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.
  Before I begin, let me say this: I want to try to put this in a 
general setting. We have an energy problem in this country. We all know 
about that. Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars flow out of the 
pocketbooks of hard-working men and women and end up in the pockets of 
people we don't like particularly, people in Iran and people in 
Venezuela, countries like them, leaders who don't really play ball with 
us in the Middle East or in the Soviet Union on so many issues. It is 
imperative that we get a grip on this. In the long run, there is only 
one solution, and that is independence from fossil fuels. We are doing 
so little on that, it is almost pathetic. We should have a crash 
program to free us of imports within 10 or 15 years. We should be 
putting every nickel in. We don't.
  The Energy bills in the past have too often listened to the big oil 
companies which are happy with the status quo. Mr. Tillerson, head of 
ExxonMobil, came before our Judiciary Committee and said he didn't 
believe in alternative fuels. But that is down the road. Because even 
if we started today--and we should have started 5 or 10 years ago--that 
will take a while. So what do we do in the short run? It seems to me 
there has been a little bit too much deadlock here: one side, mainly 
our side, saying conserve--and we are right, there should be 
conservation--the other side saying produce more, not just alternative 
fuels, which I think are very important, alternative energy, which I 
think is very important, whether it be wind or solar or biofuels but 
those just nibble at the edges. The other side says we need to supply 
more fossil fuels. There is a deadlock. It is about time we broke the 
deadlock. An ideal bill would be one that breaks the deadlock on both 
sides, that increases supply of fossil fuels in a way that doesn't do 
grave damage to the environment and yet at the same time conserves. 
Such a bill is not yet here.
  The majority in its wisdom does not allow such a bill to come 
forward. The majority doesn't allow amendments on conservation to be 
added to this bill. But this bill does move to increase supply in a 
certain portion of the gulf, 1.2 million barrels of oil, 5.8 trillion 
cubic feet of gas, in about 8 million acres. That is 1.2 billion 
barrels of oil we won't have to purchase from a Middle East that is, 
unfortunately, looking more volatile and less friendly day by day.
  For the sake of consumers, it is clear we have to get gas prices 
under control. And while drilling in these 8 million acres isn't going 
to send the price plummeting--that takes a much larger endeavor and a 
larger picture--it will affect things at the margin. Gas prices are the 
highest they have been since the aftermath of Katrina. In my State, a 
family with two cars, two cars they need to get to work, drive the kids 
to the doctor and dentist, to get the groceries, can expect to pay 
$1,000 more in gas this year as compared to just 1 year ago. That is a 
tragedy for that family--not a tragedy, I guess, but an economic 
tragedy. If your income isn't that large, $1,000 is just too much. It 
is a huge burden--is a better way to put it--on working families as 
prices keep going up.
  So I have thought a lot about this. I am going to vote for this bill. 
I have advocated in our caucus for this bill as a way of showing faith 
on this side of the aisle that when dramatic damage is not done to the 
environment, as it would be in Alaska where we are 10 years away, we 
are willing to look at increasing the supply of fossil fuels in the 
United States.
  I am going to support this bill. I hope the other side will join us 
in allowing CAFE standards to come to the floor. A bipartisan bill 
sponsored by Senators Lugar and Obama would be a great place to start. 
Then we would increase supply some and decrease demand some. It would 
make a huge difference. The fact that our CAFE standards are lower than 
that of China, a country with virtually no environmental conscience 
but, rather, a country interested in economics--and they understand the 
economics are very important.
  Make no mistake about it, if this bill is tampered with in the House, 
if we go beyond these two areas and talk about drilling in the oceans, 
as the Congressman from California, Mr. Pombo, is, most of us on this 
side of the aisle will do everything we can to block that, and we will 
get no bill at all. Let that be a warning to the people in the House 
not to take advantage of our good faith here. By opening significant 
tracts for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, I also believe this bill 
should give us less reason to drill in areas that are more 
environmentally sensitive like ANWR.
  I am supporting this bill. I have urged my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle to support the bill. I appreciate the hard work the Senator 
from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has done in persuading us to be for this 
bill. But this bill will be an empty promise if we don't go further, if 
we don't do more to conserve, if we don't do more to come up with a 
bipartisan approach that in the long run removes us from the 
stranglehold of fossil fuels and in the short run both increases supply 
and decreases demand for energy.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of 
Mexico Energy Security Act. This important energy legislation begins a 
process by which we start to produce more energy domestically. It moves 
our Nation and our economy one step away from foreign oil barons and 
one step closer to energy independence.
  The legislation does so by opening up a portion of the Gulf of Mexico 
to energy production. Energy production in the Outer Continental Shelf, 
OCS, is not a new energy endeavor. The entire OCS is composed of 1.76 
billion acres and there are 8,000 active lease areas producing oil and 
natural gas. This production translates to approximately 20 percent of 
our domestic oil production and approximately 30 percent of our 
domestic natural gas production. Unfortunately, as hard working 
families endure record prices each time they fill up their vehicles and 
as our Nation's ranchers and farmers struggle with higher fertilizer 
costs, more than 85 percent of the coastal waters around the lower 48 
States currently are off limits to energy development.
  This legislation is a step in the right direction. S. 3711 requires 
the Secretary of the Interior to offer mineral leases in what is known 
as lease area 181 within 1 year of enactment. Such leasing would 
translate to 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. Those minerals could be used to help meet the energy needs 
of our economy and help ease the burden of high prices on our hard 
working families. Put in perspective, lease area 181 will provide 
enough natural gas to heat 6 million homes for 15 years.
  Although I support the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, it is not 
perfect. I would prefer to see the act do more to open up a greater 
portion of the OCS to drilling. I would prefer that Federal royalties 
not be automatically directed to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
and I would prefer that the bill allowed States that wanted energy 
development off their coasts to opt in and States that opposed energy 
development off their coasts to opt out.
  While I would like to see these improvements made eventually, it is 
important to remember that S. 3711 is an excellent first step to expand 
our domestic energy production. Opening lease area 181 must be part of 
a broad and comprehensive strategy to expand our traditional energy 
portfolio as we develop better technologies such as clean coal and 
hydrogen. Every great endeavor starts with a first step. The Gulf of 
Mexico Energy Security Act is a good first step, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.

[[Page S8501]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 3711, the Gulf of 
Mexico Energy Security Act. I would like to thank Senator Domenici, 
chairman of the Energy Committee, for his hard work in making this 
compromise possible. This legislation is a much needed step to increase 
the domestic production of natural gas and crude oil.
  In recent years, the cost for natural gas has risen from the 
moderate, stable level of $3 per thousand cubic feet to $6, and even 
exceeded $10 last fall. Current prices are three times the average 
during the 1990s.
  In just the past few days, natural gas prices have risen by nearly 15 
percent. Why? Because the current heat wave crossing the country is 
putting a strain on our Nation's electrical grid--an electrical grid 
that is increasingly dependent on electricity generated from natural 
gas.
  And, while the demand for natural gas has increased, we have done 
little as a nation to ensure that there is access to the domestic 
supply to meet the growing demand. For too many years, our country has 
had a ``natural gas and nothing else'' policy.
  The Energy Policy Act, which we enacted a year ago, took significant 
steps to diversify our energy production and increase energy 
efficiency. The Energy bill included provisions to expand the use of 
clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies. It also included 
provisions to expand the use of renewable and alternative energy and 
energy conservation. All of these provisions will help in the long term 
to balance and diversify our energy portfolio.
  However, we need to take action today to increase the supply of 
domestically produced energy. The fact is, consumers in the United 
States are paying some of the highest natural gas costs in the world. 
This puts our farmers, manufacturers, and industrial users of natural 
gas at a competitive disadvantage.
  Few things are as important to the livelihood and well-being of 
Iowa's economy than natural gas. Although the State of Iowa is 
considered a national leader in the agricultural industry, our 
manufacturing industry actually contributes five to six times more to 
Iowa's economy than agriculture. Manufacturers have been particularly 
hard hit by the increase in prices because they consume over one-third 
of our country's natural gas. I have heard from manufacturers across 
Iowa who have urged Congress to act to increase the supply of 
affordable natural gas.
  Farming is also an extremely energy-intensive industry. Farmers and 
ranchers need large amounts of natural gas for drying crops, heating 
buildings, producing ethanol, and most importantly, as the feedstock of 
chemicals and fertilizers.
  The vast majority of the cost of nitrogen fertilizers is natural gas. 
Numerous domestic manufacturers of ammonia and nitrogen fertilizer have 
closed in recent years due to higher costs. As a result, prices for 
their products have increased. Ammonia for fall application this year 
will cost a farmer nearly $400 a ton. This is double what it was just a 
few years ago.
  This legislation will also help my constituents with their home 
heating and electricity bills. A significant portion of Iowa households 
use natural gas for their home heating. Even while the past few winters 
have been relatively mild, home heating bills have doubled and tripled 
for some families. And, while I have been an ardent supporter of the 
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that helps the less fortunate 
pay for home heating, we must also recognize that the high prices are a 
result of the tight energy supply. One way to ensure that consumers 
aren't forced to choose between heating their home and putting food on 
the table is to lower the price for natural gas.
  That is why I am eager to see this bill pass. The compromise bill 
before us will open up 8.3 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf 
for oil and gas leasing. It requires that leasing begin as soon as 
practicable but no later than 1 year after the date of enactment. This 
area is estimated to hold 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 
1.26 billion barrels of oil. This legislation will take a significant 
step to enhance our county's domestic energy supply.
  This bill is a proactive response to the rising cost of energy and 
our growing dependence on foreign sources of crude oil. It is a 
bipartisan agreement that has the support of the Gulf State Senators, 
and it deserves our full support. I encourage my colleagues to vote in 
support of this bill which will increase our energy supplies and help 
stabilize prices for our consumers, farmers, and manufacturers.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 3711, the 
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act.
  This energy bill will open more than 8.3 million acres on the Outer 
Continental Shelf for oil and gas leasing. This area is estimated to 
produce 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. I expect as new technologies are developed this estimate 
of recoverable resources will only grow.
  As oil and natural gas prices fluctuate, many Americans, especially 
Montanans, are feeling the strain of increased prices for energy use in 
their homes and businesses. The natural gas supply made available by 
this bill will heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years.
  Additionally, an increased supply of natural gas will greatly benefit 
Montana's agriculture producers who are particularly hard hit by 
skyrocketing costs of fuel and fertilizer. Natural gas is the primary 
feedstock in virtually all fertilizer manufactured in the United 
States. Increased production of domestic natural gas will help 
stabilize prices and decrease our dependence on foreign suppliers of 
natural gas such as Venezuela and Russia.
  In order to strengthen American energy security, it is our obligation 
to use our own domestic resources whenever we can. Offshore drilling 
has proven to be safe, reliable, and environmentally responsible for 
oil and gas production. While this bill is limited in scope, it is an 
important first step to increasing our energy supply to meet our 
country's demands. Lease area 181 is a phenomenal resource, and time 
after time in energy committee hearings when we ask expert witnesses 
for their opinions on how to best stabilize and lower natural gas 
prices, the answer is: Open lease area 181.
  I applaud the leadership of Chairman Domenici and the bipartisan 
groups of Senators that hammered out this compromise. I urge my fellow 
Senators to support this bill and pass this important piece of our 
energy security.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to discuss today's 
vote on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, S. 3711. I support the 
bill because it will provide a needed source of natural gas, which is a 
clear-burning fuel, and its passage is realistically calculated to have 
a positive impact on natural gas prices for American consumers and 
businesses. While voting for the bill, my preference would be for it to 
contain conservation, energy efficiency, and other measures beyond Gulf 
of Mexico development to address our Nation's growing energy needs.
  The issue of energy prices is on the top of Americans' minds and 
their list of expectations for elected officials to address. For a 
number of months, there has been discussion in the Senate of a possible 
energy bill to follow the 2005 Energy Policy Act. However, despite the 
great importance of this issue and intense interest from Senators who 
have suggested various energy proposals, we are now presented with only 
one option, a bill to allow oil and natural gas leasing in a portion of 
the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. Beyond the narrow 
scope this bill, there have also been questions raised as to the 37.5 
percent share of revenues going to the four Gulf of Mexico States--
Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas--instead of the Federal 
Treasury, and concerns about the eventual bill emanating from a House-
Senate conference.
  Unfortunately, this bill and the way it has been considered miss an 
important opportunity to build on the successes of the 2005 energy bill 
and deal with our nation's energy policy in a comprehensive manner. 
This is likely the last energy-related bill to receive floor 
consideration prior to the recess for the November elections and the 
eventual adjournment of the 109th Congress. That means we will have to 
return to the beginning of the legislative process upon the 
commencement of the 110th Congress.
  That is why I am greatly disappointed that Senators were unable to 
have amendments to this bill considered. Amendments were precluded by a

