[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 87 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6489-S6491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           OFFSHORE DRILLING

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Senate Energy Committee has 
just approved an energy bill that adopted a very controversial 
amendment that would allow oil to be drilled 10 miles off of the coast 
of Florida.
  I wish to refer to this chart. Here is the peninsula of Florida. This 
is the panhandle of Florida, including Pensacola, Fort Walton Beach, 
Panama City, and Cape San Blas. Some of our largest military 
installations in America are here: the Pensacola Naval Air Station, the 
big complex of the Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base in that area of Fort 
Walton Beach. Down here in Panama City is Tyndall Air Force Base, where 
they are training all of the F-22 pilots. As one can see on this map, 
the rest of the gulf coast of the United States includes Alabama, 
Mississippi, Louisiana, and then Texas.
  This chart illustrates what the Dorgan amendment does to Florida. It 
shows the western planning area of the gulf, the central planning area, 
and what is known as the eastern planning area. The chart shows that in 
legislation we passed in 2006, a compromise was struck whereby the oil 
industry could drill in an additional 8.3 million acres, in addition to 
the 33 million acres they have under lease in the central and western 
gulf--33 million that they have under lease that they had not drilled. 
We worked out an additional 8.3 million acres in this tan area called 
lease sale 181. In exchange, the compromise was for the protection of 
the Gulf of Mexico, everything east of this longitude line known as the 
military mission line. Why? Because everything east of this line is the 
largest testing and training area for the U.S. military in the world. 
It is where we are training our F-22 pilots out of Tyndall Air Force 
Base, it is where we are training our Navy pilots in Pensacola, and it 
is where we are testing some of the most sophisticated weapons systems 
in the world that are under the test and evaluation component of Eglin 
Air Force Base.
  This is the area. It is also where we are training our Navy squadrons 
at Key West Naval Air Station. They will send in a squadron down here 
to Key West, and when they lift off from the Boca Chica runway, within 
2 minutes they are over protected airspace. So they don't have a lot of 
travel time. They don't spend a lot of gas getting to their training 
area, which is out here. So we see that we have this area that is now 
protected.
  I wish to have printed in the Record a letter from the Secretary of 
Defense--and this is actually from the previous Secretary of Defense, 
Secretary Rumsfeld--in which he says the use of this for oil and gas 
production would be incompatible with the needs of the U.S. military in 
this test and training area.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record, if 
I may.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                Washington, DC, November 30, 2005.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Russell Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of October 7, 
     2005, concerning the potential effect of Department of 
     Interior-administered oil and gas leasing on military 
     training and readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. The 
     Department of Defense (DoD) fully supports the national goal 
     of exploration and development of our nation's offshore oil 
     and gas resources. The DoD, the Department of the Interior, 
     and affected states have worked together successfully for 
     many years to ensure unrestricted access to critical military 
     testing and training areas, while also enabling oil and gas 
     exploration in accordance with applicable laws and 
     regulations.
       DoD conducts essential military testing and training in 
     many of the 26 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas. 
     Prior

[[Page S6490]]

