[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13294-13301]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 6, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, 
     affordable and reliable energy.

  Pending:

       Wyden/Dorgan amendment No. 792, to provide for the 
     suspension of strategic petroleum reserve acquisitions.
       Voinovich amendment No. 799, to make grants and loans to 
     States and other organizations to strengthen the economy, 
     public health, and environment of the United States by 
     reducing emissions from diesel engines.
       Martinez (for Nelson of Florida) amendment No. 783, to 
     strike the section providing for a comprehensive inventory of 
     Outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas resources.
       Schumer amendment No. 805, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding management of the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve to lower the burden of gasoline prices on the economy 
     of the United States and circumvent the efforts of OPEC to 
     reap windfall profits.


                   recognition of the majority leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                schedule

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a moment we will return to consideration 
of the pending Energy legislation that we debated last week and this 
week and will complete later this week. We will resume debate on the 
amendment of Senator Martinez relating to the inventory of the OSC. The 
time agreement we reached last night provides for up to 80 minutes of 
debate before the vote on that amendment, although I do not believe all 
of that time will be necessary. We would like to begin that vote no 
later than 11 this morning. We request that Senators come promptly for 
that vote.
  We will be recessing at 11:30 to accommodate the weekly policy 
luncheons today. At 2:15, when the Senate returns from recess, we will 
continue through the amendments to the Energy bill. I believe the 
climate change amendments will be ready later this morning and for 
debate beginning at 2:15. We would expect votes on those amendments 
during today's session.
  I reiterate that it is my intention to file cloture on this bill 
later this evening. That would allow us to continue to consider and 
dispose of amendments, but it would also assure that we have a glide 
path to completion of the bill and that we would complete passage of 
the bill this week. The managers have done tremendous work over the 
last almost week and a half in moving the process along. I hope we can 
continue in that respect and finish the bill no later than Thursday or 
Friday of this week. Thus, we will be having a vote late this morning, 
and we will in all likelihood be voting on the climate change 
amendments later this afternoon. In addition, there will be the 
opportunity for people to come to the Senate floor and offer their 
amendments.


                           Amendment No. 783

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 80 
minutes of debate on amendment No. 783.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be equally divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation now? 
Are we having speeches on the amendment to strike the OCS inventory by 
Senators Martinez and Nelson and Corzine; is that correct?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator would have 8 minutes left.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when I have spoken 
for 5 minutes. I know Senator Corzine is coming to speak. If you could 
let me know when my 5 minutes is up, I would appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Chair will notify the 
Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Martinez-Nelson-
Corzine-Boxer amendment to strike the OCS inventory language from the 
Energy bill. For millions of Americans living near our coasts, this 
amendment is arguably the most important we will debate on this bill. 
We know huge numbers of people live within 50 miles of America's 
coastlines. Few things are synonymous with California more than the 
beautiful beaches and the coasts. We have some pictures to show what 
this means to our children.
  This is a scene I remember with my own children and now with my own 
grandson when he comes to visit California. This is what we think 
about. The natural beauty that is the California coast helps form our 
State's identity, as these pictures show. I will show you another one 
at this time as well. When I look at this, I just think: California.
  The coast is a huge reason so many millions of Americans have chosen 
California as their home. Indeed, out of our 36 million Californians, 
21 million Californians live in coastal counties. That is roughly 64 
percent of the State's population. And there is a reason for it. This 
is God's gift to our State and to the people of this country and, 
frankly, to the people of the world who come to spend time on 
California's coastline and beaches.
  The California coast is home to dozens of threatened and endangered 
species, including the short-tailed albatross, California Gnatcatcher, 
sea otters, chinook and coho salmon,

