Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 87 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)

[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:

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.

____________________