[[Page S8502]]

rarely used legislative procedure known as ``filling the tree'' which 
occurs when the majority leader offers the maximum number of amendments 
allowable under the official Senate rules in order to preclude 
amendments from other Senators.
  As I stated on the floor last night, I had hoped to have the Senate 
consider my Oil and Gas Company Antitrust Act, S. 2557, as an 
amendment. The Judiciary Committee held hearings on the issue of 
competition in the oil and gas industry and the committee voted S. 2557 
to the Senate floor on April 27, 2006. The Judiciary Committee's 
hearings considered the many factors brought about by consolidation in 
the oil and gas industry. The testimony indicated that market 
concentration is a problem in the industry. Responding to these 
concerns, my bill would prohibit individual firms from exporting 
petroleum and natural gas products with the intent of increasing prices 
or creating shortages in the market. Further, the bill would allow the 
government to prosecute cartels such as OPEC that set the price of 
petroleum and natural gas, even when the cartel members are foreign 
states. This bill would encourage vigorous competition in the oil and 
gas industry to ensure that the forces of supply and demand are working 
and that the industry is competitive.
  I also cosponsored an amendment offered by Senators Lugar and Obama 
to provide for a 4 percent annual increase in Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy, CAFE, standards. This is a rate that the National Academy of 
Sciences has determined is possible, but could be altered if the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, can prove that 
the increase is technologically unachievable, cannot maintain overall 
fleet safety or is not cost effective. The bill provides flexibility to 
domestic automakers by establishing different standards for various 
types of cars to enable domestic manufacturers that produce full lines 
of small and large vehicles to better compete with companies that only 
sell small cars. Credit would also be given for exceeding fuel economy 
standards in one type of car to help meet goals with other vehicle 
models. Finally, the bill provides tax incentives for companies to 
retool parts and assembly plants to develop advanced-technology 
vehicles.

  I note that Senator Bingaman has offered an oil conservation 
amendment No. 4692, which would save 2.5 million barrels (bbl) of oil 
per day by 2016; 7 million bbl/day by 2026; and 10 million bbl/day by 
2031. I was disappointed that the 2005 energy bill did not include a 
similar oil savings goal which would have required the administration 
to identify and implement policies reducing domestic oil consumption by 
1 million barrels per day from projections by 2013. This provision was 
based on the Carper-Specter amendment from 2002 and the Landrieu-
Specter amendment in 2003 which passed by a vote of 99 to 1. These are 
modest goals, but ones which would help focus the Federal Government in 
reducing oil imports in support of energy independence, national 
security, and lower trade deficits.
  The energy bill conference also deleted the Senate provisions 
mandating that by the year 2020 at least 10 percent of our electricity 
be produced from renewable resources. This goal was meant to help spur 
development of renewable resources, which currently account for just 
over 2 percent of U.S. electricity production. Pennsylvania is 
currently implementing a similar Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard 
with an eighteen-percent goal by 2020 of electricity production from 
renewable and other alternative energy sources.
  Despite my desire to see additional energy issues debated, I say to 
my colleagues that I am sensitive to the price and supply concerns that 
have led to the consideration of the Gulf of Mexico legislation. The 
natural gas supply and demand imbalance has caused U.S. prices to 
increase from an average of $2.20 per million BTUs during the 1994-1999 
timeframe to $8.84 per million BTUs in 2005, which is the highest 
average natural gas cost in the world. These high prices have increased 
economic pressure on American consumers and industry, particularly 
those who use natural gas to heat their homes and industrial sectors 
that rely on natural gas as a fuel and as a raw material.
  Finally, when it comes to oil prices the problem is well known. All 
Americans are facing high gasoline prices at the pump and are expected 
to have high heating oil prices this winter. With gasoline hovering 
just above $3 per gallon nationally while this bill has been debated, 
there is no better time to discuss energy issues and ensure that 
Congress is doing everything in its power to address them. While the 
2005 Energy Policy Act provided an important framework and policy 
direction from which to proceed, it did not address every facet of 
these complex issues and has not convinced the American people, nor me, 
that nothing more can be done. Therefore, I encourage the Senate to 
consider additional energy-related measures at the earliest 
opportunity.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting on S. 3711, 
the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. I regret that I cannot 
support this bill for a number of reasons.
  First, I am deeply disappointed that the majority leader used 
parliamentary maneuvers to prohibit any Senators from offering 
amendments to the bill before us today. While I did vote last week to 
allow for the consideration of this legislation, I did so with the hope 
that Senator Frist would allow both Republicans and Democrats to offer 
amendments that are important to our energy security. In fact, I am a 
cosponsor of a number of bipartisan amendments that were scheduled to 
be offered to S. 3711. But unfortunately, the bill before us today is 
the only energy bill that the Senate will debate this summer. That is 
not in the best interest of the American consumer, the economy, or our 
long-term energy security.
  I have long advocated a more balanced approach to solving our energy 
problems. Any serious solution to our energy crisis must involve 
increasing efficiency, expanding our conservation efforts, and 
committing to renewable forms of energy. Unfortunately, however, the 
sole focus of S. 3711 is oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Contrary to what supporters of the bill contend, this 
legislation does nothing in the short term to rein in the soaring fuel 
and energy prices because of the lag time it will take to extract the 
allowed oil and gas. Further, this bill redirects some of the revenues 
from Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, drilling from the Federal Treasury 
to just four States.
  For more than 25 years, most of the coastal areas of the country have 
been under either a Presidential moratorium on OCS drilling due to 
expire in 2012 or a congressional moratorium enacted annually through 
the appropriations process. Under this bill, for the first time, one 
State--Florida--is given statutory protection from offshore drilling 
through 2022. No similar statutory protection exists for the Atlantic 
or Pacific coasts.
  In fact, there are some Members of Congress who would like their 
States to be able to opt out of any future moratorium. While this 
provision is not included in S. 3711, it is included in the House-
passed bill that likely will be conferenced with S. 3711. If we adopt a 
fractured system and allow drilling in adjacent States, I am concerned 
that our fragile coastal ecosystems and economies could be threatened 
by pollution associated with drilling and unforseen incidents due to 
the drilling activity, weather, and possible terrorist attacks. Let us 
remember that our coastal waters flow freely and what happens in the 
waters off one state may have serious repercussions up and down the 
coast.
  I deeply regret that in considering the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act we were not able to debate meaningful bipartisan 
amendments to address many of the serious energy concerns facing our 
Nation. It is my fear that in the dwindling days of this session we 
will not again have the opportunity to revisit these critically 
important issues and consumers and businesses will continue to struggle 
to meet their energy needs. Mr. President, the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act truly represents a missed opportunity.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, every one of us in Congress has heard from 
our constituents about the high cost of gas. A gallon is now $3 or more 
in most parts of the country, and there is every

[[Page S8503]]

