[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14496-14501]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in speaking to the managers of the bill and 
the interested parties in this matter, the thought is--and this is not 
in the way of a unanimous consent request but just to inform Members 
what we are doing--the Senator from Florida will offer his amendment. 
He will speak on it tonight. Perhaps the other Senator from Florida, 
Mr. Nelson, will speak on his amendment. There are a number of Senators 
who have requested time in the morning.
  The manager of the bill has suggested--and we think it would be OK on 
our side--that tomorrow we would have an hour on our side and the 
majority would have 30 minutes on their side, and then the two leaders 
can decide if we vote at that time or sometime later in the day. Staff 
is putting that in the form of a unanimous consent request, and perhaps 
we can enter into that sometime later tonight.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are looking for a unanimous consent request that 
says in the morning 1 additional hour on that side, a half hour on our 
side on the Graham amendment, and afterwards there will be a vote. That 
is being prepared. In the meantime, the Graham amendment is going to be 
offered for discussion this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 884

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. GRAHAM], for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Nelson of Florida, 
     Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. 
     Murray, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Corzine, and 
     Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 884.

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To strike the provision requiring the Secretary of the 
 Interior to conduct an inventory and analysis of oil and natural gas 
  resources beneath all of the waters of the outer Continental Shelf)

       Beginning on page 23, strike line 20 and all that follows 
     through page 25, line 8.

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, the amendment I have just 
offered will strike section 105 from the legislation we are currently 
considering.
  This amendment is cosponsored by a long and diverse list of Senators: 
Senators Feinstein, Dole, Cantwell, Wyden, Nelson of Florida, Boxer, 
Lautenberg, Edwards, Kerry, Murray, Lieberman, Akaka, Leahy, Snowe, 
Dodd, Chafee, Kennedy, Corzine, and Collins.
  In this legislation, section 105 appears to be benign. It calls for 
an inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources that may 
be in the ownership of the Federal Government. However, there are some 
insidious objectives and means to achieve those objectives in this 
legislation.
  In my judgment, section 105 is nothing more than a prelude to a 
direct attack on the moratorium which currently exists in the Gulf of 
Mexico, off New England, the Pacific Northwest, and California, and to 
do so in a way that will avoid a full and public debate.
  The OCS inventory, which is suggested in section 105, is neither 
benign nor innocuous. It will provide for a totally duplicative survey 
to one that is already conducted by the same office that would be 
directed to do the study under section 105, which is the U.S. 
Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service. This is the 
front page of the latest of the 5-year reports, which the Mineral 
Management Service does on U.S. resources and reserves in the Outer 
Continental Shelf. As you will see, this latest assessment was done in 
the year 2000. So it has been only 3 years since we had a comprehensive 
analysis.
  In light of that, why would we oppose this new study? We would oppose 
the new study because we think it is duplicative and redundant. We 
oppose it because it would allow certain techniques, which have 
previously not been used but which have been shown to be detrimental to 
the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, including the fish 
resources, to be utilized. But, in my judgment, the most insidious 
aspect is a provision in section 105 which states that after the 
inventory is completed it should be used as the purpose of analysis of 
the Outer Continental Shelf. Let me read to you subparagraph 5 under 
section 105:

       The inventory and analysis shall identify and explain how 
     legislative, regulatory, and administrative programs or 
     processes restrict or impede the development of identified 
     resources and the extent that they may affect domestic 
     supply, such as moratoria, lease terms and conditions, 
     operational stipulations and requirements, approval delays by 
     the Federal Government and coastal States, and local zoning 
     restrictions on onshore processing facilities, and pipeline 
     landings.