[[Page 13295]]

steelhead trout, guadalupe fur seal, and several species of whales. Our 
coast is a true national treasure.
  But Californians are not the only people who treasure our coastline. 
We know that tourists, millions of them, come to our State, generating 
$51 billion in annual revenues for our State. The protection of 
California's coasts, frankly, as much as all the other coasts we will 
protect, is not just an environmental necessity, it is an economic 
necessity.
  The underlying bill could very well lead to more offshore oil 
drilling, could devastate my State and its way of life, and I trust 
that this bipartisan legislation being offered by Senators Martinez and 
Nelson will be agreed to because the inventory that is agreed to in 
this bill could encourage further drilling in the not-so-distant 
future, putting all of our coasts at risk.
  Make no mistake about it. This inventory is not a benign compiling of 
a grocery list of resources. The inventory proponents would have us 
believe that, but it is really not benign. The inventory will be 
conducted using seismic air guns which use explosive blasts to map rock 
formations beneath the sea. Sound from these blasts can be detected for 
thousands of miles, and hundreds of millions of blasts would be 
required to survey America's Outer Continental Shelf. These seismic 
blasts have been shown to have major consequences for marine life. So I 
do not see how it makes sense to say, on the one hand, we are 
protecting our beautiful coastline with moratoria and then allow the 
inventory to go forward in these areas.
  Most fish use hearing to detect predators, find prey, communicate, 
and find mates. Loss of hearing can have profound, even fatal effects 
on our fish.
  So why would we take God's precious gift and subject it to this kind 
of trauma? Frankly, it is wrong. To me, it is almost a moral issue, 
that we protect the beauty we have been given, this God-given beauty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for another minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mrs. BOXER. Seismic air guns have been shown to result in severely 
diminished fish catches by so severely startling the fish, they quickly 
leave the area or descend to the sea floor, seeking shelter from the 
noise. One study showed that when seismic blasts had been conducted in 
1996, catch rates of cod and haddock declined between 45 percent and 70 
percent over a 1,400-square-mile area, and 5 days later the catch rate 
had still not recovered.
  I ask for an additional minute on top of my minute to finish.
  The fact is, with so many fishery stocks already depleted, should we 
really do anything else to harm them, and can our fishermen afford the 
risk?
  Marine mammals such as whales also use sound to locate food, avoid 
predators, care for young, and navigate the oceans. Seismic blasts can 
interfere with all of these critical activities. Air gun blasts have 
been observed to affect the feeding behavior of sperm whales in the 
Gulf of Mexico, migrating bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea off the 
Alaskan coast, and harbor porpoises, which appear to be dodging and 
evading the sounds dozens of miles away from the blasts. Indeed, last 
year, the International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee 
concluded that the increased sound from seismic surveys was cause for 
serious concern.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from New Jersey is here. We are 
running out of time, so I am going to wrap this up and cede the rest of 
the time to the Senator from New Jersey. I hope everyone supports this 
bipartisan amendment before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
1 minute 5 seconds.
  Mr. CORZINE. One minute and 5 seconds? That is the time allotted by 
the Chair? Let me, then, be brief.
  I rise today as a cosponsor in support of the amendment offered by 
Senators martinez and Nelson that will keep the door closed to offshore 