reason to believe that figure will continue to climb throughout the 
rest of the summer.
  Americans are asking their Members of Congress to help lower some of 
these costs. And we should do that. But let us not kid ourselves. This 
is a problem that was decades in the making, and short-term political 
solutions--whether it is a tax rebate or more legislation to stop price 
gouging--aren't going to be the complete answer.
  To be sure, most of these proposals would do no harm, and many would 
provide Americans some temporary relief at the pump. But in the long 
term, we can't rely solely on quick fixes designed to placate an 
anxious public.
  We need solutions designed to permanently lessen our dependence on 
foreign oil. Unfortunately, both Congress and the White House have been 
unwilling to take the politically difficult steps necessary to confront 
one of the most pressing economic and national security challenges of 
the 21st century.
  A perfect example is the bill before us. It does do some good things: 
it marginally increases the supply of oil, and it provides a financial 
boost to Gulf Coast States that could use the help.
  But fundamentally, the bill only focuses on part of the problem--our 
inadequate supply of oil. Unfortunately, increasing supply can't be our 
only answer. Even if we opened up every square inch of this country for 
drilling, America only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. With 
our own Energy Department telling us that our demand for oil will jump 
40 percent over the next 20 years and countries such as China and India 
adding millions of cars to their roads, this means that if we truly 
hope to solve this problem, we must focus on reducing demand.
  Members on both sides of the aisle have suggested some innovative 
ways to do this. Senator Lugar and I introduced the America Fuels Act 
to increase the production of homegrown biofuels. And Senator Bunning 
and I have worked on a bill to produce liquid fuels from coal.
  Unfortunately, we are not going to have a debate this week on how to 
reduce the demand for oil, because we weren't allowed to add any 
amendments to this bill that would focus on that problem. Because 
contrary to the judgment of every credible person who has examined our 
Nation's energy woes, the Republican leadership in the Senate believes 
we can solve our energy problems by just drilling more. That is not 
only dishonest; it is a disservice to our constituents who want us to 
work together to solve this crisis.
  I would like to spend a few minutes today discussing two of the 
proposals that should have been part of this energy debate--two 
proposals that could have made this bill worthwhile.
  First, we need to start producing cars that use less oil. Thirty-
three years ago, this Nation faced an energy crisis that affected every 
American. In the shadow of a war against Israel, the Arab nations of 
OPEC chose to embargo shipments of crude oil to the West. The shocks 
were felt in national economies worldwide. Washington lawmakers 
responded by creating daylight savings time and a national speed limit. 
A new Department of Energy and a Strategic Petroleum Reserve was 
established. And Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy--or 
CAFE--standards, the first-ever requirements to reduce petroleum 
consumption in the vehicles we drive.
  As a result, the gas mileage of cars doubled from 14 miles per gallon 
in 1976 to 27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE saves us about 3 
million barrels of oil per day, making it among the most successful 
energy-saving measures ever adopted. But that decade's worth of fuel 
consumption improvements ended more than 20 years ago, because CAFE 
standards are the same today as they were in 1985 27.5 mpg for cars.
  To address this problem, I have joined with Senator Lugar and a 
bipartisan coalition of senators to propose the Fuel Economy Reform 
Act, which we have also filed as an amendment to the OCS bill.
  This amendment would establish regular, continual, and incremental 
progress in fuel economy, but still preserve the expertise and 
flexibility of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--or 
NHTSA--to determine how to meet those targets.
  Under this proposal, CAFE standards would increase by 4 percent every 
year unless NHTSA can justify a deviation in that rate by proving that 
the increase is either technologically unachievable, would materially 
reduce the safety of automobiles, or is not cost effective. For too 
long, the presumption has been that the public would have to prove to 
the auto industry why it should raise fuel economy standards. This 
proposal would flip that presumption by asking the auto industry to 
prove why it can't raise those standards.
  Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs for 
10 years, we would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--an 
astounding 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just 
$2.50 per gallon, consumers would save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. 
By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million 
metric tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent gases.
  And yet, auto executives are right when they say that transitioning 
to more fuel-efficient automobiles would be costly at a time of sagging 
profits and stiff competition, and that's precisely why the Federal 
Government shouldn't let the industry face these challenges on their 
own.
  The Fuel Economy Act provides tax incentives to retool parts and 
assembly plants. But we should do more than that. We need to help the 
Big Three automakers with one of their largest expenses, namely, 
retiree health care costs, which ran almost $6.7 billion just last 
year. For GM, these health care costs represent $1,500 of the price of 
every GM car that is made, which is more than what they pay for the 
steel.
  To that end, I also have filed an amendment to this bill based on the 
Health Care for Hybrids Act that I introduced last year. That proposal 
would set up a voluntary program in which automakers could choose to 
receive Federal financial assistance towards their retiree health care 
costs. In return, the automakers would be required to reinvest these 
savings into developing fuel-efficient vehicles.
  With the American consumer demanding more hybrid vehicles--and that 
demand currently being filled by foreign automakers--this proposal 
could jumpstart the Big Three to commercialize new technology. More 
American hybrid cars also ensure that there is competition in this 
growing market, and would help keep car prices affordable.
  If we had adopted these two proposals decades ago, when the call for 
energy independence was first issued in this country, today we wouldn't 
be nearly as beholden to the whims of oil-rich dictators and surging 
gas prices. And if we don't take these steps now, we will someday look 
back on today's $3 per gallon gasoline as the good old days. At that 
point, no amount of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf will solve 
our problems.
  We could have taken these commonsense steps now to reduce the demand 
for oil. We have the need, we have the technology, we have the 
resources--but with this bill, we refused to find the political will to 
get it done. We still owe it to the American public to find that will.
  Unfortunately, this bill sends the wrong message. Instead of making 
tough political decisions about how to reduce our insatiable demand for 
oil, this bill continues to lull the American people into thinking that 
we can drill our way out of our energy problems. We can't, and for that 
reason, I plan to vote against this bill.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, yesterday, while the Senate was voting for 
cloture on S. 3711, a bill that could ultimately lead to exploration on 
the Outer Continental Shelf of the Georges Bank in the North Atlantic 
Ocean, the Maine lobster industry gathered on a picturesque fishing 
pier in Maine to launch the ``Certified Maine Lobster'' initiative that 
could bring an added value to the State's $300 million lobster 
industry. My State accounts for 80 percent of lobster landings and is 
known for its lobster boats, lobster shacks, lobster buoys and lobster 
dinners along its scenic coastline. As a matter of fact, the Maine 
Lobstermen Association was formed to fight OCS drilling off the coast 
of Maine.
  It is because of its very pristine value that fisheries and tourism 
are important economic engines for the State

[[Page S8504]]

and I cannot stand by and let these natural resources be compromised 
through exploration and drilling. Last year, Maine lobstermen hauled in 
more than 60 million pounds for a boat price of $296 million.
  While supporters of, S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act 
of 2006, say that this bill is only about the Gulf of Mexico, while at 
the same time stating that the bill is the first step toward opening up 
more areas to production. One supporter was even quoted as saying, 
``The goal is to maximize over time the coastal production of America 
from a venue of stagnation.'' This does not sound like the bill 
pertains only to the Gulf of Mexico, as its supporters have stated and 
this has rightfully alarmed the people of my State, many who make their 
living directly or indirectly from the sea. Scientists, economists, and 
fishermen have worked for 20 to 30 years to restore the magnificent 
fish runs off the New England coast. To them, lifting the moratorium 
and allowing oil and gas drilling on the 185-mile-long broad, shallow 
and productive fishing ground of Georges Bank that stretches from Nova 
Scotia to Cape Cod is unconscionable.
  As chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Fisheries and the 
Coast Guard, the prospect of drilling in the Gulf of Maine and Georges 
Bank and risking New England's fisheries is unacceptable to me as well. 
I, along with Senator Menendez, wanted to offer a simple amendment to 
ensure that drilling within 200 miles of the coast of Maine and other 
coastal States would continue to be prohibited until 2022--the same 
protection as is given the State of Florida in this bill.
  However, without following the usual amendment process, there can be 
no assurances that Maine's coast will be protected when this 
legislation is approved by a conference or that the Joint Ocean 
Commission's recommendation to convert current OCS revenues for ocean 
fisheries research will occur, and without those assurances, I have not 
supported moving forward.
  I am extremely disappointed that the decision was made to prevent 
amendments during debate that ignores the need to address conservation. 
We were told it would take a week to get through amendments that would 
have been offered. Well, this bill was brought up 1 week ago, and, 
instead of having true and fair debates on conservation amendments this 
past week and up or down votes, we have spent it on moving to cloture 
and getting to final passage.
  I believe that considering the leasing of additional OCS waters for 
oil and gas drilling should only be done with utmost caution and 
deliberation, and at the same time, I believe that our national energy 
policy should seriously focus resources on the development of renewable 
energy and an expansion of energy efficiencies as part of a national 
energy policy.
  I have filed an amendment to this bill that is also my stand alone 
bill, S. 3628, the EXTEND Energy Efficiency Incentives Act of 2006, 
that would extend the EPAct 2005 energy efficiency tax incentives until 
2010--they currently expire at the end of next year having been 
shortened by the House in conference. Experts have calculated that, if 
fully implemented, the EXTEND Act will, by 2010, save 7 trillion cubic 
feet, Tcf, of natural gas while the Gulf of Mexico drilling bill before 
us would extract 5.8 Tcf by 2010. We simply cannot continue to drill 
ourselves out of this problem, and threaten our natural resources--we 
can do it with bold ideas that save much more than we can get from 
drilling.
  A reliance on only fossil fuels retards progress in developing a 
sustainable and comprehensive 21st century energy policy. Furthermore, 
the recent fluctuation of the world oil and natural gas markets 
indicates that this commodity is not a reliable long-term energy 
source. There are uncertainties involved with fossil fuels that 
threatens the energy security of the United States and it is important 
that our nation recognize the situation and develop a diverse, 
sustainable and progressive energy plan through a market basket of 
fossil fuels, renewable energy and energy efficiencies.
  Senator Feinstein and I were not allowed to offer our 10 in 10 bill 
as an amendment to this bill to require U.S. automakers to increase 
their average CAFE standards by 10 miles per gallon in 10 years. The 
bill would save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2025, the same 
amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf; and 420 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, the equivalent 
of taking 90 million cars--or 75 million cars and light trucks--off the 
road in one year. Again, we can save rather than drill.
  Exxon Mobil, the world's largest traded oil company, just reported a 
36 percent gain in 2nd earnings. Exxon has prospered because of the 
high gasoline prices bolstered by the demand for supply. Increasing 
CAFE standards will decrease demand, lower prices and begin to put some 
of this money in the pockets of consumers rather than the large oil 
companies, who have increased output and taken advantage of the 
increase in oil prices, which remain over $70 a barrel.
  The small increase from the latest NHTSA rule for CAFE standards for 
SUVs does little to save gasoline and only gives lipservice to an issue 
that deserves more serious consideration. Even a modest increase of 
only five miles per gallon in the fuel efficiency of our domestic 
automotive fleet would save approximately 23 billion gallons of 
gasoline each year and reduce oil imports by 14 percent.
  This percentage is more than the 11 percent Venezuela provides for 
U.S. oil imports. The GAO reports that the U.S. is inadequately 
prepared to face the possibility of President Hugo Chavez' threat to 
cut off its oil imports to the U.S. The GAO reports that this 
disruption would cause an increase of $11 per barrel. So we are 
allowing Chavez to put us over a diplomatic oil barrel, so to speak. 
Why are we taking this risk with the trust of the American people and 
the economy when there are options that can be put in place to make us 
independent of Venezuela's oil--and political maneuvering?
  Currently, the combined fleet average for all automobiles, SUVs, 
light trucks and passenger cars, is approximately 25 miles per gallon--
that is down from the peak of 26.2 miles per gallon in 1987. The 
Feinstein-Snowe-Inouye-Chafee 10 in 10 bill would increase that 
combined fleet average to 35 miles per gallon by Model Year 2017--or 
ten mpgs 10 years from today.
  Also, according to the 2002 National Academy of Sciences Report on 
CAFE, adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel 
economy standards. The NAS concluded that automakers can meet higher 
CAFE standards with existing technologies. We have the technologies 
today to increase our fuel economy standards. We have hybrids, more 
efficient engine technology, improved transmission technology, and 
composite materials that reduce the weight of the vehicle will all 
increase fuel economy standards without sacrificing safety.
  I fear that the Senate conferees will come back from a conference 
with many of the provisions in the House bill, the Deep Ocean Resources 
Act, H.R 4761, a bill that replaces the moratorium that currently 
protects most of the nation's coastline from oil and natural gas 
drilling and develops a leasing system that would provide the option 
for states to allow drilling within 50 miles of their coastlines and 
allow drilling throughout the OCS beyond 100 miles. Currently, the 
moratorium protects the coastal area up to 200 miles out.
  In passing this OCS drilling only bill today, the Senate has created 
lost opportunities that could have addressed how much we could save--
along with how much we can drill. This is what the consumers want to 
hear--that we are addressing every avenue possible to keep money in 
their pockets the next time they go to the gas pump or pay their 
electricity bill or purchase heating oil for the coming winter. The 
Senate has let the consumers down once again. And, the bill does 
nothing to protect Maine's tourist and fishing economies and its 3,500 
miles of coastline.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, once again, this body has missed a 
chance to pass responsible, effective legislation responding to the 
very real and very pressing energy needs of this country. While there 
may be pieces of S. 3711 that have merit, I did not support cloture and 
I will not vote in favor of the final bill.
  I voted to allow the Senate to consider S. 3711 in the hope that we 
might