     analysis and existing agreements with Interior recognize that 
     areas east of the 86 deg. 41' line in the Gulf of Mexico 
     (commonly know as the ``Military Mission Line'') are 
     especially critical to DoD due to the number and diversity of 
     military testing and training activities conducted there now, 
     and those planned for the future. In those areas east of the 
     Military Mission Line, drilling structures and associated 
     development would be incompatible with military activities, 
     such as missile flights, low-flying drone aircraft, weapons 
     testing, and training.
       As the planning process for Interior's new 5-year OCS oil 
     and gas leasing program proceeds, DoD will continue both to 
     evaluate its military requirements and to work with Interior 
     to ensure the 2007-2012 oil and gas program, and any future 
     lease sales resulting from it, strike the proper balance 
     between our nation's energy and national security goals.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Donald Rumsfeld.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, here is what people don't 
understand. The committee that adopted this amendment, 13 to 10, 
doesn't realize this is the largest testing and training area for the 
U.S. military. That is why in the legislation in law we protect 
everything east of that line that we passed 3 years ago. In return, we 
gave the oil boys an additional 8.3 million acres in lease sale 181 and 
lease sale 181 south. That, by the way, is in addition to their 33 
million acres they have under lease here, and here, as shown on this 
map, that they have not drilled.
  Why do the oil companies want to have this additional lease area 
when, in fact, they have a lot of leases they haven't drilled--33 
million acres plus another 8 million acres? Well, it is because a lease 
has a legal value. If there is estimated to be any oil or gas there, 
that has a value, and those leases then become a part of the assets of 
the company, which increases the value of the company, which, of 
course, then makes their stock worth more. But what we struck in the 
compromise 3 years ago that everybody out here on this Senate floor 
agreed to--agreed to, I might say, with Senator Martinez and me--was in 
exchange for getting that additional area, they would leave the 
military mission test and evaluation and training area alone.
  In the last round of BRAC, which is the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission, the ``r'' of BRAC stands for realignment. Is it any wonder 
that in that round of evaluating military bases they decided to send 
all the pilot training for the new stealth fighter--the F-22--that they 
brought it here to Tyndall Air Force base at Panama City? Why? Because 
they have that area.
  Listen, this fighter does a dog fight at 1.5 Mach, twice what an F-16 
and an F-15 does a dog fight at. They are doing a dog fight, doing 
tight turns at about .75 Mach. The new F-22 stealth fighter will go 
into and engage another aircraft at 1.5 Mach. When you do turns at 
twice the speed of an F-15 and F-16, you have a much wider radius of a 
turn. That is why they need all that area. When they are dropping on 
targets, they are dropping live ordnance.
  When we are testing long-range weapons systems at Eglin Air Force 
Base--some that we release from airplanes, some that are shot from 
ships--we need hundreds of miles of range. That is why the operative 
policy of the Department of Defense is that you can't have oil rigs out 
here to interfere with national security preparation, but, apparently, 
that is not the way 13 Members of the Senate Energy Committee 
understood this argument.
  Now there is another argument. By the way, I might point out that in 
that realignment of the bases, they are bringing into Eglin Air Force 
base all the pilot training for the new F-35. That is the Joint Strike 
Fighter that is still being developed, but that will be coming out 
within the next few years. That is the Joint Strike Fighter for the 
Navy, the Marines, and the Air Force. That Joint Strike Fighter will be 
sold to some of our allies.
  Where is the pilot training? Right here because of the restrictions, 
it being a test, a training, and an evaluation area. That is why the 
U.S. military brought these new assets into this area.
  There is another reason now that I get so exercised about this, other 
than the fact of the agreements that were set, that were agreed to; the 
compromises that were struck 3 years ago are now being abrogated.
  That is, they now bring oil rig leasing within 10 miles of the 
world's most beautiful beaches. There are not too many Americans who 
don't know that the beaches running from Pensacola all the way through 
Panama City to Mexico Beach are some of the world's most beautiful 
beaches. They are sugary white sand, and people from all over go to 
enjoy this extraordinary valuable resource. It is God's way of giving 
us a blessing on Earth that people enjoy when they want to go to the 
beach.
  Can you imagine, what the Energy Committee has passed, allowing oil 
rigs 10 miles off the world's most beautiful beaches? Environmentally, 
that is one thing, but let's look at the economy of Florida. The 
economy of Florida--we are a peninsula. We have more coastline than any 
other State, save Alaska, but Alaska doesn't have a lot of beaches. We 
have more beaches than almost--not almost--than any other State. Is it 
any wonder we want to protect our economy, which is a $60 billion-a-
year tourism industry, particularly at a time when the economy is being 
savaged as much as it is?
  Yet the Senate Energy Committee would say they are not only going to 
ignore the military tests and training range that has been off-limits 
in the law, but now they are going to run rigs up to 10 miles offshore 
and threaten those sugary white beaches.
  Well, let me tell you a few points about this wise energy policy they 
have supposedly adopted. We all know increased domestic drilling is not 
going to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil. That has been shown 
over and over. Why? Because if there was oil there, you are not going 
to get it into production for 10 years. So using the scare tactics of 
the gas prices going up and up doesn't do a bit for decreasing U.S. 
dependence on foreign oil and helping gas prices. But let's say it 
would. Even though bad oil spills and shipping accidents take place, 
let's say, for a moment, the technological innovations now have made 
all drilling operations safe; and if the United States wishes to remain 
dependent on oil, well, shouldn't we drill anywhere we can find oil? 
How about Colorado for oil shale? But, oh, no, that is off-limits.
  How about the five Great Lakes? They should have plenty of black 
gold. But, no, that is off-limits. How about the oil-rich Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge? That is off-limits. This Senator has 
supported keeping that off-limits. No, the reality is that, instead, 
some of my colleagues in the Senate want to come--it is kind of like: 
don't tax you, don't tax me, go tax that ``fella'' under the tree. They 
want to go and hit somebody else. They want to cut the heart and the 
lungs out of the U.S. military testing area. They want to come in and 
start fouling up the most beautiful beaches in the world, the northwest 
Florida coast.
  Three years ago, we opened that additional 8.3 million acres. We 
didn't allow any drilling any closer than 100 miles off Pensacola, 125 
miles off Panama City, 237 miles off Tampa Bay, and over 300 miles off 
Naples. Why are some people pushing to change this so soon after that 
compromise that was struck 3 years ago? It is the oil industry, that is 
why. The oil industry has those 33 million acres out here in the 
central and western gulf. It is leased, it is not being drilled, but 
that is not enough for them. Even though the industry hand-picked areas 
opened here in the 2006 compromise, it now feels it can make more of a 
profit by drilling closer to Florida's coast.
  I don't think we should have to trash our coastline and our economy 
and the U.S. military so big oil can increase its profit margin. There 
are serious national security implications if this were to become law. 
I wish to show you something else. Look at this picture. This is a 
beach in Pinellas County, Florida after an oil spill. You know what 
that is--that is oil mixing with white, sugary, powdery, white sand.
  Drilling 10 miles off the coast of Florida would destroy the economy 
of the Nation's fourth largest State. It would convert Florida's world-
class beaches to an industrial coastline. We would trade the world's 
top beaches and the tourist attractions for an industrial waste line 
dotted with transmission pipes, storage tanks, and oil rigs. We would 
take away the U.S. military's last unfettered testing and training 
range--and take it away during a time of war.