drilling. The amendment strikes language in the bill that would allow a 
seismic inventory of all potential oil and natural gas resources in the 
Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast.
  The people of New Jersey strongly oppose allowing such an inventory 
and I voted against this provision during the committee markup.
  New Jersey recognizes that taking inventory of these resources is a 
step onto a slippery slope toward the eventual drilling off the New 
Jersey coast; resources that are currently protected by the Outer 
Continental Shelf, or OCS, moratoria. After all, why would anyone 
conduct an inventory unless they have the intention to drill if 
resources are found? ``Inventory'' is just bureaucratic-speak for an 
open door to drilling off of our coast.
  I have long fought to maintain the bipartisan, two-decades-old 
moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. Any drilling, or 
even the threat of drilling, poses a real threat to the New Jersey 
environment, economy, and way of life. Drilling would leave the New 
Jersey coast and its waters vulnerable to oil spills, drilling 
discharges and damage to coastal wetlands.
  The environmental effects of an ecological disaster know no State 
boundaries. Oil spills are not fleeting environmental sound bites. 
These accidents linger for years, causing sustained environmental harm.
  In addition, coastal tourism is our second largest industry. It 
generates more than $31 billion in spending, directly and indirectly 
and supports more than 836,000 jobs; more than 20 percent of total 
State employment. Coastal tourism in New Jersey generates more than 
$16.6 billion in wages and brings in more than $5.5 billion in tax 
revenues to the State.
  New Jersey already holds its own in supporting energy production and 
refining. We have three nuclear power plants. We are the East Coast hub 
for oil refining.
  We are growing our energy business, but exploiting our shore is a 
step we refuse to take.
  This is not just an issue for my State. Protecting the moratoria on 
drilling is important to maintaining the integrity of the coastline of 
the United States. Allowing drilling in anyone area affects all the 
surrounding areas. Tides move across State borders. Fisheries and fish 
do not recognize State borders. This issue affects us all, and we must 
protect the integrity of the moratoria at all costs.
  The inventory is not only dangerous because it starts us on the 
slippery slope towards drilling, but also because the methods used to 
conduct the inventory, including seismic surveys, can disrupt marine 
ecosystems and damage our local fisheries.
  Dr. Chris Clark, Director of the Bioacoustics Research Program at 
Cornell University, has called seismic testing ``the most severe 
acoustic insult to the marine environment . . . short of naval 
warfare.'' The impulses from the explosive shock waves used have been 
shown to cause harm to many species of marine life and have been 
equated with exploratory dynamite. It is not only dangerous but also 
costly. The inventory is estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers $1 billion.
  There is no need to conduct an invasive, environmentally harmful 
inventory when the Minerals Management Service already provides an 
estimate of oil and natural gas reserves in the Outer Continental 
Shelf.
  The MMS estimate is noninvasive and does not harm the environment. So 
I say to my colleagues, we have no need for a seismic inventory--we 
already know about the resources off our shores.
  According to the most recent study, the resources are few and far 
between. In fact, the MMS estimated that the Atlantic contains only 
eight percent of the Nation's undiscovered natural gas. In addition, in 
2000, the MMS estimated the entire Mid-Atlantic region only contains 
196 million barrels of oil, enough to last the country barely 10 days.
  Why would any east coast State want to risk their coastal economies 
for another inventory when we already know what's out there? Ten days 
worth of oil