[[Page S8505]]

have a serious discussion of the bill, including debating and voting on 
amendments to improve it. While the bill only addresses one part of our 
energy needs, it could have provided an opportunity for the Senate to 
finally address a broad range of energy issues. Unfortunately, Senators 
were prevented from offering amendments, so there was no opportunity to 
address, for example, efficiency, conservation, renewable fuels, or 
even global warming. The result is another missed opportunity to pass 
the comprehensive energy legislation that our constituents are looking 
for.
  In addition to opposing the flawed process for consideration of S. 
3711, I have grave concerns about the fiscal implications of the 
legislation. This bill will redirect billions of dollars in Federal 
revenues to just four States. While I agree that we have a 
responsibility to ensure that Federal dollars are going to important 
activities like protecting and restoring coastal wetlands, I do not 
believe that doing so requires creation of a new entitlement for a 
handful of States. If enacted, S. 3711 will have massive long-term and 
negative consequences. For example, in 2017, the loss to the taxpayers 
of the country is estimated to be over $590 million a year, jumping to 
over $1.2 billion per year in 2022. Adding it all up, you get a total 
likely loss of over $170 billion over 60 years. I am not prepared to 
support such a massive drain on the Federal Treasury for the benefit of 
a few States and I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 3711.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I believe that as part of a balanced 
energy policy, we need to expand domestic oil and gas production where 
it has local support and can do so in an environmentally sound way. I 
think the bill before the Senate meets that test, and that is why I am 
voting for it. However, I want to make it clear that New Yorkers do not 
support drilling off Long Island, or in the Finger Lakes, or in the 
Great Lakes, and I will vehemently oppose any bill that would open any 
of these areas up for drilling. With that in mind, I am concemed about 
conferencing the Senate bill with the House bill, but I have been 
assured by Senator Reid that he will oppose efforts to expand drilling 
beyond the areas included in the Senate bill. In addition, I am 
disappointed that Senator Frist chose to block all amendments to this 
bill. Expanding domestic supplies is only a partial solution to our 
energy problems. It is even more important that we take steps to 
increase energy efficiency and to expand production of renewable 
energy. I filed amendments to this bill to accomplish those goals, but 
was not afforded the opportunity to offer them. I will continue to urge 
Senator Frist to schedule time to consider these and other bills that 
offer a more comprehensive long-term solution to our Nation's energy 
problems.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am in opposition to the bill before us 
that opens up new areas in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling. 
I don't dispute that the oil and natural gas that may be harvested as a 
result of this legislation could be useful, and I would support 
drilling from some new sources--if the value of doing so is not 
outweighed by the risks to our environment and economies. But it is not 
a solution to our energy problems.
  Here we are, yet again, with a so-called ``energy'' plan that only 
offers one plan for our energy security crisis: drilling. That is not 
much of a plan. That is not going to free our foreign policy. That is 
not going to lower prices at the pump.
  We consume a quarter of the oil in the world, but we have less than 2 
percent of the world's reserves--that 2 percent includes the areas 
under debate today. If we tapped all the reserves in Alaska, the Gulf 
of Mexico and off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, we would increase 
output by 2 million barrels a day by 2020. Yet our consumption is 
expected to rise to 25 million and world consumption to 110 million, so 
the impact on price and energy security would be minimal. Drops in the 
bucket.
  We need a real energy policy, a real path toward energy security. For 
instance, we can make the biggest difference and have the most 
immediate impact by reducing oil consumption where we use it most: the 
transportation sector. That's why I have proposed four steps to begin 
the transition to alternative fuels and make us more energy secure: (1) 
100 percent of cars running on alternative fuels; (2) 50 percent of 
major gas stations selling it; (3) 25 percent farm-grown fuel; (4) 1 
mile per gallon more fuel efficient each year.
  And if we are going to drill in new areas, we need to make sure we do 
it right, and not bypass the appropriately careful process and 
environmental reviews that are required by the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act. The leadership put this bill before the Senate and said: 
``take it or leave it.'' This bill could have been much better, and I 
fear that the bill that will come back from the House will be much 
worse.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on final passage 
of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I will be voting 
against passage because I believe this bill is poor energy policy, 
irresponsible fiscal policy, and faulty environmental policy.
  The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act is a misnomer. The bill will 
not offer energy security to the United States. The United States 
consumes 25 percent of the world's energy and yet we have less than 3 
percent of the world's oil supplies. While I agree that we must 
increase the domestic supply of oil and natural gas, this cannot be our 
Nation's only approach. Yet it is the only approach offered in S. 3711, 
and it is the only approach that the administration and Republican 
leadership continue to propose as our Nation's energy solution. Our 
Nation's energy security depends on reducing our dependency on fossil 
fuels through increased energy efficiency, greater investment in 
renewable energy, and development of alternative fuels to replace oil. 
But this bill does nothing to increase fuel efficiency standards for 
automobiles, create a national renewable energy standard for 
electricity, or promote energy efficiency or renewable energy. In fact, 
Federal investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy continues 
to decline. It is imperative for our Nation's energy and economic 
security that an energy policy that increases supply must be married to 
meaningful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy. This 
is the energy policy that our Nation deserves, but it is not the one 
before us today.
  S. 3711 is also not sound fiscal policy. This legislation would 
mandate that almost 38 percent of revenue from Federal resources 
generated by new leases in the Gulf of Mexico be given to four States--
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. These are revenues that 
currently would be provided to the U.S. Treasury for the benefit of the 
Nation as a whole. Reducing revenue to the Treasury means that we, as a 
nation, will have fewer resources available in the future to respond to 
a call for help should there be another devastating natural disaster or 
terrorism attack. Our Nation faces a deficit of $8.4 trillion due to 
this administration's poor fiscal management and irresponsible tax 
policies. Large Federal budget deficits going forward are bad for the 
economy. They reduce national saving, which depresses future standards 
of living. Reducing Federal receipts and increasing the budget deficit 
at the same time as the baby boom generation retires will put increased 
strains on the Federal budget and makes no sense. This bill, if passed, 
will cost the Federal Treasury billions of dollars. I am not alone in 
my opposition to this legislation; taxpayer advocates share my concerns 
over its fiscal impact.
  In the early 1950s, Congress considered the allocation of revenues 
between the Federal Government and States resulting from drilling in 
our Nation's waters. During the debate last week on S. 3711, I quoted 
from a speech that Senator Truman gave at the National Convention 
Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action on May 17, 1952. 
President Truman stated in this speech, ``The minerals that lie under 
the sea off the coasts of this country belong to the Federal 
Government''----that is, to all the people of this country. The 
ownership has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the 
United States. Those rights may be worth as much as somewhere between 
$40 billion and $100 billion.
  If we back down on our determination to hold these rights for all the 
people, we will act to rob them of this great national asset. That is 
just what the oil lobby wants. They want us to

[[Page S8506]]

turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States, where the powerful 
private oil interests hope to exploit it to suit themselves.
  Twice President Truman vetoed quitclaim legislation passed by 
Congress to turn these resources over to the coastal States. In his May 
29, 1952, veto statement, President Truman said ``[T]he Congress should 
provide for the disposition of the revenues obtained from oil and gas 
leases on the undersea lands. S.J. Res. 20, as introduced by Senators 
O'Mahoney and Anderson, would have granted the adjacent coastal States 
37\1/2\ percent of the revenues from submerged lands of the marginal 
sea. I would have not object to such a provision, which is similar to 
existing provisions under which the State receive 37\1/2\ percent of 
the revenues from the Federal Government's oil-producing public lands 
within their borders.'' In his veto statement, it is clear that 
President Truman did not support giving coastal States revenue from the 
Outer Continental Shelf.

  In the end, the coastal States received much more generous 
compensation than the provision offered by Senators O'Mahoney and 
Anderson and President Truman. When President Eisenhower signed the 
Submerged Lands Act, the coastal States were given title to and 
ownership of the lands beneath the territorial seas and the right to 
manage the natural resources within the States' boundaries. This law 
gave the States 100 percent of the revenue from coastal drilling in 
State waters. Importantly, the law affirmed the Federal Government's 
ownership in lands seaward of the State boundaries. Revenues from Outer 
Continental Shelf drilling belong to the American people in all 50 
States. The legislation that the Senate is considering today violates 
this pact with the American people, and denies the Federal Treasury and 
American people of essential revenue to address the needs of our Nation 
it violates. It also is contrary to our national motto, E pluribus 
unum, from many one. Revenues from Federal resources should, and must, 
benefit all Americans.
  Lastly, I believe this bill is not responsible environmental policy. 
The bill threatens our coastal ecosystems with the risk of pollution 
and oilspills which will harm the economies and families that rely on 
these resources. Unfortunately, the Senate is likely to pass this bill. 
This will pave the way for the Senate bill to be conferenced with H.R. 
4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. This legislation would lift 
the moratorium on offshore drilling for all of our coastlines the 
Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska--and, it would allow 
drilling for oil and gas in coastal national parks and marine 
sanctuaries. This would put our coastal communities at risk to 
oilspills, onshore damage of sensitive coastal habitat, and air and 
water pollution.
  Oil is extremely toxic and our current cleanup methods are incapable 
of removing more than a small fraction of the oil spilled into our 
marine waters. Offshore drilling platforms and pipelines spilled 1.8 
million gallons of oil in U.S. waters from 1990 to 1999, for an average 
of 500 gallons a day, which causes irreversible harm.
  Narragansett Bay and our coast support vital commercial fisheries, 
tourism important to our economy, and an abundance of wildlife. Our 
economy and environment are vulnerable to oilspills. My State remembers 
the devastating effects that the North Cape oil-spill had in southern 
Rhode Island. Oil spread throughout a large area of Block Island Sound, 
including Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge, resulting in the 
closure of a 250-square mile area of the sound for fishing. There were 
hundreds of oiled birds in the weeks following the spill and large 
numbers of dead lobsters, surf clams, and sea stars were found on area 
beaches. There was also the World Prodigy oilspill off Newport, RI, 
which spread over 123 square miles, killing marine life and closing 
beaches and fishing grounds throughout Narragansett Bay. The spill hit 
during a peak spawning period. Eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish 
lobsters, quahogs, tautog, and others--were exposed to the oil as they 
floated at the surface.
  Before opening new lands to development and denying the American 
people of a great asset and Federal revenues, we need to take 
meaningful action to reduce our consumption and increase renewable 
energy supplies. The only way to achieve greater energy independence is 
to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels overall. This is the energy 
policy that our Nation deserves, and this is the policy I will continue 
to fight for. I urge the Senate to reject S. 3711, and instead, pursue 
the vehicles and rule choices and the clean EDGE legislation that will 
set America on a true road to energy independence.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today 
in support of legislation that expands access to domestically produced 
oil and natural gas by opening new areas for exploration in the Gulf of 
Mexico.
  Earlier this spring, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee took action on a similar bill introduced by Senators Bingaman 
and Domenici. That bill provided the framework for today's action by 
garnering an important, early consensus on the need to bring on-line 
additional gas and oil reserves. As a member of the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, I supported moving that earlier version 
through the Energy Committee with the goal of lowering energy input 
costs for agriculture producers, and manufacturers.
  This bill strikes an appropriate balance by focusing on Outer 
Continental Shelf lands located in relative close proximity to the 
existing infrastructure of natural gas gathering and distribution lines 
necessary to deliver oil and gas to consumers. When compared to a 
competing version passed by the House of Representatives that throws 
long-standing environmental provisions and drilling moratoriums out the 
window, the Senate bill is a reasoned and responsible bill. I do, 
however, share the concerns of many other Senators that the final 
legislation cannot include many of the damaging provisions included in 
the House of Representatives-passed bill. I will do my best to convince 
my colleagues in the coming weeks that the best, quickest path toward 
bringing more than 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to market is 
through a conference report that maintains the key aspects of the 
Senate bill.
  I also want to let my colleagues know that I am determined to ensure 
that a final bill include additional funds for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, as well as wildlife habitat funding through the 
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Account. I introduced an 
amendment cosponsored by Senator Lincoln that seeks to use a portion of 
the royalties, rents, and bonus bids from Lease Sale 181 South after 
2017 for this important purpose. Should Congress make the determination 
to direct a portion of the royalties from these Outer Continental Shelf 
lands for the restoration of lands from the Gulf of Mexico producing 
States, then those revenues should be sufficient to increase the amount 
dedicated from these leases to the 46 other States of this Nation.
  Again, I rise in support of S. 3711 and will vote in favor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, during this hot, sultry, high-gas-price 
summer, I urge the American people to take a minute to observe the U.S. 
Senate. Take just a few minutes from the daily challenges of coping 
with the kids, driving them from camp to soccer grounds, going to 
church, worrying about how to cobble together enough money to manage 
even a brief family outing, and watching nightly news coverage of the 
Middle East imploding to focus, just briefly, on what is happening, or 
rather not happening, on this Senate floor.
  Instead of working to pass necessary legislation like the 11 
remaining appropriations bills, which are now jammed up and waiting for 
movement like the cars in a typical rush hour on the Washington 
beltway, we are engaged in yet another leadership-driven message dance. 
These fandangoes feature bills which are meant to drive home political 
points to the unsuspecting American voter.
  The latest entry in this catalog of message bills is S. 3711, the 
Gulf of Mexico Energy bill, a bill cobbled together by the majority and 
then presented to the full Senate to vote on without opportunity for 
amendments.
  To anyone in these United States who is tempted to swallow the line 
that this sham bill now on the Senate floor is a solution to high 
petroleum and natural gas prices, I say think

