[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 98 (Monday, June 28, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5490-S5493]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Mr. Vitter):
S. 3540. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3540
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 ``Clean Estuaries Act of
2010''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.
(a) Purposes of Conference.--
(1) Development of comprehensive conservation and
management plans.--Section 320(b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(b)) is amended by
striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) develop and submit to the Administrator a
comprehensive conservation and management plan that--
``(A) identifies the estuary and the associated upstream
waters of the estuary to be addressed by the plan, with
consideration given to hydrological boundaries;
``(B) recommends priority corrective actions and compliance
schedules addressing--
``(i) point and nonpoint sources of pollution; and
``(ii) protection and conservation actions--
``(I) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the estuary, including--
``(aa) restoration and maintenance of water quality,
wetlands, and natural hydrologic flows;
``(bb) a resilient and diverse indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife; and
``(cc) recreational activities in the estuary; and
``(II) to ensure that the designated uses of the estuary
are protected;
``(C) identifies healthy watershed components for
protection and conservation by carrying out integrated
assessments, where appropriate, of--
``(i) aquatic habitat and biological integrity;
``(ii) water quality; and
``(iii) natural hydrologic flows;
``(D) considers current and future sustainable commercial
activities in the estuary;
``(E) addresses the impacts of climate change on the
estuary, including--
``(i) the identification and assessment of vulnerabilities
in the estuary;
``(ii) the development and implementation of adaptation
strategies; and
``(iii) the impacts of changes in sea level on estuarine
water quality, estuarine habitat, and infrastructure located
in the estuary;
``(F) increases public education and awareness with respect
to--
``(i) the ecological health of the estuary;
``(ii) the water quality conditions of the estuary; and
``(iii) ocean, estuarine, land, and atmospheric connections
and interactions;
``(G)(i) identifies and assesses impairments, including
upstream impairments, coming from outside of the area
addressed by the plan, and the sources of those impairments;
and
``(ii) provides the applicable State with any information
on such impairments or the sources of such impairments;
``(H) includes performance measures and goals to track
implementation of the plan; and
``(I) includes a coordinated monitoring strategy for
Federal, State, and local governments and other entities.''.
(2) Monitoring and making results available.--Section
320(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1330(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (6) and inserting
the following:
``(6) monitor (and make results available to the public
regarding)--
``(A) water quality conditions in the estuary and the
associated upstream waters of the estuary identified under
paragraph (4)(A);
``(B) healthy watershed and habitat conditions that relate
to the ecological health and water quality conditions of the
estuary; and
``(C) the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the
comprehensive conservation and management plan developed for
the estuary under this subsection;''.
(3) Information and educational activities.--Section 320(b)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1330(b)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) provide information and educational activities on the
ecological health and water quality conditions of the
estuary; and''.
(4) Conforming amendment.--The sentence following section
320(b)(8) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as so
redesignated) (33 U.S.C. 1330(b)(8)) is amended by striking
``paragraph (7)'' and inserting ``paragraph (8)''.
(b) Members of Conference; Collaborative Processes.--
(1) Members of conference.--Section 320(c)(5) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(c)(5)) is
amended by inserting ``not-for-profit organizations,'' after
``institutions,''.
(2) Collaborative processes.--Section 320(d) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(d)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(d)'' and all that follows through ``In
developing'' and inserting the following:
``(d) Use of Existing Data and Collaborative Processes.--
``(1) Use of existing data.--In developing''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Use of collaborative processes.--In updating a plan
under subsection (f)(4) or developing a new plan under
subsection (b), a management conference shall make use of
collaborative processes--
``(A) to ensure equitable inclusion of affected interests;
``(B) to engage with members of the management conference,
including through--
``(i) the use of consensus-based decision rules; and
``(ii) assistance from impartial facilitators, as
appropriate;
``(C) to ensure relevant information, including scientific,
technical, and cultural information, is accessible to
members;
``(D) to promote accountability and transparency by
ensuring members are informed in a timely manner of--
``(i) the purposes and objectives of the management
conference; and
``(ii) the results of an evaluation conducted under
subsection (f)(3);
``(E) to identify the roles and responsibilities of
members--
``(i) in the management conference proceedings; and
``(ii) in the implementation of the plan; and
``(F) to seek resolution of conflicts or disputes as
necessary.''.
(c) Administration of Plans.--Section 320 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330) is amended by
striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Administration of Plans.--
``(1) Approval.--Not later than 120 days after the date on
which a management conference submits to the Administrator a
comprehensive conservation and management plan under this
section, and after providing for public review and comment,
the Administrator shall approve the plan, if--
``(A) the Administrator determines that the plan meets the
requirements of this section; and
``(B) each affected Governor concurs.
``(2) Implementation.--
``(A) In general.--On the approval of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan under this section, the plan
shall be implemented.