  I think that language is clearly intended to take the results of this 
newly mandated inventory and use them as the basis, focusing 
exclusively on the issue of affecting domestic supply, to build the 
case that the moratoria, which California and other coastal States have 
had now for 20 years, would be undermined.
  That moratoria has been voted on by Congress on many occasions in 
recognition of the fact that, first, there are other interests involved 
beyond maximizing the exploitation of our Continental Shelf oil and gas 
resources. There are issues of the environment and there are issues of 
the economy, which are dependent upon the environment--particularly, 
the purity of the water and the security of the coastal areas.
  Second is the fact that it does not take into consideration the 
question of we want to have a domestic supply of oil and gas, but for 
what time period? If we were to initiate a policy that says we will 
drain America first, we can rest assured that our grandchildren, if not 
our children, will live in an America that will be totally dependent 
upon foreign petroleum sources.
  The estimate is that, as of today, we have known reserves of 
petroleum which, at current levels of utilization, will last 
approximately 50 years. We have much longer reserves of natural gas, 
stretching into the 200-year-plus estimate.
  I think it is eminently wise public policy to say we will try to 
husband our domestic resources as long as possible to delay the date 
when we will be fully dependent upon foreign resources. This practice 
of providing moratoria on certain of our resources plays a significant 
positive role in that policy of attempting to stretch our domestic 
resources.
  As the list of cosponsors indicates, this is by no means a partisan 
issue. The moratoria have broad bipartisan support, and have had it for 
over 20 years. This is also not an issue that is bicameral. The House 
of Representatives has already adopted an Energy bill, stripping out 
language that was virtually verbatim to that which is in 105 of the 
Senate bill.
  Our desire is to have the Senate take the same position that our 
House colleagues have already taken, so when this issue is taken up in 
conference, the issue of an inventory that has as its objective 
undermining the moratoria will not be a conferenceable item.
  I believe our colleagues in the House have shown wisdom in the course 
of action they have taken, and I ask my Senate colleagues to show the 
same wisdom by eliminating section 105. I

[[Page 14497]]

urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, which will adopt 
or reinforce a policy where we look at multiple issues in the 
management of our coastal areas, including the issue of exploitation of 
the resources but also the potential effect of that exploitation on 
other economic and environmental considerations; that we also recognize 
the valid function of those adjacent State and local communities and 
how this issue would be resolved, and the legitimacy of the Federal 
Government's Coastal Zone Management Act as the means by which those 
interests would be expressed. For all those reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to adopt this amendment and strike section 105 from this 
bill, and then with the joy that we will know that we have taken a step 
to protect some of our most critical ocean resources, move on to the 
consideration of other provisions in this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Dole desires to speak on the same 
side. I don't intend to speak but for a moment. I will do my speaking 
and other members of the committee will be welcome to do so in the 
morning. I will take a couple of minutes and then yield to them for the 
evening.
  As you well know, as you are a member of the energy committee, not 
too long ago the Senate of the United States said to this committee of 
Senators: Give us an energy policy for America's future, prepare a 
blueprint, a program, a policy, a set of activities that tells us what 
we ought to be doing for America's economic future, for our jobs, for 
our prosperity, as it relates to energy. We thought that if we did 
nothing else, perhaps that little mission meant we ought to find out 
what we have. What does America own?
  We thought about it for a while and we said that is pretty simple. 
That is exactly what they would like us to do. They would like us to 
find out--even if we don't know what to do about it--what we have. What 
do we own? So a simple proposition was put in here, using the most 
modern techniques, disturbing nothing, to go out and find out how much 
oil and gas is in the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States--the 
property marked by my good friend from Florida in green on his chart--
that we have already, as a nation, said based on today's circumstances 
we don't want to touch.
  Does that mean we should not know what is there? The distinguished 
Senator from Florida says: We do know what is there. No, we do not know 
what is there because the most modern techniques are clearly changing 
what we know about what we own and what is underground. We do not have 
one of those most modern evaluations that has been put over that 
property that is within our control that could be used for America if 