[[Page S8507]]

again. Desperate politicians eager to invent a vote which can serve as 
the 30-second add solution to the hot-button issue of high energy 
prices are out to hoodwink the public again, this time with this very 
bad idea.
  Well, this Senator is very weary of message bills that lie to the 
public. Here is the plain truth about the U.S. supply of oil and the 
world supply of oil. We are running out, and we will reach that peak in 
oil in the not-too-distant future. U.S. production peaked 30 years ago. 
That is why the U.S. imports two thirds of the oil it consumes, and 
that consumption is about 20 million barrels per day. As far as U.S. 
supplies go, if the United States were, for some reason, suddenly 
dependent on only our own supply, we would hit empty very soon. That is 
the cold, hard truth. There isn't much oil left to pump in these United 
States, and pumping it will not make one iota of difference in the 
price of gasoline, because oil is a global commodity and is bought and 
sold on the international market.
  After the oil is gone, the fuel of choice is another finite source 
natural gas. Who leads the race in that new energy game? None other 
than nations such as Russia and Iran, because they are the top two 
global natural gas reserve holders. If that makes you sleep well at 
night or suggests to you the emergence of lower energy prices, I would 
have to say I beg to disagree.
  The only course of action which will lead to lower, more reliable, 
more secure energy and energy prices is a strong national commitment to 
investing in greater energy efficiency and developing alternate energy 
sources--and the sooner we get started the better.
  The President likes to say that the solution to high gas prices is to 
build more refineries. I do not disagree that it would be useful to 
build more refineries because we have not built any since the 1970s. 
However that is not a short-term solution, nor is it a simplistic, 
long-term solution to high gas prices. It takes too long to build 
refineries for refineries to be a short-term solution. And we are 
running out of oil, so refineries cannot be a long-term solution.
  The solution, of course, is the development of a variety of 
alternative energy sources. Crude oil currently costs something like 
$74 per barrel, and that price will certainly go up. Nuclear power 
plants can be hazardous, especially in this age of terrorism. Clean 
coal liquefaction technologies are promising because the good ole U.S. 
of A. is by far the global leader in proven coal supplies. Remember 
that half of all U.S. electric power comes from coal. But, there has 
been no real robust commitment to clean coal technologies, industrial 
gasification, and coal liquefaction by this administration.
  Yet this bill--this message bill--this bumper sticker solution to 
American distress over high gas prices is a pathetic attempt to foist a 
fake promise upon the people, which the American people ought not 
swallow. It will do little or nothing to bring down gas prices or 
natural gas costs. It is also just very bad legislation. Let me tell 
you why.
  This proposed offshore drilling in Florida waters is not worth the 
environmental risk. The total amount of oil which could be extracted 
from this new drilling will equal around 55 days of American 
consumption at current usage rates. Consider also the time it will take 
to develop this region--to deploy the rigs, pump, refine, and transport 
these products, and anyone who cogitates for just 30 seconds will 
clearly see that this drilling will do nothing to bring down gas prices 
in the near term.
  Furthermore, the generous revenue sharing plan aimed at buying the 
votes of coastal State Senators could well have an impact on our future 
Federal funding needs. The robust payments to just four Gulf-producing 
States which will not be offset by the oil and gas generated by this 
new offshore drilling could cause holes in the Federal treasury which 
would impact programs that would benefit States like West Virginia.
  This bill is a bad deal for State and 45 other States, which can 
offer alternative fuels to blunt our dependence on oil. We are not 
allowed to consider amendments to this bill. A yes vote for this bill 
does nothing to help coal, ethanol, solar, and wind technologies 
because it propagates the myth of continued dependence on oil and gas. 
A yes vote lies to the American public, because it says Joe Citizen can 
continue economically drive a gas powered automobile if only we drill a 
few more holes in the fragile gulf coast shoreline.
  A yes vote on this bill says to the American public, don't bother to 
increase energy efficiency or produce alternative fuels. It says don't 
push the powers that be to stop gauging and start producing 
transportation that does not depend on a dwindling supply of scarce and 
ever increasingly expensive oil.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 5 p.m. is equally divided. The 
minority side currently has 53 minutes, and the majority side has 25 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if somebody comes, I will be willing to 
enter into a different consent agreement, if somebody comes seeking the 
floor on the other side, but I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes as in morning business but with the time to be running as it 
normally would.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAYTON. 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. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I 
would have offered to the energy legislation that is before us. It 
should be my right as a Senator to offer such an amendment. It should 
be the right of any Senator to offer an amendment to legislation 
pending before the Senate.
  Unfortunately, because of parliamentary maneuvering by the majority 
leader, Senators, including myself, will not be able to offer our 
amendments to this offshore drilling legislation. In the Senate 
vernacular, ``the tree has been filled'' with such gimmicks as changing 
the bill's effective date and then changing it back again. Those 
gimmicks restrict this legislation to being nothing more than a special 
interest boondoggle for the oil and natural gas industries, and for 
four Gulf States that would, for the first time, get a direct cut of 
that bonanza.
  It is one thing to limit debate on a measure, as the Senate has 
chosen to do in this instance, and even though I voted against cloture, 
I can understand the desire of over 60 colleagues to proceed; but to 
prevent additional amendments related to our country's domestic energy 
production and consumption is uncalled for and unwise.
  It makes a mockery of the Republican leader's promise on May 1 of 
this year, 3 months ago, that the Senate would vote this year on 
comprehensive energy legislation. His exact words were:

       We [the Republican leadership] have presented a strong 
     package that will give consumers relief at the pump and help 
     bring down the high cost of gas. I'm hopeful that we will 
     vote on this package in the coming days.

  As we all know, the remaining days in this Congress are coming and 
going. In fact, they are almost gone. If the Senate were going to take 
up the Republican energy package or a Democratic energy package or, 
best of all, an American energy package, this would seem to be our 
chance to do so. Instead, we get a special interest boondoggle, and we 
are not even allowed to offer amendments that could make it the 
comprehensive energy bill the Republican leader promised us.
  This bill's authors have entitled it the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act of 2006, but that title says our future energy security is 
more of the same--more of the same energy sources at ever higher 
prices, with ever greater profits to the major oil and gas companies, 
and, for the first time, with 37.5 percent of the public revenues going 
to

[[Page S8508]]

only four Gulf States. Under this legislation, 50 percent of the public 
revenues would go into the Federal Treasury, 12.5 percent would go to 
all of the States under the LAWCON program. As I said before, 37.5 
percent would go directly to the four States--Louisiana, Texas, 
Alabama, and Mississippi.
  This virtually unprecedented arrangement is a great deal for those 
four States. No wonder their eight Senators strongly support it. I have 
to begrudgingly congratulate the Senators from Louisiana, Texas, 
Alabama, and Mississippi. They have done an excellent job in writing 
this legislation to benefit their States. So I certainly understand 
their support for this brand of revenuesharing.