``(B) Use of authorized amounts.--Amounts authorized to be
appropriated under titles II and VI and section 319 may be
used in accordance with the applicable requirements of this
Act to assist States with the implementation of a plan
approved under paragraph (1).
``(3) Evaluation.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, and every 5 years thereafter,
the Administrator shall carry out--
[[Page S5491]]
``(i) an evaluation of the implementation of each
comprehensive conservation and management plan developed
under this section to determine the degree to which the goals
of the plan have been met; and
``(ii) a review of the program designed to implement the
plan.
``(B) Review and comment by management conference.--In
completing an evaluation under subparagraph (A), the
Administrator shall submit the results of the evaluation to
the appropriate management conference for review and comment.
``(C) Report.--
``(i) In general.--In completing an evaluation under
subparagraph (A), and after providing an opportunity for a
management conference to submit comments under subparagraph
(B), the Administrator shall issue a report on the results of
the evaluation, including the findings and recommendations of
the Administrator and any comments received from the
management conference.
``(ii) Availability to public.--The Administrator shall
make a report issued under this subparagraph available to the
public, including through publication in the Federal Register
and on the Internet.
``(D) Special rule for new plans.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), if a management conference submits a new
comprehensive conservation and management plan to the
Administrator after the date of enactment of this paragraph,
the Administrator shall complete the evaluation of the
implementation of the plan required by subparagraph (A) not
later than 5 years after the date of such submission and
every 5 years thereafter.
``(4) Updates.--
``(A) Requirement.--Not later than 18 months after the date
on which the Administrator makes an evaluation of the
implementation of a comprehensive conservation and management
plan available to the public under paragraph (3)(C), a
management conference convened under this section shall
submit to the Administrator an update of the plan that
reflects, to the maximum extent practicable, the results of
the program evaluation.
``(B) Approval of updates.--Not later than 120 days after
the date on which a management conference submits to the
Administrator an updated comprehensive conservation and
management plan under subparagraph (A), and after providing
for public review and comment, the Administrator shall
approve the updated plan, if the Administrator determines
that the updated plan meets the requirements of this section.
``(5) Probationary status.--The Administrator may consider
a management conference convened under this section to be in
probationary status, if the management conference has not
received approval for an updated comprehensive conservation
and management plan under paragraph (4)(B) on or before the
last day of the 3-year period beginning on the date on which
the Administrator makes an evaluation of the plan available
to the public under paragraph (3)(C).''.
(d) Federal Agencies.--Section 320 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), (i), (j), and
(k) as subsections (h), (i), (j), (k), and (m), respectively;
and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Federal Agencies.--
``(1) Activities conducted within estuaries with approved
plans.--After approval of a comprehensive conservation and
management plan by the Administrator, any Federal action or
activity affecting the estuary shall be conducted, to the
maximum extent practicable, in a manner consistent with the
plan.
``(2) Coordination and cooperation.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Army (acting
through the Chief of Engineers), the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Director
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary
of the Department of Agriculture, the Director of the United
States Geological Survey, the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation, the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and the heads of other appropriate
Federal agencies, as determined by the Administrator, shall,
to the maximum extent practicable, cooperate and coordinate
activities, including monitoring activities, related to the
implementation of a comprehensive conservation and management
plan approved by the Administrator.
``(B) Lead coordinating agency.--The Environmental
Protection Agency shall serve as the lead coordinating agency
under this paragraph.
``(3) Consideration of plans in agency budget requests.--In
making an annual budget request for a Federal agency referred
to in paragraph (2), the head of such agency shall consider
the responsibilities of the agency under this section,
including under comprehensive conservation and management
plans approved by the Administrator.
``(4) Monitoring.--The heads of the Federal agencies
referred to in paragraph (2) shall collaborate on the
development of tools and methodologies for monitoring the
ecological health and water quality conditions of estuaries
covered by a management conference convened under this
section.''.
(e) Grants.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (h) (as redesignated by
subsection (d)) of section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``other public'' and all
that follows before the period at the end and inserting ``and
other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and
organizations''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Effects of probationary status.--
``(A) Reductions in grant amounts.--The Administrator shall
reduce, by an amount to be determined by the Administrator,
grants for the implementation of a comprehensive conservation
and management plan developed by a management conference
convened under this section, if the Administrator determines
that the management conference is in probationary status
under subsection (f)(5).
``(B) Termination of management conferences.--The
Administrator shall terminate a management conference
convened under this section, and cease funding for the
implementation of the comprehensive conservation and
management plan developed by the management conference, if
the Administrator determines that the management conference
has been in probationary status for 2 consecutive years.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 320(i) the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (as redesignated by subsection (d)) is
amended by striking ``subsection (g)'' and inserting
``subsection (h)''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330) (as
redesignated by subsection (d)) is amended by striking
subsection (j) and inserting the following:
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to the Administrator $75,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2011 through 2016 for--
``(A) expenses relating to the administration of management
conferences by the Administrator under this section, except
that such expenses shall not exceed 10 percent of the amount
appropriated under this subsection;
``(B) making grants under subsection (h); and
``(C) monitoring the implementation of a conservation and
management plan by the management conference, or by the
Administrator in any case in which the conference has been
terminated.