we ever needed it and, I would even say, in a crisis.
  As an ultimate reserve, should we not know what is there? That is the 
issue. It is, do we want to adopt an ostrich policy or do we want to 
adopt a policy of being on the surface, above board with our eyes open 
and know precisely what we are looking at? That is it. You can read the 
language. We will read it very precisely.
  It matters not too much to this Senator from New Mexico what this 
Senate decides to do about this issue. It matters a lot to me as 
chairman of the Committee on Energy that I do what I was asked to do, 
and I thought I was asked to ask the committee members: Would you like 
to spend some American tax dollars to find out what we own so that it 
will be there in the inventory on the rack, so to speak, in the event 
something happened to America?
  I thought the answer to that question was yes. We wrote it up, and we 
put the issue to the members. One member is sitting here, the new 
Senator from Tennessee. There was a rather large bipartisan vote on a 
simple proposition. Of course we want to know. Why would we want to 
stick our head in the sand and say we know there is oil there, we know 
there is gas there, but we do not want to use the most modern 
techniques to tell America what is there? As is going to happen tonight 
and tomorrow, there will be all this fear aroused that we are going to 
harm the sea line, the coastal shore, the beauty of America that is 
alongside these shores.
  This says nothing about doing that, and everybody knows that we are 
not saying do anything whatsoever to these shorelines. What we are 
saying is, is it not, one, the responsibility of the committee to 
suggest to the Congress that we find out? I think the answer to that is 
unequivocal. Yes, we sure should.
  Second, since you should have and you did, should the Senate now turn 
around and say you should have, you did, but we want to take it out, we 
want to throw it away, and we do not want to do it? That is the issue.
  I sense that there is going to be enough fear established that people 
are going to be voting as if we are destroying something. Quite the 
contrary, I think we are doing something positive. I do not think we 
are destroying a thing. We are saying to folks: We have a lot of oil 
and gas out there. If the situation really gets bad--and what that 
might be, I do not know; none of us in this room knows--but if things 
got bad enough, there it is, and we know it is there, and it has been 
measured with the most modern-day techniques which are, indeed, not 
only marvels but they are marvelous in terms of what they will tell us 
about the capacity for the future.
  Unless my friend from Tennessee wants to say a few words, I do not 
intend to spend any more time tonight. We will split our half hour 
tomorrow among three or four Senators from the committee in further 
response to the amendment that our distinguished friend from Florida 
has brought to the floor in a bipartisan manner with a lot of Senators.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Graham amendment to 
S. 14, the omnibus Energy bill. My State like so many others, is going 
through a painful economic transition. We have lost tens of thousands 
of jobs in textiles and the furniture industry, family farms are going 
out of business, and many of these traditional manufacturing jobs have 
been in rural areas, where there are fewer jobs and residents are 
already struggling to make ends meet.
  In 1999, North Carolina had the 12th lowest unemployment rate in the 
United States. By December 2001, the State had fallen to 46th--from 
12th to 46th. That same year, according to the Rural Center, North 
Carolina companies announced 63,222 layoffs. Our State lost more 
manufacturing jobs between 1997 and the year 2000 than any State except 
New York. Entire communities have been uprooted by this crisis. 
According to the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, the 
jobless rate rose from 6 percent in March to 6.4 percent just one month 
later.
  So you can see, Mr. President, North Carolina is hurting. But one 
area that remains strong is tourism--one of the State's largest 
industries. Each year, travelers venture into our State to enjoy the 
mountains of Asheville, the Southern-city charm of Charlotte, the 
beaches of the Outer Banks, and many other State treasures.
  Last year, there were 44.4 million visitors to North Carolina, 
ranking it the sixth most popular destination behind California, 
Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania and New York. In fact, last year domestic 
travelers spent nearly $12 billion across the State, generating $2.2 
billion in tax receipts.
  The industry remains strong, despite the war, and the Nation's 
economic concerns. In fact, while the tourism volume nationwide 
increased by less than 1 percent last year, North Carolina saw a 3 
percent increase in visitors.
  Put simply, tourism plays a vital role in North Carolina's economy, 
but offshore drilling could drastically impact these numbers.
  Communities along the Outer Banks have spoken out time and again 
against offshore drilling because of the impact it could have on the 
economy and the environment--and I agree with them.