  What I don't understand is why the other 92 of us would agree to it. 
The offshore waters of the Gulf Coast belong to all Americans, as do 
the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Great Lakes, and other national 
resources. This is a terrible precedent--to allow a few States to 
benefit at the expense of the rest simply because of their proximity to 
a national resource--not their ownership of it, just the proximity to 
it. If Congress opens this door, watch for the stampede of parochial 
claims for a cut of every other Federal natural resource.
  Also sadly lacking from this bill is any kind of windfall profits tax 
on the major oil companies that are its principal beneficiaries. It is 
appalling that, at a time when Americans are paying $3 or more a gallon 
for gasoline and the oil giants such as ExxonMobil are enjoying record 
high profits, there is no attempt in this bill to recapture any of 
those profits for the American people or for the public purposes that 
would benefit them.
  This legislation opens a public resource, gift wraps most of its 
value, and hand delivers billions and billions of those dollars to 
special corporate interests at the expense of the American citizens in 
46 States. How the elected representatives of those 46 States could 
allow this to happen is astonishing. I hope the residents of those 
States will demand some answers. Those citizens should also ask why 
nothing in this so-called Energy Security Act provides any energy 
security at all. At best, it will provide a relatively small additional 
supply of oil and natural gas for a relatively few years starting, at 
best, several years from now, supplies for which consumers will likely 
pay even higher prices than they are today.
  Someone once said the definition of insanity is to keep doing the 
same thing and hope for a different result. If so, this continuation of 
a national energy strategy is insane. We cannot produce our way to 
energy self-sufficiency when consumers have no alternatives to those 
traditional energy sources. This bill does nothing to provide Americans 
with any of those energy alternatives--not today, tomorrow, or 10 years 
from now. None of us in the Senate are being given the opportunity to 
offer any of those alternatives to this bill.
  Mr. President, I have introduced legislation that would encourage the 
additional production and use of biofuels, specifically ethanol and 
biodiesel. My amendment to this bill would help give more Americans a 
choice every time they fill up their fuel tanks between gasoline or 
diesel and lower cost alternatives, such as E-85, comprised of 85 
percent ethanol, biodiesel made out of soybeans, and other agricultural 
commodities, and even out of animal renderings.
  These energy sources are not buried under miles of water or ocean 
floor located miles and miles away. They are right in our agricultural 
States. They are renewable every year. They are cleaner burning than 
traditional fossil-based fuels and they provide additional boosts to 
farmers in rural communities around the Nation, where local economies 
depend upon a healthy agricultural economy. They boost the market 
prices in the marketplace for those commodities, meaning they lower 
taxpayer subsidies. It is a win-win-win for all Americans; yet we are 
not allowed to offer these additional kinds of incentives and expansion 
of these and other energy fuels, conservation, and other ways that we 
can truly enhance our energy security.
  For those reasons, I oppose this legislation and, most of all, I 
oppose the tactics used in this bill to prevent it from becoming what 
it should be, what the American people need and certainly deserve, 
which is comprehensive energy legislation that will provide real energy 
security for our country, lower cost energy supplies now and for years 
to come.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to congratulate 
the Senate in advance of a vote at 5 o'clock which is going to 
demonstrate the Senate at its best--a bipartisan accomplishment of 
extraordinary importance, particularly to the area of the country that 
the occupant of the chair represents. I know Senator Vitter has for 
many years wanted to achieve something related to the gulf coast 
deepwater exploration issue that would benefit his State. We are on the 
verge of having that remarkable success.
  Particular kudos to Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Energy 
Committee, who was absolutely indispensable in pulling together the 
various elements that did come together for this bipartisan 
accomplishment; Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, who protected the 
coastline of his State while still helping to lead the way in a 
direction that allowed this compromise to go forward; Senator Landrieu 
for delivering a significant number of Democrats who were, of course, 
needed in order to make this a bipartisan proposal; and to all of the 
Gulf Coast States as well as all the other Senators whose States will 
indeed benefit from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  As I said, this is the Senate at its finest. I congratulate all those 
who have been integral parts of bringing about this important 
bipartisan achievement.
  I yield the floor.
  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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this truly is going to be quite a vote 
in just a few minutes as the Senate has decided to have a vote at 5 
o'clock on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Independence Act.
  Mr. President, you have been particularly helpful in putting this 
bill together, along with other gulf coast Senators.
  I wanted to come to the floor to thank so many people who have helped 
to make this bill possible. It was many months in the working, many, 
many negotiations and meetings that went on to produce a bill that is 
not only going to be of extraordinary help to the great State of 
Louisiana and to all the Gulf Coast States as we try to restore our 
coastline, restore our marshlands, stop the erosion, and build the 
levees and the floodgates that are so imperative and critical to the 
protection of our people, our communities, large and small, but it is 
also a bill that is so important for this Nation as we seek to increase 
the supply of oil and gas produced in this country so we don't have to 
rely on oil and gas coming in from unfriendly and unstable places.
  It took a tremendous amount of work for this bill to be put together. 
I begin by thanking particularly Senator Domenici who, as the chairman 
of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for many years, has 
served as ranking member for some of those years, has led on the issue 
of energy in almost every aspect, trying to help us increase supply, 
diversify supply, and come together on conservation measures that are 
important for the Nation.
  I also thank Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. Without his 
support, we would not have been able to get the Democratic votes 
necessary to join in a bipartisan spirit to provide revenuesharing for 
the Gulf Coast States, to establish for the first time a real 
conservation royalty for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and in a 
great way contribute to the reduction

[[Page S8509]]

of the deficit by encouraging production where we can get new 
production, therefore generating more revenues for the Nation. Senator 
Harry Reid is from Nevada, a State that has produced great natural 
resources for the country. He understands the balance in this policy.
  I thank Senator Bill Frist and Senator Mitch McConnell. Senator 
Domenici is in the Senate now. He is scheduled to speak, so I will wrap 
up. I thank Senator Bill Frist and Senator Mitch McConnell for helping 
to pull the Senate together to keep us working on this good, balanced 
compromise.
  I thank the Senators from the gulf coast, of course, including the 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Louisiana, as well as Senator Lott, 
Senator Shelby, Senator Sessions, Senator Cochran, Senator Hutchison, 
and Senator Cornyn. None of this would have been possible without the 
gulf coast Senators coming together and agreeing how to share the 
money, how to proceed. I thank the Senators from Florida, Senator 
Martinez and Senator Nelson, as well.
  There is a list of staffers I will have printed in the Record, 
starting with my own staff, Janet Woodka, legislative director; Jason 
Matthews; Tom Michels; Elizabeth Craddock; and Ron Faucheaux; a list of 
staffers representing all the Senators who were instrumental in the 
passing of this bill. I thank them very much, particularly Frank 
Macciorola with Senator Domenici and the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee who led this effort with Bruce Evans. It would not 
have been possible without the help of Libby Jarvis from Senator 
Frist's office.
  The staff have put in the long hours and I thank them for all of 
their hard work. That staff includes: Chris Miller, Senator Reid; Frank 
Macciorola, Senator Domenici, Senate Energy Committee; Bruce Evans, 
Senator Domenici, Senate Energy Committee; Libby Jarvis, Senator Frist; 
Kyle Simmons and Malloy McDaniel, Senator McConnell; Jim Sartucii and 
Annie Estrada, Senator Lott; Garrett Graves, Senator Vitter; Ryan 
Welch, Senator Shelby; Marie Thomas, Senator Cochran; Jamie Moore, 
Senator Hutchison; Spencer Chambers, Senator Cornyn; Dan Shapiro and 
Bridget Walsh, Senator Bill Nelson; Brydon Ross, Senator Martinez; 
Stephen Boyd, Senator Sessions.
  I also thank all of my staff--they have all worked hard over the 
years-- and in particular, my energy team: Tom Michels, Elizabeth 
Craddock, Janet Woodka, Jason Matthews, and Ron Faucheaux.
  Any my former staff-who have laid the groundwork and built this issue 
up over the past 10 years to get us to where we are today--most notably 
Jason Schendle, who has been a tremendous resource and advocate, 
Kathleen Strottman, Dionne Thomas, and Neil Naraine.
  Finally, I thank Senator J. Bennett Johnston, whose seat I now occupy 
and my great friend, Senator John Breaux.
  I see Senator Domenici in the Senate. I thank him for his 
extraordinary leadership in helping the Nation break through on new 
drilling for the first time in many decades.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana for her kind remarks and for her great support in this 
effort.
  The junior Senator from Louisiana, who is the Presiding Officer, I 
thank now for the support and dedicated commitment to what we are 
doing. It is not only for the State of Louisiana, but for all the 
coastal States surrounding Louisiana. It is very important for the 
United States. I commend the Senator for his participation.
  I would like to thank a Senator who was vital. He was courageous. He 
stepped forward, as Senators from Florida have not been used to doing. 
That was Senator Mel Martinez, who came forward and said: I would like 
to work with you. And he ended up striking a balance for his people of 
Florida and for America. And he, along with the others we have 
mentioned, got us going.
  It has been a pleasure taking this job on and to end up tonight, 10 
minutes before the vote, with the full appreciation on the part of 
scores of Senators that we are about to do something very positive, 
very important. For a change, very few Senators will still have to say 
no. Most of the time it is hard to get 60 votes for cloture. Many times 
it is hard to get that 51 needed for a simple majority.
  Over the weeks, and finally over the days, the point has come across 
to the bipartisan Senators in this Senate, this bill is welcome news 
for the consumers of the United States, for homeowners, families, 
people who work in all kinds of manufacturing businesses, chemical 
businesses, plastic businesses, all kinds of activities related to 
natural gas. Of course, there is oil involved, too, but that is 
secondary to the natural gas which is also involved.
  It has finally dawned on everyone here, we own a piece of property. 
It has USA stamped all over it. It is off the coast of Florida, off the 
coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, out there in the gulf. There 
are roughly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas owned by us, much of 
which is ready to be drilled, much of which can be drilled during the 
next decade. There is enough gas for 6 million houses for 15 years, to 
quantify it. That does not mean that is where it is going. It will be 
added to the availability of the supply and 1.250 billion barrels of 
oil. It has finally dawned on everyone. Now we will get their vote. 
That is all on our property. We have been sitting idly by, year after 
year, saying no, no, no, because we want a moratorium to protect 
something that needed no protection, the shoreline of Florida. I don't 
mean that literally. I mean we can drill on this property as provided 
in this bill with no damage yet, after we have sat here year after year 
saying no.
  It does not happen very often, I say to my distinguished assistant 
Republican leader, but at the very time and day that we are voting, the 
best evidence you can get is right on the streets, in the homes, and on 
the television news for the American people to hear, see, and, 
incidentally, feel: We have had these enormous heat waves and the use 
of natural gas has jumped so much. That creates a scarcity; that 
creates an increase in price. Yesterday, the day before this vote, the 
price increased 11 percent in 1 day. Right now, it is $8.05 per million 
Btus. That price is four times higher than it was 6 years ago. That is 
incredible, but it is true.
  Fellow Senators, when you vote tonight to add 1.2 million barrels, if 
this went to the President and got signed, we instantly add it to the 
ready reserves of America for crude oil waiting to be drilled and put 
into the system. Members would be voting to instantly add to our ready 
reserves of natural gas which we could start getting on the market in 
the not too distant future, almost 6 trillion cubic feet.
  We have a crisis right in front of our nose and we have a partial 
cure right in front of our nose, but this time we decided we would go 
ahead and do it, not continue to say no and to worry ourselves to death 
over what could happen. This could happen, that could happen, do we 
need it, should we do it. That is what has happened in the United 
States recently when we are trying to make energy decisions. We do not 
want to recognize that there is a bit of a risk, but you have to take a 
bit of a risk for a big benefit. In this case, it is a very minimum 
risk and a very big benefit.