[[Page 13296]]

will do nothing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
  This administration already has a reputation for threatening the 
moratoria. On May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a 
request for proposals to conduct a study of the environmental impacts 
of drilling in the Atlantic. The stated purpose of the study was to 
examine ``areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the 
coast of New Jersey, and in the area formerly known as the Manteo Unit 
off North Carolina . . . in anticipation of managing the exploitation 
of potential and proven reserves.''
  Allow me to repeat that last part. The study was ``in anticipation of 
managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.''
  Needless to say, the request created quite an uproar in my State. One 
local headline read, ``Specter of drilling offshore is back, angering 
Jersey.'' New Jerseyans were outraged, as were the members of the New 
Jersey delegation here in Washington. My colleagues and I urged the 
administration to rescind the request, and were successful. But the 
threat still lingers, and this inventory will be the beginning of the 
unraveling of the moratoria and the eventual drilling off the New 
Jersey shores.
  Past congresses and Presidents have ruled out Atlantic drilling for 
years, and we are not going to allow it now. American taxpayers should 
not have to pay for studies that amount to nothing more than oil 
industry fantasies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so that we can 
protect our Nation's precious coastlines and ocean waters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from North 
Carolina?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Carolina 
4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, since 1993 a moratorium has been in place 
on oil and gas exploration off the coast of North Carolina, thus 
protecting vital coastal areas from drilling. This moratorium has 
provided a much needed boost to our coastal economy and my entire 
State.
  Each year, thousands of families flock to North Carolina beaches to 
enjoy the sun, dip in the cool waters, and spend time with family and 
friends. Visitors provide much needed tourism dollars that create and 
sustain jobs. This moratorium has worked.
  Only 2 years ago, I helped lead the successful effort to stop an 
attempt to lift the moratorium on oil and gas exploration off the coast 
of North Carolina and many other States. Yet here we are, once again, 
confronting the same proposal to undermine the moratorium and open new 
areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas development.
  I am proud to join a bipartisan group of my colleagues in offering an 
amendment to strike a provision in the Energy bill that exposes 
currently restricted environmentally sensitive coastal areas to oil and 
gas exploration. I especially thank my friend and colleague, Senator 
Mel Martinez, for his true leadership on this issue in his first year 
in the Senate.
  There is no question that now more than ever we must work to end our 
dependence on foreign oil. But we cannot do so by ignoring the wishes 
and economic needs of the majority of the people of North Carolina and 
many other coastal States that oppose this exploration. Exploring off 
our coast would endanger North Carolina's booming tourism industry, a 
true economic engine of my State. According to the North Carolina 
Department of Commerce, tourism is one of North Carolina's largest 
industries, supporting nearly 183,000 jobs. Tourism remains strong 
despite declines in other important North Carolina industries, such as 
textiles, furniture manufacturing, and fiber optics.
  While nationwide the tourism volume increased by less than 1 percent 
after the tragedy of September 11, North Carolina saw a 3-percent 
increase in its visitors, a real testament to the draw of our coastal 
areas. Last year, some 49 million visitors traveled to North Carolina 
making it the eighth most popular State tourist destination in the 
country. Tourists spent $13.2 billion across the State, generating more 
than $1.1 billion in Federal revenue and over $1.1 billion in State and 
local tax revenue.
  We have been told not to worry, all their talking about is an 
inventory. But there are two problems with this argument. The experts 
say inventorying itself will damage these environmentally sensitive 
areas. And why would we inventory an area we do not plan to later 
drill? The proposed inventory would be harmful to marine habitat and 
the fishing industry because it requires seismic surveys involving 
repetitive explosions in the water that send loud acoustic pulses 
through the water and into the sea floor. Scientists are concerned that 
these sounds kill fish and disturb whales, causing whales to swim onto 
the beach and die.
  Advocates for an inventory label it solely as information gathering. 
But we already know where resources are located along our coast from 
data gathered by the Department of the Interior. Why, then, should our 
State be asked to risk environmental damage to our coastal areas for 
resources that are under moratoria and not even accessible for 
development? The potential physical price of exploration and subsequent 
drilling, polluted beaches, disrupted marine ecosystems, lost tourism, 
speaks to the heart of the issue. Any exploration off our coast is bad 
for tourism and is bad for North Carolina.
  I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes from Senator 
Nelson's time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This time agreement, if I were to ask to yield 
additional time beyond that which we have for Senators, what would I be 
moving up against in terms of putting the Senate in some kind of a 
problem?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have a vote scheduled at 11 o'clock and a 
recess at 11:30.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How many more Senators are supposed to speak on this 
issue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Each of them have how much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each have 7 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am sorry, Senator.
  Mrs. DOLE. I understand Senator Nelson is willing to yield 4 minutes 
of his time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent it be in order that Senator 
Nelson yield 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, as an editorial in the Charlotte Observer 
on March 31 of this year explains, a drilling accident threatens 
everything North Carolinians hold dear about the coast--the beaches, 
the ocean water, the thin fish and shell fish, the pelicans and pipers, 
the marsh grass and live oaks.
  Allowing drilling off the coast of the Carolinas, in an area of the 
Atlantic that has some of the roughest weather in the world, is 
foolish. I agree, indeed, it would be foolish. It is detrimental to 
those who live, work, and visit our coastal communities. It is 
detrimental to my entire State.
  In conclusion, let me wrap up quickly and say, once again, the 
majority of folks in North Carolina are opposed to this drilling. That 
is why I am again proud to be a strong voice for my State in fighting 
any effort to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas 
exploration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted 
to address the Senator for 30 seconds without being charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my fellow Senators, we have heard the 
Chair announce we will have a vote that is set. The Senators have time 
to speak, so they should get down here and speak. We have Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Bingaman, the distinguished majority leader--although 
he can take time off his own time.