[[Page 14498]]

  I thank my good friend, Chairman Domenici, for his hard work and 
dedication to produce a comprehensive energy bill, one that will help 
our country end its dependency on foreign oil. While I fully support 
Senator Domenici's efforts, I must disagree with regard to section 105.
  Section 105 in the Senate bill has been presented as a study of the 
oil and gas reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf, but the effect of 
this section would be to open up scientific exploration. The final bill 
that passed the House of Representatives, as we have heard, rejects 
language that would open up scientific exploration of the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  The waters off the coasts of North Carolina have been placed off 
limits to further leasing under the current moratoria. President Bush 
extended the moratorium and Secretary Norton has been very clear about 
the administration's intention to uphold it. Congress and the 
Administration in the past have agreed with States in the moratoria 
areas that drilling would pose too many risks to their economies and 
shores.
  Why then, in these tough economic times, should States such as North 
Carolina be asked to bear the risk of exploration for resources that 
are under moratoria and not even accessible for development? Section 
105 hints to a backsliding from that protection by allowing intrusive 
activities into moratoria areas, through a study that is not needed.
  The Minerals Management Service already compiles estimates of Outer 
Continental Shelf oil and gas resources every 5 years. In fact, the 
last one was completed in the year 2000, and includes estimates of 
undiscovered conventionally and economically recoverable oil and 
natural gas. We already know, for instance, that 80 percent of the 
Nation's undiscovered, economically recoverable Outer Continental Shelf 
gas is located in the Central and Western part of the Gulf of Mexico, 
which is currently not subject to the moratorium.
  So it would appear that section 105 of this energy bill is 
duplicative and unnecessary.
  In fact, the only logical explanation for new data under section 105 
would be for future exploration activity like drilling, which is 
inconsistent with the current moratorium. We have a national crisis. 
Now, more than ever, we must work to end our dependence on foreign oil 
sources. It is vital that this Nation boost its domestic oil 
production, but we cannot do so by ignoring the wishes of coastal 
communities in North Carolina and other States that oppose drilling.
  Our local people, not the Federal Government, should decide what is 
best for their areas. The Federal Government should not take action 
that will further hurt our already struggling State economies. That is 
why I urge support for the Graham amendment, which would continue to 
protect those areas under moratorium. We owe it to our States. We owe 
it to our local communities.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes 
consideration of the bill tomorrow morning at 9:30, there then be 90 
minutes of debate remaining prior to the vote in relation to the 
pending Graham amendment; provided further that Senator Graham or his 
designee be in control of 60 minutes and the chairman in control of the 
remaining 30 minutes. Further, I ask consent that following the use of 
that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, 
with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. The Senator from New Mexico said ``in relation 
to.'' That would not preclude the possibility of an up-or-down vote as 
opposed to a tabling motion?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Either/or.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. It would be either/or.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to support the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Florida and commend him on his 
leadership on this issue. The amendment that is before us tonight will 
prevent exploration in offshore areas that are currently protected 
under law. The truth is, we should not need a special amendment to 
protect sensitive offshore areas that are currently off limits to 
energy drilling and exploration, but today we find this amendment is 
needed because the underlying Energy Bill would essentially roll back a 
longstanding ban on exploration that protects our coastal areas.
  This Energy Bill calls for the Department of Interior to inventory 
oil and gas resources. It does not rule out exploration or drilling in 
any part of the Outer Continental Shelf and it does not prevent 
exploration or drilling in areas that are currently protected.
  Some may say they just want to allow an inventory of oil and gas off 
our coasts, but taking an inventory of what lies beneath the sea floor 
is not like taking an inventory of what is in the kitchen pantry. 
Looking for oil and gas off our coasts is an invasive process. It 
carries risks. It harms marine life and it can create serious 
environmental damage.
  If it was just taking an inventory, it would be one set of 
environmental concerns, but I think we all know what is really going on 
and it is much more than inventory. This is not just about seeing what 
is out there. It is really about preparing to drill for oil and gas in 
areas that have been protected for years, for decades actually, by law.
  Let's be clear. Oil companies are not going to spend millions of 
dollars to inventory our coasts just for the fun of it. They want to 
begin drilling in areas that are protected, and this Energy Bill would 
give them the start they want.
  I am reminded of that analogy about how if a camel gets its nose 
under the tent, pretty soon the whole camel will follow. Well, if we do 
not want the camel in our tent, stop it when it tries to poke its nose 
in.
  Once those oil companies get their equipment down there, they will be 
steps away from setting up oil rigs and creating a host of dangers on 
our shores. If we do not want oil companies drilling off our shores, 
then we cannot let them get started with these so-called inventory 
projects.
  There are good reasons why over the years Congress and past 
Presidents have agreed to protect parts of our Outer Continental Shelf. 
In fact, that moratorium that today protects the coast of my State of 
Washington was passed by Congress in 1990 and protected by an executive 
order by the first President Bush. Today, the current Bush 
administration wants to repeal that protection and pave the way for 
drilling off our coasts.
  Those who want to explore for energy off our coasts would like us to 
believe it is harmless, but it is not. When we consider offshore oil 
and gas development, we have to be concerned about oil spills and the 
release of other toxic materials. There are other environmental effects 
that pose dangers to marine mammal populations, fish populations, and 
air quality. Seismic testing techniques used by the offshore oil and 
gas industry can kill marine animals. This is not harmless.
  If this administration had a better record on the environment, I 
might be inclined to give them more leeway, but this administration has 
shown an eagerness to roll back environmental protections on so many 
issues that they do not have much credibility when they say they want 
to just look for oil off our coasts.
  Last month, the Bush administration took another disturbing step to 
undermine our environmental protection related to oil and gas drilling. 
In fact, on May 26, 2003, the New York Times reported that the 
administration proposed to defer for 2 years requirements for permits 
under the Clean Water Act for certain activities of oil and gas 
producers to prevent contaminated runoff. This is a bad precedent and a 
step in the wrong direction for protecting our environment. There is no 
good reason for oil and gas developers to be exempt from requirements 
that are imposed on