[[Page S6491]]

  Supporters of opening the eastern gulf say we need to do it to help 
get America off foreign oil. Tell me, then, why isn't there a clause in 
the drilling amendment passed specifying that all oil and natural gas 
that would be produced in the eastern gulf has to stay in the United 
States for domestic consumption?
  But, no, that is not there because, the truth is, any oil that would 
be drilled could be sent to any other country in the world, reducing 
our use of foreign oil not by one single drop.
  If we wish to reduce our dependence on foreign oil--and you have 
heard me say this ad infinitum--we need to increase our use of 
alternative energy, energy-efficient cars and appliances.
  Mr. President, is my time coming to a close?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Recently, we have seen how gas prices have 
started to rise. Why? Last year, the price of oil went up to $147 a 
barrel. Why, in 1 day, did the price of oil rise $37 for a barrel of 
oil? It is because those greedy speculators on unregulated futures 
commodities markets had been able to bid up crude oil prices in part 
due to a legal loophole, called the Enron loophole, which, in effect, 
unleashed insider trading similar to condo flipping since 2001.
  Some Gulf Coast States, such as Louisiana, have embraced drilling. 
Congress even agreed to prop them up with revenue sharing. But because 
Louisiana doesn't have beaches--or has beaches that are left such as 
this one in the picture--and they don't have a tourism economy like 
Florida's, it isn't worth the risk to the jobs and the revenue and the 
economy of Florida.
  Florida's Gulf Coast has some of the most beautiful beaches in the 
world. These beaches account for a substantial portion of the $60 
billion-a-year tourism economy.
  Would you visit a beach with oil operations along its shores? Would 
you want to go to a beach that looks like this photo? I'll tell you a 
little more about it. This photo is of a relatively small oil spill 
that occurred as a result of a shipping accident in Pinellas County, 
FL, in 1993. It simply doesn't make sense to jeopardize Florida's 
tourism industry and put the coastline at risk of ending up like this.
  I will close by reading a timely editorial that appeared in today's 
St. Petersburg Times. That is one of Florida's largest newspapers. This 
was so poignant I think it is worth me inserting it into the Record, 
which I will.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the St. Petersburg Times, June 11, 2009]