``(2) Allocations.--Of the sums authorized to be
appropriated under this subsection, the Administrator shall
provide--
``(A) at least $1,250,000 per fiscal year, subject to the
availability of appropriations, for the development,
implementation, and monitoring of each conservation and
management plan eligible for grant assistance under
subsection (h); and
``(B) up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year to carry out
subsection (k).''.
(g) Research.--Section 320(k)(1)(A) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (as redesignated by subsection (d)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``paramenters'' and inserting
``parameters''; and
(2) by inserting ``(including monitoring of both pathways
and ecosystems to track the introduction and establishment of
nonnative species)'' before ``, to provide the
Administrator''.
(h) National Estuary Program Evaluation.--Section 320 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330) is
amended by inserting after subsection (k) (as redesignated by
subsection (d)) the following:
``(l) National Estuary Program Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, and every 5 years thereafter,
the Administrator shall complete an evaluation of the
national estuary program established under this section.
``(2) Specific assessments.--In conducting an evaluation
under this subsection, the Administrator shall--
``(A) assess the effectiveness of the national estuary
program in improving water quality, natural resources, and
sustainable uses of the estuaries covered by management
conferences convened under this section;
``(B) identify best practices for improving water quality,
natural resources, and sustainable uses of the estuaries
covered by management conferences convened under this
section, including those practices funded through the use of
technical assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency
and other Federal agencies;
``(C) assess the reasons why the best practices described
in subparagraph (B) resulted in the achievement of program
goals;
``(D) identify any redundant requirements for reporting by
recipients of a grant under this section; and
``(E) develop and recommend a plan for limiting reporting
any redundancies.
``(3) Report.--In completing an evaluation under this
subsection, the Administrator shall issue a report on the
results of the evaluation, including the findings and
recommendations of the Administrator.
``(4) Availability.--The Administrator shall make a report
issued under this subsection available to management
conferences convened under this section and the public,
including through publication in the Federal Register and on
the Internet.''.
(i) Convening of Conference.--Section 320(a)(2) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(2) Convening of conference.--'' and all
that follows through ``In any case'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Convening of conference.--In any case''; and
[[Page S5492]]
(2) by striking subparagraph (B).
(j) Great Lakes Estuaries.--Section 320(m) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (as redesignated by subsection
(d)) is amended by striking the subsection designation and
all that follows through ``and those portions of
tributaries'' and inserting the following:
``(m) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `estuary'
and `estuarine zone' have the meanings given the terms in
section 104(n)(4), except that--
``(1) the term `estuary' also includes near coastal waters
and other bodies of water within the Great Lakes that are
similar in form and function to the waters described in the
definition of `estuary' in section 104(n)(4); and
``(2) the term `estuarine zone' also includes--
``(A) waters within the Great Lakes described in paragraph
(1) and transitional areas from such waters that are similar
in form and function to the transitional areas described in
the definition of `estuarine zone' in section 104(n)(4);
``(B) associated aquatic ecosystems; and
``(C) those portions of tributaries''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 3541. A bill to prohibit royalty incentives for deepwater
drilling, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Deepwater Drilling Royalty Prohibition Act.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not
used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore
drilling in deep waters.
Over the past decades, Congress has established a number of royalty-
relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in
deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too
low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult
places, and before we were ready to deploy large-scale renewable energy
production.
But that is no longer the case. The events of the last weeks have
shown that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep
waters. I believe taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean,
renewable energy, not deepwater drilling for oil.
The disastrous impacts of the leak from the Deepwater Horizon have
shown that offshore drilling has enormous environmental and safety
risks--particularly in deep waters. Eleven people died and 17 others
were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. All these weeks
later, we continue to watch in horror as the scope of the disaster
keeps expanding:
Oil slicks spread inexorably across the Gulf of Mexico;
Pelicans and other wildlife struggle to free themselves from crude
oil; tar balls spoil the pristine white sand beaches of Florida;
Wetlands are coated with toxic sludge; More than 1/3 of Federal waters
in the Gulf have been closed to fishing; The plumes of oil under water
may create zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life; The oil
may spread into the Atlantic Ocean via the Loop Current; The response
techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic
consequences; and
Upcoming storms may delay or prevent continued containment and
response efforts.
The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems
clear to me that regulation, oversight and prevention technologies
should be rigorous. But that is clearly not the case.
Regulators failed to ensure appropriate safety and response
technologies were in place.