[[Page 14499]]

other developers to prevent contaminated runoff.
  So not only do they want to let the big oil and gas companies start 
looking for oil in areas that have been protected for decades, this 
Bush administration is going to free those oil and gas companies from 
the rules everyone else has to follow to protect contaminated runoff. 
Not on my watch. We know there is a better way. Congress should be 
seeking long-term solutions that make sense for energy development and 
that balance environmental protection and economic growth. The proposal 
to drill in areas of the OCS that are currently under moratoria falls 
far short of the balanced approach we need. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment to stop an attack on decades of protection for 
our sensitive coastal areas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to support the Graham 
amendment. I am a cosponsor. Bob Graham and I have been battling on the 
question of oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida, and it is 
very clear to us, as we have waged this battle over the course of the 
last 25 years in public office, that the people of Florida do not want 
it for environmental reasons but also for business reasons; that 
Florida's $50 billion tourism industry in large part is because we have 
beautiful, unspoiled beaches.
  I know what the people in my State of Florida want. They do not want 
oil drilling off their shore. I ask the Senator from Washington what is 
the thinking of her people in her State of Washington?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Florida, I 
have listened to his battles for many years as he has fought to protect 
the beautiful shores of Florida. I have seen the shores of Florida, and 
they are gorgeous. He is right, tourism is a critical part of the 
economy of his State of Florida, as it is to mine. People come to 
Washington State to see our beautiful mountains, our beautiful forests, 
and to fish. The last thing they want to see is oil drilling off our 
coasts.
  This underlying bill that allows an inventory is simply a step for 
the oil companies to then get in and drill. My State would be 
absolutely appalled to see that happen.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. What do you think about the rest of the 
Pacific coast States, Oregon and California? What would the people 
think?
  Mrs. MURRAY. As the Senator from Florida knows well, for all who live 
on coastal States, our economies are struggling today; the high-tech 
industry is struggling; Boeing has lost thousands of jobs.
  There is still the beautiful environment that people come to visit. 
The last thing anyone wants in our rain forests, whether in Oregon or 
Washington, or the beaches of California, the last thing they want to 
see is an oil rig or, worse, an oilspill in the areas we care so much 
about.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I talked at length with the senior Senator 
from North Carolina earlier today. Senator Edwards is quite concerned 
about the oil drilling off of the Outer Banks.
  The people directly affected are crying out. There are States that do 
not mind drilling off the coast--the State of Louisiana, the State of 
Texas. There are about 2,000 wells in the Gulf of Mexico and they are 
primarily off of Texas and Louisiana, some off of Alabama, some off of 
Mississippi, all of those States whose Senators do not seem to mind 
because it must reflect their people's feeling that there be oil 
drilling. In the Gulf of Mexico, the geology shows that is where the 
oil and gas is, in the western gulf, in the central gulf, but not in 
the eastern gulf.
  The people of Florida simply do not think it is worth the tradeoff of 
spoiling the environment and spoiling a $50 billion tourism industry to 
take the risk where the geology shows there is very little likelihood 
of oil, to take the risk that a well will be hit, that an oilspill will 
occur.
  There is another reason. We have tremendous military facilities in 
the State of Washington. What we are finding is with so many of the 
military facilities on the gulf coast now that the naval facility on 