                  Again, With Feeling: No New Drilling

       There is a rhythm to summer that has become as predictable 
     in Washington as it is predatory and senseless: Schools let 
     out, vacation season begins, gas prices rise and opportunists 
     in Congress--encouraged by Big Oil--cite the pain at the pump 
     to push for expanding offshore drilling, jeopardizing 
     Florida's priceless coastline.
       Do any of the 13 members of the Senate Energy and Natural 
     Resources Committee who voted to expand drilling Tuesday 
     realize that the nation is moving in the opposite direction 
     and seeking to reduce reliance on fossil fuels with a cleaner 
     energy policy?
       The committee approved an amendment to a Senate energy bill 
     that would allow gas and oil drilling just 45 miles off 
     Florida's west coast and even closer off the Florida 
     Panhandle. It would wipe out a 2006 congressional compromise 
     that bans drilling within 230 miles of Tampa Bay and 100 
     miles of the Panhandle through 2022. That exclusion zone is a 
     reasonable line of defense. Florida's beaches are vital to 
     the state's status as a world-class tourist destination.
       Allowing drilling within 10 miles off the eastern Gulf 
     Coast also would jeopardize an important training area for 
     the Air Force and Navy.
       As an energy strategy, the measure makes the Senate look 
     hopelessly out of date. Twenty-eight states, in the absence 
     of leadership in Washington, have set targets for renewable 
     energy production. The purpose of energy legislation in both 
     houses of Congress is to fashion a way to leverage billions 
     of tax dollars to curb emissions of global-warming greenhouse 
     gases, build more fuel-efficient cars and to foster 
     investment in alternative energies.
       The drilling amendment is an example of a time-honored 
     tactic of tacking on something distasteful to broadly 
     supported legislation. The bill, which committee members 
     expect to pass today, also unfortunately encourages some 
     Republican state legislators who have unsuccessfully sought 
     to open state waters in the gulf to drilling. If the 2006 
     federal line falls, there will be no stopping the 
     shortsighted in Tallahassee.
       Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has vowed to filibuster the bill 
     if it comes to that. The state's congressional delegation 
     needs to show united opposition, and House members need to 
     demand Speaker Nancy Pelosi stand by her commitment to the 
     2006 drill-free zone. Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running to 
     succeed Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., also needs to quit 
     waffling and oppose this. And Defense Secretary Robert Gates 
     should explain the implications for naval training and 
     national security should offshore rigs and their attendant 
     infrastructure spring up along the training ranges for 
     America's military pilots. The energy bill is supposed to 
     chart a new strategy going forward. The Senate is headed 
     backward.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. This is what the article says:

       There is a rhythm to summer that has become as predictable 
     in Washington as it is predatory and senseless: Schools let 
     out, vacation season begins, gas prices rise and opportunists 
     in Congress--encouraged by Big Oil--cite the pain at the pump 
     to push for expanding offshore drilling, jeopardizing 
     Florida's priceless coastline.

  The St. Petersburg Times editorial continues:

       Do any of the 13 members of the Senate Energy and Natural 
     Resources Committee who voted to expand drilling Tuesday 
     realize that the nation is moving in the opposite direction 
     and seeking to reduce reliance on fossil fuels with a cleaner 
     energy policy?
       The committee approved an amendment to a Senate energy bill 
     that would allow gas and oil drilling just 45 miles off 
     Florida's west coast and even closer off the Florida 
     Panhandle. It would wipe out a 2006 congressional compromise 
     that bans drilling. . . .

  And it goes on to cite the numbers I told you, basically keeping that 
eastern area off-limits.
  The editorial continues:

       Allowing drilling within 10 miles of the eastern Gulf Coast 
     would also jeopardize an important training area for the Air 
     Force and Navy.
       As an energy strategy, the measure makes the Senate look 
     hopelessly out of date. Twenty-eight States, in the absence 
     of leadership in Washington, have set targets for renewable 
     energy production. The purpose of energy legislation in both 
     Houses of Congress is to fashion a way to leverage billions 
     of tax dollars to curb emissions of global-warming greenhouse 
     gases, build more fuel-efficient cars, and to foster 
     investment in alternative energies.

  The editorial concludes by saying:

       The drilling amendment is an example of a time-honored 
     tactic of tacking on something distasteful to broadly 
     supported legislation.
       The bill, which committee members expect to pass today, 
     also unfortunately encourages some Republican state 
     legislators who have unsuccessfully sought to open state 
     waters in the gulf to drilling. If the 2006 federal line 
     falls, there will be no stopping the shortsighted in 
     Tallahassee.
       Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has vowed to filibuster the bill 
     if it comes to that. The state's congressional delegation 
     needs to show united opposition, and House members need to 
     demand Speaker Nancy Pelosi stand by her commitment to the 
     2006 drill-free zone. Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running to 
     succeed Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., also needs to quit 
     waffling and oppose this. And Defense Secretary Robert Gates 
     should explain the implications for naval training and 
     national security should offshore rigs and their attendant 
     infrastructure spring up along the training ranges for 
     America's military pilots. The energy bill is supposed to 
     chart a new strategy going forward. The Senate is headed 
     backward.

  I thank the Presiding Officer for her indulgence that I could get 
this off my chest. I don't want to mess up the Energy bill. It is 
critical for us. I am supportive of many of its provisions. But I am 
simply going to have to assert my rights under the Senate rules if they 
try to bring this as a part of that Energy bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________