  I am particularly pleased in this bill we are reinvesting in our 
environment. For decades, our coastal States have produced much of the 
oil and gas which the Nation consumes. They no longer sit back and go 
along with leasing without compensation needed for their 
infrastructure, the coastal environment. It is so critical to our 
domestic energy survival. We have changed direction and said ``share it 
with them.'' That is a good idea, a new precedent which we need not be 
embarrassed about.
  We also have said we want to share some of this wealth with the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, a very good national program. We have not 
done that before. That, too, is good precedent, good ground to break, 
and sets us on a good path.
  For those who worry, again, about that and about sharing with the 
States, I regret if that concerns them so much they will not vote for 
this bill. I am very sorry about that. In this case, the benefits so 
outweigh the risks of changing policy or changing direction

[[Page S8510]]

that we should have a stampede, not a vote, when it comes time to 
count.
  I am not going to do justice to all those who helped me by mentioning 
them all because I will not get to it. That is probably my mistake. I 
thank my friend and colleague from the State of Louisiana who is here 
in the Senate. She started working with me early as a member of the 
committee. Obviously, Senator Vitter, also, from Louisiana, an early 
participant. I thank him greatly for his efforts, as well as all the 
coastal State Senators. I also thank the distinguished leaders on our 
side who encouraged and urged passing. In fact, I would say about my 
good friend from Kentucky, I think he thought more about my proceeding 
to get this done than I did a few weeks ago. He kept saying it was a 
great day, get along with it, Pete, let's do it. So we are doing it.
  This is a good bill. It took a little effort. It took a little time. 
Nonetheless, compared with other bills around here these days, it is 
not going to go to the graveyard. It is not going to die because 
Senators were able to talk the Senate into voting again to delay or 
kill a bill. They have not been able to do that on this bill. We are 
grateful.
  The American people ought to know that even with the hurdle of 60 
votes which was required because of filibuster threats on this bill, we 
prevailed. We have learned also that when we vote tonight, I think we 
only need 51 votes for a change. That is a very good sign. Finally, we 
are at a point where a 51-vote majority would win. We thought it was 
that way all the time, but it wasn't. Finally, after all the hurdles, 
we will have many more than that, but this is going to pass.
  For those who are watching, we are at a point where that old-
fashioned majority would be enough. We learned about the majority in 
school. It has been thrown out the window because there is so much 
politicking going on. Every vote is 60 votes around here. In the next 
few years we will have a few more of those, Mr. Leader, with the tax 
bill, and it will be 60 votes because someone is screaming filibuster.
  I used to think filibusters were great when I first came to the 
Senate. Then I almost changed and said: Throw them away. I don't know 
where I am now. I do know I am for using part of the Budget Act to get 
around filibusters.
  Mr. FRIST. Are you filibustering me right now?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am through. It will be a nice evening. I am going to 
go back and sit down. Thank you, Senator Frist, for helping me. I want 
you to thank me for letting you have a happy day for a change.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I do thank my distinguished colleague, who 
about 2 months ago said, we can do this, we can do it for the American 
people. It was at a time where it looked as though this Senate could 
not come together to address one of the more fundamental issues that 
the taxpayer, the American consumer, sees every day; that is, the price 
of gas, the price of consumer products that go up because of the 
natural gas required to make that product.
  We have addressed it in a bipartisan way: Senator Domenici, Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Martinez, Senator Vitter--the Gulf State Senators--my 
distinguished colleague, the assistant majority leader, who was there 
every second of the way, through meeting after meeting, as we worked 
through the many, many details in what was really pioneering work in 
many ways, opening up the deep sea energy exploration, with the sharing 
of revenues coming in and what the appropriate amount should be. So I 
do thank all of them.
  I have to come back to Senator Domenici and him just looking them in 
the eye and saying: It can get done. I know elections are coming, and I 
know there is partisanship, people want to slow the place down, but we 
are going to do it. To have it done means a lot.
  ``The increase in energy prices is clearly making the economy worse 
off. . . .'' If oil prices continue to rise, there will be 
``significant consequences'' for the economy. That was the testimony 
delivered by Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke earlier this 
month before the House Committee on Financial Services.
  When I look at the evidence, I cannot help but agree. Right now, 
Americans are paying, on average, $3 per gallon for regular unleaded 
gasoline. Right now, 60 percent of the oil we consume comes from 
overseas, from foreign countries. Right now, we are on track to a 
future where the demand for petroleum more than doubles our supply here 
at home--more than doubles our domestic supply. And right now, the 
price of natural gas for American consumers and industries, as of this 
morning, is $8.05 per million Btu, and that is six times as much as the 
price in countries competing for American jobs.
  What do all these numbers mean? We hear the numbers a lot on the 
floor. What it translates into for that average consumer, that typical 
consumer, is higher cooling bills for their homes, higher heating bills 
in other seasons, higher prices for products made with natural gas, and 
higher prices for farm produce.
  They mean manufacturing jobs lost in America. When U.S. companies 
have to pay more for the energy they need, it makes it harder for them 
to compete in the global marketplace, and it results in jobs being lost 
to overseas, facilities being shipped overseas. The National 
Association of Manufacturers estimates that more than 3.1 million high-
wage manufacturing jobs have been lost just in the last 6 years, 
largely as a result of high energy prices. Of more than 120 world-scale 
chemical plants under construction across the globe, only one is being 
built here at home.
  The high cost of natural gas is hurting farmers. Over the last 3 
days, over the weekend, I spent a lot of time with farmers, actually, 
in North Carolina, in Tennessee, and in Iowa, and the No. 1 issue from 
the farmers was the high price of fertilizer because of the natural gas 
to make that fertilizer.
  It is hurting the forest and paper products industry. Mr. President, 
267 mills have closed and 189,000 jobs have been lost since this runup 
in natural gas prices over the last 6 years.
  You put all those numbers together, and they point to a clear 
conclusion. It is the exact same conclusion of Ben Bernanke, Chairman 
Bernanke: America is dangerously dependent on foreign sources of 
energy, and it is hurting our economy. It hurts our consumers.
  Last year, Congress began to address this problem, under the 
leadership of Pete Domenici, once again, by passing a comprehensive 
energy bill. I do not think anybody realized at the time how 
comprehensive that bill was, how important, how timely that bill was. 
Again and again it had been obstructed from the other side of the 
aisle, but under his leadership we passed it.
  What has happened just in the last 12 months? Because of that Energy 
bill, 27 new ethanol plants have broken ground, and 150 more are in the 
works. Because of that Energy bill, the amount of ethanol and biodiesel 
we use in our gasoline will more than double over the next 6 years, and 
that will save 80,000 barrels a day. Because of the Energy bill we 
passed, 401 new E-85 pumps have been installed. Because of that Energy 
bill we passed a year ago, the nuclear industry is planning to build 25 
new reactors in the United States, and that is enough to boost 15 
million households with power with that clean, emission-free energy. 
Because of that Energy bill, 120 clean-coal facilities are in the 
planning stages--enough to replace 2 million barrels of oil a day by 
the year 2025. And because of the Energy bill--as I was flying across 
the country, I looked out and saw those windmills out there--wind 
power, solar power, and hydrogen fuel cells all got a shot in the arm.
  The Energy bill we passed a year ago was only part of the solution. 
The bill we will pass here shortly is that next critical step. And 
there will be other steps, as so many of my colleagues who have said 
``I have a great idea'' have demonstrated. But the bill we have today 
will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas by opening 8 
million acres in the gulf for domestic exploration. The area opened 
under this bill is estimated to contain 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 
over 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. As has been said, that is 
roughly the same amount of oil as the proven reserves of Wyoming and 
Oklahoma combined, and more than six times our current imports of 
liquefied natural gas each year.

[[Page S8511]]

  This bill will substantially reduce our dependence on foreign sources 
of oil and gas. It increases our energy independence. It strengthens 
our national security. And it helps to reduce the cost of living for 
every American consumer. It will have a direct impact on the prices 
consumers pay at the pump and on their power bills each month.
  Mr. President, now more than ever America needs American energy. That 
is what the bill before us does. It brings more American energy to 
American consumers.
  Let me just close once again in thanking Chairman Domenici, Senator 
Martinez, Senator Landrieu, Senator Vitter--all the Senators from the 
gulf coast--and, as I said earlier, especially the assistant majority 
leader, Senator McConnell, for his leadership.
  I know this bill will receive broad bipartisan support. And when we 
begin that vote here shortly, it will move us one step closer to 
lowering energy prices for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendments Nos. 4713 and 4714, Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendments are 
withdrawn.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--25

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baucus
     Bunning
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The bill (S. 3711) was passed, as follows:

                                S. 3711

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) 181 area.--The term ``181 Area'' means the area 
     identified in map 15, page 58, of the Proposed Final Outer 
     Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 1997-2002, 
     dated August 1996, of the Minerals Management Service, 
     available in the Office of the Director of the Minerals 
     Management Service, excluding the area offered in OCS Lease 
     Sale 181, held on December 5, 2001.
       (2) 181 south area.--The term ``181 South Area'' means any 
     area--
       (A) located--
       (i) south of the 181 Area;
       (ii) west of the Military Mission Line; and
       (iii) in the Central Planning Area;
       (B) excluded from the Proposed Final Outer Continental 
     Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 1997-2002, dated August 
     1996, of the Minerals Management Service; and
       (C) included in the areas considered for oil and gas 
     leasing, as identified in map 8, page 37 of the document 
     entitled ``Draft Proposed Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil 
     and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012'', dated February 2006.
       (3) Bonus or royalty credit.--The term ``bonus or royalty 
     credit'' means a legal instrument or other written 
     documentation, or an entry in an account managed by the 
     Secretary, that may be used in lieu of any other monetary 
     payment for--
       (A) a bonus bid for a lease on the outer Continental Shelf; 
     or
       (B) a royalty due on oil or gas production from any lease 
     located on the outer Continental Shelf.
       (4) Central planning area.--The term ``Central Planning 
     Area'' means the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area of the 
     outer Continental Shelf, as designated in the document 
     entitled ``Draft Proposed Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil 
     and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012'', dated February 2006.
       (5) Eastern planning area.--The term ``Eastern Planning 
     Area'' means the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area of the 
     outer Continental Shelf, as designated in the document 
     entitled ``Draft Proposed Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil 
     and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012'', dated February 2006.
       (6) 2002-2007 planning area.--The term ``2002-2007 planning 
     area'' means any area--
       (A) located in--
       (i) the Eastern Planning Area, as designated in the 
     Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing 
     Program 2002-2007, dated April 2002, of the Minerals 
     Management Service;
       (ii) the Central Planning Area, as designated in the 
     Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing 
     Program 2002-2007, dated April 2002, of the Minerals 
     Management Service; or
       (iii) the Western Planning Area, as designated in the 
     Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing 
     Program 2002-2007, dated April 2002, of the Minerals 
     Management Service; and
       (B) not located in--
       (i) an area in which no funds may be expended to conduct 
     offshore preleasing, leasing, and related activities under 
     sections 104 through 106 of the Department of the Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-54; 119 Stat. 521) (as in effect on August 2, 
     2005);
       (ii) an area withdrawn from leasing under the ``Memorandum 
     on Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer 
     Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition'', from 34 Weekly 
     Comp. Pres. Doc. 1111, dated June 12, 1998; or
       (iii) the 181 Area or 181 South Area.
       (7) Gulf producing state.--The term ``Gulf producing 
     State'' means each of the States of Alabama, Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, and Texas.
       (8) Military mission line.--The term ``Military Mission 
     Line'' means the north-south line at 8641' W. longitude.
       (9) Qualified outer continental shelf revenues.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``qualified outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues'' means--
       (i) in the case of each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016, 
     all rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other sums due and 
     payable to the United States from leases entered into on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act for--

       (I) areas in the 181 Area located in the Eastern Planning 
     Area; and
       (II) the 181 South Area; and

       (ii) in the case of fiscal year 2017 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, all rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and other 
     sums due and payable to the United States received on or 
     after October 1, 2016, from leases entered into on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act for--

       (I) the 181 Area;
       (II) the 181 South Area; and
       (III) the 2002-2007 planning area.