Vieques Island in Puerto Rico is being closed down, some of that 
training for the U.S. Navy is being shifted to the gulf coast of 
Florida, not necessarily on the land.
  Because of computers and virtual training, they can now image what 
would be the target zone, and it can be out in the middle of the Gulf 
of Mexico. That helps in preparation of our Navy for its proper 
training, but will that Navy be able to train if there are oil rigs in 
the eastern Gulf of Mexico? The answer is no.
  I ask the Senator from Washington, is there any similar military 
activity in the Senator's State? I certainly know there is in 
California where they are launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Is 
there such a facility?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Florida makes an excellent point. Our 
military needs to be ready for whatever conflicts come to them on the 
war on terror. They need to be out there training. Certainly at Makah 
Air Force Base and the other bases we have, they need to know they have 
a place they can train and not be interfered with.
  I add, as the Senator from Florida knows, there are other economies 
that we count on as well. Fishing is a tremendous economy and part of 
our economy base in the State of Washington. They would not be excited 
about having oil rigs out there where people are fishing, as well as 
tourism, but certainly the military is an important part of my State. 
We want to make sure they have the space they need for training. The 
Senator makes an excellent point.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I have to tell a little story to the Senator 
from Washington before she leaves. In the middle of the 1980s I was the 
junior Congressman from the east coast of the State of Florida. There 
was a Secretary of the Interior named James Watt who was absolutely 
intent on drilling. They offered for lease off the east coast of the 
United States leases for sale all the way from North Carolina south to 
Fort Pierce, FL.
  Perhaps I was green enough--I didn't know any better--to take him on. 
I took him on, as a junior Congressman. I was getting absolutely 
nowhere. We beat it back one year. They left it alone the next year and 
came back with a new Secretary of the Interior the third year and they 
were intent they were going to ram through those leases. The only way I 
was able to beat it was I finally got the Department of Defense and 
NASA to own up to the fact and to press that on the administration back 
in the mid-1980s that you cannot be dropping the solid rocket boosters 
off of the space shuttle with oil rigs down there and you cannot be 
dropping off the first stage, after it is spent, on the expendable 
launch vehicles coming out of Cape Canaveral with oil rigs out there. 
That is the only way we beat it back in the mid-1980s.
  I thought they were going to leave us alone. Two years ago, when an 
important appointment was up in the Department of the Interior, I went 
to the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Norton, and she assured me 
that in the eastern Gulf of Mexico there would be no attempt at oil 
drilling for the next 5 years. That was a commitment made to me with 
regard to an appointment and the Senate's consideration. What is in 
this bill does not break her commitment, but it clearly starts to imply 
that what is being done is the intention of drilling.
  I hope we are going to be able to muster the votes with Senators who 
do not have coasts, with help from Senators such as the distinguished 
Senator in the chair, listening to this debate. With their help, we may 
just have the votes.
  When Senator Graham and I tried 2 years ago just with regard to the 
Gulf of Mexico off the State of Florida to keep the moratorium there, 
we did not get but 35 votes for our amendment, so the amendment did not 
pass. It was later that I got that commitment from Secretary of the 
Interior Gale Norton.
  But this is portending something else. We are going to fight. I hope 
we have the votes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Florida, thank