MMS gave BP a categorical exclusion from an environmental impact
analysis that in my opinion should never have been allowed.
MMS allowed BP to run a drilling operation without the demonstrated
ability to shut off the flow of gas and oil in an emergency.
MMS allowed BP to operate without remote shutoff capability in case
the drilling rig became disabled.
MMS did not have an inspector on the rig to settle the heated
argument between the BP, Transocean, and Halliburton officials on how
they would stop drilling and plug the well.
MMS did not have--and did not require the industry to have--emergency
equipment stationed in the Gulf of Mexico that could respond
immediately to an emergency.
MMS did not have a plan for responding to disasters.
MMS did not, in fact, have a real inspection and compliance program.
It relied on the expertise and advice of the industry on how and how
much they should be inspected.
This is not how things should be done. We expect more from our
government.
Prevention and response technologies show similar unacceptable
deficits: they are not good enough.
These have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the
California coast near Santa Barbara. That too was caused by a natural
gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was
successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but
oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was
devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater
Horizon spill.
The old technology was not good enough, but now it appears that even
the newest safety technology fails to prevent wellhead blowouts.
The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was just completed in 2001.
The drill rig that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas
field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was
designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days.
The New York Times reports that the blind shear rams in the blowout
preventers--the last line of defense to prevent wellhead leaks are
``surprisingly vulnerable'' to failure. One study found that blowout
preventers have a failure rate of 45 percent.
These technologies are insufficient, and they are particularly
vulnerable in deep waters.
Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized
cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming
increases dramatically at about 400 meters depth. These crystals
interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in
the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf,
and prevented it from working. When a remotely operated underwater
vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment
cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these
crystals again.
Other risks increase too, as explained by the Wall Street Journal:
Drilling in deeper water doesn't change the fundamental
process, but it makes virtually everything harder. Rigs must
be bigger so they can hold more drilling pipe to stretch vast
distances. The pipes themselves must be stronger to withstand
ocean currents. Equipment on the sea floor must be sturdier
to face extreme pressures at depth. Drill bits must be
tougher so they don't melt in the 400-degree temperatures
they encounter deep in the earth. And it is harder for
drillers to exert just the right amount of pressure down the
well bore, enough to keep oil and gas from spurting upwards--
a blowout--but not so much that they crack open the rocks
beneath the surface, which could also lead to a blowout.
It is clear that prevention, containment, and clean-up measures are
not sufficient to handle oil leaks, particularly in deep waters.
American taxpayers should not forego revenue to incentivize offshore
drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it is not good
energy policy either.
We need to move to clearer renewable fuels.
I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we
face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions
produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, like oil and coal.
Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil
fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses
potential devastation, but rather should be used to develop and deploy
clean energy technologies like wind and solar. I very much believe
this.
That is why I have worked with my colleagues on a number of
legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy.
One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel
economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed
by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th
Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve
fuel economy
[[Page S5493]]
standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate. The good
news is that the administration has taken the framework of this law and
implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel
economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's
standard.
The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy
industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. Last year, the
United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity
than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, or oil, or coal. A
great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable
energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy
development should go.
It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs
creation.
We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch
wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to
work. Programs like The Recovery Act grant program run by the Treasury
Department have been very successful in encouraging private investment
in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring 4,250 megawatts
of clean power online and is expected to generate more than 143,000
green jobs by the end of the year, according to the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory. The program, however, is set to expire at the end
of year if we don't act. So, I'm working on legislation that will
extend this successful program for an additional 2 years.
All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the
incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy
future, and to move away from fossil fuels.
Let me make one final point clear, I don't believe the oil companies
need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record
profits.
Last year, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were
almost $850 billion. Yet we continue to use money that should come to
the U.S. Treasury, to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable.
Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits
from those public resources, American taxpayers should benefit too.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that
royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky
off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the
people's money should be spent wisely, on clean, efficient and safe
technologies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3541
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 ``Deepwater Drilling Royalty
Prohibition Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ROYALTY INCENTIVES FOR DEEPWATER
DRILLING.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue any oil or
gas lease sale under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) with royalty-based incentives in any
tract located in water depths of 400 meters or more on the
outer Continental Shelf.
(b) Royalty Relief for Deep Water Production.--Section 345
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15905) is
repealed.
(c) Royalty Relief.--Section 8(a)(3) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A)
through (C) or any other provision of law, the Secretary
shall not reduce or eliminate any royalty or net profit share
for any lease or unit located in water depths of 400 meters
or more on the outer Continental Shelf.''.
(d) Application.--This section and the amendments made by
this section--
(1) apply beginning with the first lease sale held on or
after the date of enactment of this Act for which a final
notice of sale has not been published as of that date; and
(2) do not apply to a lease in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act.
____________________