       (B) Exclusions.--The term ``qualified outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues'' does not include--
       (i) revenues from the forfeiture of a bond or other surety 
     securing obligations other than royalties, civil penalties, 
     or royalties taken by the Secretary in-kind and not sold; or
       (ii) revenues generated from leases subject to section 8(g) 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)).
       (10) Coastal political subdivision.--The term ``coastal 
     political subdivision'' means a political subdivision of a 
     Gulf producing State any part of which political subdivision 
     is--
       (A) within the coastal zone (as defined in section 304 of 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453)) of 
     the Gulf producing State as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (B) not more than 200 nautical miles from the geographic 
     center of any leased tract.

[[Page S8512]]

       (11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING IN 181 AREA AND 181 
                   SOUTH AREA OF GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) 181 Area Lease Sale.--Except as provided in section 4, 
     the Secretary shall offer the 181 Area for oil and gas 
     leasing pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) as soon as practicable, but not later 
     than 1 year, after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) 181 South Area Lease Sale.--The Secretary shall offer 
     the 181 South Area for oil and gas leasing pursuant to the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) as 
     soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Leasing Program.--The 181 Area and 181 South Area shall 
     be offered for lease under this section notwithstanding the 
     omission of the 181 Area or the 181 South Area from any outer 
     Continental Shelf leasing program under section 18 of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344).
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 105 of the Department of 
     the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-54; 119 Stat. 522) 
     is amended by inserting ``(other than the 181 South Area (as 
     defined in section 2 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 
     Act of 2006))'' after ``lands located outside Sale 181''.

     SEC. 4. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF 
                   GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--Effective during the period beginning on 
     the date of enactment of this Act and ending on June 30, 
     2022, the Secretary shall not offer for leasing, preleasing, 
     or any related activity--
       (1) any area east of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf 
     of Mexico;
       (2) any area in the Eastern Planning Area that is within 
     125 miles of the coastline of the State of Florida; or
       (3) any area in the Central Planning Area that is--
       (A) within--
       (i) the 181 Area; and
       (ii) 100 miles of the coastline of the State of Florida; or
       (B)(i) outside the 181 Area;
       (ii) east of the western edge of the Pensacola Official 
     Protraction Diagram (UTM X coordinate 1,393,920 (NAD 27 
     feet)); and
       (iii) within 100 miles of the coastline of the State of 
     Florida.
       (b) Military Mission Line.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
     the United States reserves the right to designate by and 
     through the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the 
     President, national defense areas on the outer Continental 
     Shelf pursuant to section 12(d) of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(d)).
       (c) Exchange of Certain Leases.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall permit any person 
     that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, has entered 
     into an oil or gas lease with the Secretary in any area 
     described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) to 
     exchange the lease for a bonus or royalty credit that may 
     only be used in the Gulf of Mexico.
       (2) Valuation of existing lease.--The amount of the bonus 
     or royalty credit for a lease to be exchanged shall be equal 
     to--
       (A) the amount of the bonus bid; and
       (B) any rental paid for the lease as of the date the lessee 
     notifies the Secretary of the decision to exchange the lease.
       (3) Revenue distribution.--No bonus or royalty credit may 
     be used under this subsection in lieu of any payment due 
     under, or to acquire any interest in, a lease subject to the 
     revenue distribution provisions of section 8(g) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)).
       (4) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that shall provide a process for--
       (A) notification to the Secretary of a decision to exchange 
     an eligible lease;
       (B) issuance of bonus or royalty credits in exchange for 
     relinquishment of the existing lease;
       (C) transfer of the bonus or royalty credit to any other 
     person; and
       (D) determining the proper allocation of bonus or royalty 
     credits to each lease interest owner.

     SEC. 5. DISPOSITION OF QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 
                   REVENUES FROM 181 AREA, 181 SOUTH AREA, AND 
                   2002-2007 PLANNING AREAS OF GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 9 of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) and subject to 
     the other provisions of this section, for each applicable 
     fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit--
       (1) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues in the general fund of the Treasury; and
       (2) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues in a special account in the Treasury from which the 
     Secretary shall disburse--
       (A) 75 percent to Gulf producing States in accordance with 
     subsection (b); and
       (B) 25 percent to provide financial assistance to States in 
     accordance with section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8), which shall be 
     considered income to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 
     purposes of section 2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-5).
       (b) Allocation Among Gulf Producing States and Coastal 
     Political Subdivisions.--
       (1) Allocation among gulf producing states for fiscal years 
     2007 through 2016.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), effective for 
     each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the amount made 
     available under subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be allocated to 
     each Gulf producing State in amounts (based on a formula 
     established by the Secretary by regulation) that are 
     inversely proportional to the respective distances between 
     the point on the coastline of each Gulf producing State that 
     is closest to the geographic center of the applicable leased 
     tract and the geographic center of the leased tract.
       (B) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to a Gulf 
     producing State each fiscal year under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be at least 10 percent of the amounts available under 
     subsection (a)(2)(A).
       (2) Allocation among gulf producing states for fiscal year 
     2017 and thereafter.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     effective for fiscal year 2017 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter--
       (i) the amount made available under subsection (a)(2)(A) 
     from any lease entered into within the 181 Area or the 181 
     South Area shall be allocated to each Gulf producing State in 
     amounts (based on a formula established by the Secretary by 
     regulation) that are inversely proportional to the respective 
     distances between the point on the coastline of each Gulf 
     producing State that is closest to the geographic center of 
     the applicable leased tract and the geographic center of the 
     leased tract; and
       (ii) the amount made available under subsection (a)(2)(A) 
     from any lease entered into within the 2002-2007 planning 
     area shall be allocated to each Gulf producing State in 
     amounts that are inversely proportional to the respective 
     distances between the point on the coastline of each Gulf 
     producing State that is closest to the geographic center of 
     each historical lease site and the geographic center of the 
     historical lease site, as determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to a Gulf 
     producing State each fiscal year under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be at least 10 percent of the amounts available under 
     subsection (a)(2)(A).
       (C) Historical lease sites.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), the historical lease sites in the 2002-
     2007 planning area shall include all leases entered into by 
     the Secretary for an area in the Gulf of Mexico during the 
     period beginning on October 1, 1982 (or an earlier date if 
     practicable, as determined by the Secretary), and ending on 
     December 31, 2015.
       (ii) Adjustment.--Effective January 1, 2022, and every 5 
     years thereafter, the ending date described in clause (i) 
     shall be extended for an additional 5 calendar years.
       (3) Payments to coastal political subdivisions.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay 20 percent of the 
     allocable share of each Gulf producing State, as determined 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2), to the coastal political 
     subdivisions of the Gulf producing State.
       (B) Allocation.--The amount paid by the Secretary to 
     coastal political subdivisions shall be allocated to each 
     coastal political subdivision in accordance with 
     subparagraphs (B), (C), and (E) of section 31(b)(4) of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1356a(b)(4)).
       (c) Timing.--The amounts required to be deposited under 
     paragraph (2) of subsection (a) for the applicable fiscal 
     year shall be made available in accordance with that 
     paragraph during the fiscal year immediately following the 
     applicable fiscal year.
       (d) Authorized Uses.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), each Gulf 
     producing State and coastal political subdivision shall use 
     all amounts received under subsection (b) in accordance with 
     all applicable Federal and State laws, only for 1 or more of 
     the following purposes:
       (A) Projects and activities for the purposes of coastal 
     protection, including conservation, coastal restoration, 
     hurricane protection, and infrastructure directly affected by 
     coastal wetland losses.
       (B) Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural 
     resources.
       (C) Implementation of a federally-approved marine, coastal, 
     or comprehensive conservation management plan.
       (D) Mitigation of the impact of outer Continental Shelf 
     activities through the funding of onshore infrastructure 
     projects.
       (E) Planning assistance and the administrative costs of 
     complying with this section.
       (2) Limitation.--Not more than 3 percent of amounts 
     received by a Gulf producing State or coastal political 
     subdivision under subsection (b) may be used for the purposes 
     described in paragraph (1)(E).
       (e) Administration.--Amounts made available under 
     subsection (a)(2) shall--
       (1) be made available, without further appropriation, in 
     accordance with this section;
       (2) remain available until expended; and
       (3) be in addition to any amounts appropriated under--
       (A) the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 
     et seq.);
       (B) the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.); or
       (C) any other provision of law.
       (f) Limitations on Amount of Distributed Qualified Outer 
     Continental Shelf Revenues.--

[[Page S8513]]

       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the total amount 
     of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues made available 
     under subsection (a)(2) shall not exceed $500,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2016 through 2055.
       (2) Expenditures.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), for 
     each of fiscal years 2016 through 2055, expenditures under 
     subsection (a)(2) and shall be net of receipts from that 
     fiscal year from any area in the 181 Area in the Eastern 
     Planning Area and the 181 South Area.
       (3) Pro rata reductions.--If paragraph (1) limits the 
     amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenue that 
     would be paid under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection 
     (a)(2)--
       (A) the Secretary shall reduce the amount of qualified 
     outer Continental Shelf revenue provided to each recipient on 
     a pro rata basis; and
       (B) any remainder of the qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues shall revert to the general fund of the Treasury.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was unfortunately not present to 
vote on final passage of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 
Act of 2006. I would like the Record to reflect that had I been 
present, I would have voted no on both the July 31 vote on the motion 
to invoke cloture as well as today's vote on final passage of the bill.
  This legislation not only fails to address our energy problems, it 
raids the Federal Treasury and threatens our coastal economies and 
ecosystems. Opening more of our coastlines to drilling is clearly not 
the answer to our energy problems, especially given that 80 percent of 
offshore oil and gas resources are already open to drilling, and oil 
companies currently hold more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of 
Mexico.
  Instead of despoiling our shores and perpetuating our dependence on 
oil, I believe Congress should pursue more environmentally friendly 
solutions, including investments in efficiency, biofuels, and increased 
use of renewable energy such as wind and solar power.
  Unfortunately, rather than using American ingenuity to advance a new 
energy future that benefits both the economy and the environment, S. 
3711 continues to promote failed policies of the past. It opens 8 
million acres of Florida's gulf coast waters to offshore drilling rigs, 
including more than 6 million acres that are currently protected by the 
bipartisan moratorium on offshore drilling that has been in place for 
25 years. S. 3711 also diverts tens of billions of dollars in offshore 
drilling revenues from the Federal Treasury and gives the money to just 
four States.
  Furthermore, passing S. 3711 paves the way for a conference with H.R. 
4761, the even more harmful House-passed bill that lifts the moratorium 
on all offshore drilling, including my home State, Massachusetts.
  For our coasts, our environment, and our economy, I oppose S. 3711, 
and instead support real solutions to our energy problems.

                          ____________________