[[Page 14500]]

you on behalf of all who care about this issue for your longtime battle 
and diligence. Every time you are right, they keep coming back at you, 
but you keep winning.
  I agree, there are a number of Senators on this floor who are not 
from coastal States but they should be joining because certainly they 
all come to our States to see the beautiful coastlines, whether it is 
Florida, Washington State, California, or Maine. They want to preserve 
that, too. They want to take their grandchildren and great-
grandchildren, some day, to your State. I certainly hope they want to 
come to ours, too. If we devastate the environment, the tourism will 
not be there.
  I thank my colleague for working on this issue.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am not a junior Congressman anymore but I am 
a junior Senator. Although there have been some birthdays between the 
time I was a junior Senator and a junior Congressman, I still have a 
lot of fight in me.
  I think we have a decent shot of winning this amendment and this vote 
will take place tomorrow.
  There is no need repeating a number of the things that have been 
said. Let me summarize, on first glance, section 105 of this bill seems 
reasonable. Do we know what the resources are so we can prepare an 
assessment? Upon further reflection, upon reading the language, it 
becomes unnecessary and unreasonable when you recognize the Secretary 
of the Interior has conducted an inventory just 2 years ago. On the 
plan there is going to be an inventory that is going to be conducted in 
2005, just 2 years from now. Why should the U.S. Congress and the 
Secretary of the Interior go about duplicating the efforts that had 
just been done and were going to be done? We know most of the Outer 
Continental Shelf is under a moratorium. Almost all of those areas, 
under this plan, of section 105 of the bill would be required to be 
reassessed under the moratorium. So I am just not sure. I kind of smell 
something fishy here.
  Why does the Congress want to waste taxpayer money on a duplicative 
inventory of areas off limits to oil and gas exploration?
  The House of Representatives has already realized the importance of 
this amendment. They passed it with a voice vote in an overwhelming 
show of bipartisan support. So if we can pass this amendment of Senator 
Graham, this issue is over and done with because of an identical 
provision in the bill that has passed the House.
  We already know that many coastal States exercise their rights under 
the Coastal Zone Management Act because oil and gas exploration plans 
that have been proposed would threaten those States. In their own 
efforts to control the destiny of their own shores and their own 
environment, they have exercised their rights under the Coastal Zone 
Management Act not to have oil drilling.
  Those who oppose this amendment, when we hear the final debate 
tomorrow, are going to argue that it is the only section in the Energy 
bill that addresses the volatility of natural gas prices. But how does 
it do that? We already know where natural gas is from. We know where it 
is from the 2000 assessment. We already know the President and the 
Congress have acted to prevent leasing of oil and gas drilling, so what 
is the true purpose? What I smell is a kind of fishy smell: what is the 
true purpose? You have to come to the conclusion it is to roll back the 
moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. What 
is the true purpose? It is to weaken the States' rights under the 
Coastal Zone Management Act.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this Graham 
amendment and strike this unnecessary language from the Energy bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Senator 
Graham's amendment.
  This amendment, which I cosponsor, would strike language in the 
Energy Policy Act that would authorize an inventory of the oil and gas 
resources on the Outer Continental Shelf.
  This amendment mirrors a bill that Senator Corzine and I introduced 
last month. It would protect the sensitive marine areas off the coast 
of New Jersey and of other coastal States.
  For over 20 years both Democratic and Republican administrations have 
respected the moratorium on leasing and preleasing activities on Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  In his 2004 budget request, President Bush also honored the wishes of 
the coastal States.
  His request included the traditional moratorium language--and so 
should the Energy bill before us.
  The people of New Jersey, and the residents of all coastal States, do 
not want oil and gas rigs marring their treasured beaches and fishing 
grounds.
  Such drilling poses serious threats to our environment and to our 
economy, and so do the technologies used to gather data.
  The seismic surveys authorized in the Energy bill produce explosive 
pulses which have produced documented organ damage in marine species 
and have been associated with fatal whale strandings.
  Dart core sampling, also authorized in the bill, is known to cause 
the destruction of fish habitat on the sea floor and to smother seabed 
marine life with silt.
  Is all of this damage and destruction justified--just to gather data? 
I don't think it is.
  Additionally, in New Jersey our economy depends heavily on shoreline 
tourism.
  Tourism in my State is a 10-billion-dollar-a-year industry and 
provides employment for thousands of people.
  We simply cannot afford damage to our shorelines, nor to the marine 
life which inhabits our coastal waters.
  What the Energy bill proposes is a step in the wrong direction. What 
purpose would be served by performing an inventory of oil and natural 
gas resources along the Outer Continental Shelf, if there is no 
intention of drilling in these regions?
  This provision completely undercuts the language which Congress has 
approved for years--and it clearly undercuts the stated wishes of the 
coastal States that would incur the greatest damage.
  Our country needs new sources of energy. And there are many energy 
sources vastly underutilized in America.
  We have barely scratched the surface of our country's potential for 
developing renewable energy.
  The enormous energy conservation and efficiency savings that are 
possible are largely untapped. Too often these measures are voluntary 
rather than a part of the way we do business.
  If we better utilize these untapped sources of domestic energy, 
perhaps Congress won't be tempted to sweep aside the will of the people 
of New Jersey and the will of the citizens of other coastal States.
  We must continue, as we historically have, to recognize the right of 
States to govern their own shorelines.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Graham's amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, what kind of energy policy does this country 
need? There is little argument about the need for affordable, reliable 
energy from diverse sources. The bill before us seeks to achieve that 
laudable goal in the worst possible manner: on the back of the American 
taxpayer. This bill subsidizes two types of energy. That which few 
consumers would be willing to pay for and that which companies would 
produce and consumers would pay for in the absence of subsidies. I ask 
my colleagues if this makes any sense?
  Let's let the competitive market determine our energy future. Let's 
let the market, with millions of individual consumers pursuing their 
individual energy needs, based on their own unique situations, steer 
this country's energy economy. Let us not dictate to consumers and 
taxpayers how they should spend their energy dollars.
  Recently this body voted on a tax bill that allows taxpayers to keep 
more of their hard-earned money in an attempt to jump-start this 
economy. The tax cut was passed on the premise that consumers and 
businesses are better suited than government to make sound

[[Page 14501]]

economic decisions that translate into economic growth. That same 
premise applies to energy. Yet the Energy bill under debate tosses that 
premise out the window. Suddenly the consumers and businesses of this 
country, which we are trusting to make sound economic decisions to put 
the whole economy back on track, cannot be trusted to make sound energy 
decisions. Instead, we are dictating their energy choices for them. No 
body of persons, not even a panel of 100 of the world's most brilliant 
economists, let alone the Senate of the United States, has the 
knowledge, wisdom or foresight to make such decisions rationally for 
millions of American citizens.
  Let's take a look at what this bill would do. It mandates greater use 
of ethanol, a fuel that is already heavily subsidized. Without 
subsidies and mandates, ethanol would virtually cease to exist as a 
motor fuel. It subsidizes renewable energies such as wind power, which 
again would not survive in the competitive marketplace due to the high 
cost and low value of the electricity produced. It subsidizes coal, 
already the most plentiful and affordable energy source in this 
country. Coal power will continue to thrive in this country whether 
subsidized or not, as long as we don't regulate it out of existence, 
yet we are providing subsidies for coal power. This bill subsidizes 
nuclear power, which would probably be competitive were it not for the 
onerous regulatory restrictions that needlessly burden that industry. 
The list goes on.
  Let me suggest that the greatest obstacle to affordable and reliable 
energy in this country is the U.S. Government. Before this body looks 
outward for solutions to our energy problems, it should look inward. It 
should identify those laws, regulations, and other Government 
impediments that prevents this country's citizens and businesses from 
making sound energy decisions. We encumber the U.S. energy economy with 
all sorts of onerous and often unneeded and outmoded rules that raise 
the cost of energy and distort energy markets. Instead of fixing this 
state of affairs, this bill compounds these errors by further raising 
the cost of energy to American taxpayers and further distorting energy 
markets through subsidies.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an amendment to 
fix a funding gap that exists for meritorious Women's Business Centers 
that are graduating from the first stage of the program and entering 
the sustainability portion.
  I would like to first thank Senator Snowe, Chair of the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, for working very closely with me 
on this issue. Her leadership and support has been invaluable. I would 
also like to thank Senator Bingaman for his support on this issue. As a 
long-time ally of the Women's Business Centers and all SBA programs, 
his assistance on this amendment has been very helpful. Last, I want to 
express my gratitude to Senators Harkin, Edwards, Cantwell, Enzi and 
Domenici, as well as Congressman McIntyre, for their backing and for 
their hard work to resolve this issue.
  As I have said on more than one occasion, women business owners do 
not get the recognition they deserve for their contribution to our 
economy: Eighteen million Americans would be without jobs today if it 
weren't for these entrepreneurs who had the courage and the vision to 
strike out on their own. For 18 years, as a member of the Senate 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have worked to 
increase the opportunities for these enterprising women in a variety of 
ways, leading to greater earning power, financial independence, and 
asset accumulation. These are more than words. For these women, it 
means having a bank account, buying a home, sending their children to 
college, calling the shots.
  And helping them at every step are the Women's Business Centers. In 
2002 alone, these centers helped 85,000 women with the business 
counseling and assistance they likely could not find anywhere else. 
Cutting funding for any centers would be harmful to the centers, to the 
women they serve, to their States, and to the national economy.
  The funding gap for Women's Business Centers in sustainability exists 
because the Small Business Administration has chosen to short-change 
existing, proven centers in order to open new, unproven ones. By 
incorrectly interpreting the funding formula set up in the Women's 
Business Centers program, the SBA has made way for new centers at the 
expense of those that are already established. This is both bad policy 
and contrary to congressional intent.
  As the author of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 
1999, I can tell you that when the Women's Business Centers 
Sustainability Act of 1999 was signed into law, it was Congress's 
intent to protect the established and successful infrastructure of 
worthy, performing centers. The law was designed to allow all 
graduating Women's Business Centers that meet certain SBA standards to 
receive continued funding under sustainability grants, while still 
allowing for new centers--but not by penalizing those that have already 
demonstrated their worth.
  Currently there are 81 Women's Business Centers in 48 States. Forty-
six of these are in the initial program, 29 are already in 
sustainability, and 6 more are graduating or have graduated from the 
initial program and are now applying for sustainability grants. Because 
of these potentially 6 new sustainability centers--from Georgia, Iowa, 
Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington State--and because the 
SBA is incorrectly interpreting the funding formula for sustainability 
grants in order to open new centers, the amount of funds reserved for 
Women's Business Centers in sustainability must be increased from 30.2 
percent to 36 percent.
  This amendment does just that. It directs the SBA to reserve 36 
percent of the appropriated funds for the sustainability portion of the 
Women's Business Centers program--even though the SBA already has the 
authority on its own to increase the reserve--thereby protecting the 
established Women's Business Centers form almost certain grant funding 
cuts and still providing enough funds to open six or more new centers 
across the country.
  I want to again express my sincere and steadfast support for the 
growing community of women entrepreneurs across the Nation and for the 
invaluable programs through which the SBA provides women business 
owners with the tools they need to succeed. As a long-time advocate for 
women entrepreneurs and SBA's programs, my record in support of the 
SBA's women's programs and for women business owners speaks for itself. 
I have continually fought for increased funding for the women's 
programs at the SBA, for sustaining and expanding the women's business 
centers, and for giving women entrepreneurs their deserved 
representation within the Federal procurement process, to name a few. 
With respect to laws assisting women-owned businesses, I have been 
proud to either introduce the underlying legislation or strongly 
advocate to ensure their passage and adequate funding.
  This amendment is necessary to continue the good work of SBA's 
Women's Business Center network, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
support it.

                          ____________________