[[Page 13297]]

  For any who have remaining time agreed to, it would serve their 
purpose if they would use their time because the time will run against 
them. I am not going to yield. I have only 7\1/2\ or 8 minutes in 
opposition. I cannot yield.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Nelson-
Martinez amendment, which would remove from the energy bill language 
that threatens decades-old Congressional and Executive Branch 
protections of sensitive coastal areas.
  Protecting our Nation's fragile coasts is vitally important to my 
State's economy. On the west coast of Washington, the livelihoods of 
many rural communities depend on fishing, tourism, and shellfish 
farming. These multi-million dollar industries depend on clean water 
and pristine coastlines.
  In addition, the U.S. has entered into numerous treaties with coastal 
Indian tribes. Many of these treaties guarantee tribal fishing and 
shellfishing harvesting rights. We cannot set in motion a process that 
could damage these tribes' ways of life, or allow any potential 
abrogation of our Nation's trust responsibilities.
  Over the last several years, Washington State has been a leader in 
protecting sensitive marine areas. We worked closely with the National 
Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration to establish the Olympic Coast 
National Marine Sanctuary, which encompasses most of the waters off of 
the northwest coast of Washington. The sanctuary is home to hundreds of 
species including marine mammals.
  These mammals include the majestic Orca whale, whose 20 percent 
population decline over the past decade triggered a depleted listing 
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and may lead to a threatened 
listing under the Endangered Species Act. I am very concerned that the 
exploratory activities allowed under the Senate Energy Bill could 
further harm this important symbol of the Northwest.
  There are those who argue that a mere inventory of off-shore oil and 
gas supplies would do no harm. But I would ask my colleagues to 
consider emerging scientific evidence related to seismic technology 
used to conduct these surveys. Studies have suggested that these 
techniques are more invasive than originally believed--particularly 
when it comes to their acoustic disruption of marine ecosystems. 
Potential interference with the sensory capacities of marine mammals 
may jeopardize fundamental activities such as foraging for food, 
avoiding predators, and caring for young.
  Moreover, many coastal residents of my State still shudder when they 
recall the thick carpets of oil, hundreds of dead birds, and great 
shards of oil-blackened timber that followed a 1989 oil spill off Grays 
Harbor. That disaster stained over 300 miles of coastline. An oil well 
blow out could be many times worse.
  While some argue that this is simply a study, my response is that we 
should not spend millions of taxpayer dollars to study something we 
know we do not want to do. My constituents have told me they will not 
accept drilling rigs off the coast of communities like Willapa Bay, 
Neah Bay, or the mouth of the Columbia River.
  There is an important question here. Where is it appropriate to 
drill, and where is it inappropriate? I agree with many of the Senators 
who have cited our Nation's growing need for more natural gas supplies. 
While I fully recognize this challenge, according to the EIA and MMS, 
the potential supplies off the coast of Washington are dwarfed by at 
least 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that we know already exists 
in Alaskan fields.
  That is gas that is currently being pumped back into the ground, and 
it is the reason we need to expedite the construction of a pipeline 
from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 States. Building this 
pipeline would provide years of domestic gas supply, create thousands 
of jobs, and provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry.
  The Pew Oceans Commission has highlighted the fragility of our oceans 
and coastal resources and recommended we look at our oceans in a 
holistic manner--not through the narrow lens of oil and gas production 
but to look at the overall benefits provided by the oceans.
  I think the commission's findings confirm the need to reject any 
provision that moves us towards future oil and gas drilling in National 
Marine Sanctuaries or off the coasts of protected federally owned 
national parks and wildlife refuges.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  I thank the Senators from Florida for their leadership on this 
important issue.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from 
Florida, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, as a cosponsor of their 
amendment to strike the OCS inventory language from the Energy bill.
  I want to commend Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman for working 
hard to craft a bipartisan bill, but I have a number of concerns with 
it, including the OCS inventory language.
  Since 1982, Congress and the Executive branch have prohibited new 
offshore leases in the OCS. The moratoria began with California and was 
expanded to include the rest of the west coast, Georges Bank, New 
England, the mid-Atlantic, part of the eastern Gulf, and portions of 
Alaska. Both President George H. W. Bush and President Clinton upheld 
the OCS moratoria.
  Let us be very clear. While an inventory sounds benign, it is a 
costly endeavor that will cause irreparable harm to our coastal waters 
and set us on a slippery slope to drilling and exploration in these 
environmentally sensitive areas. Why else would the Federal Government 
propose to spend nearly $1 billion to conduct seismic drilling 
activities if it did not intend to go forward with further coastal 
exploration? To suggest otherwise strains credulity. Further, nowhere 
in the underlying bill does it say how the Federal Government is going 
to pay for this $1 billion inventory. I contend that there are better 
ways to invest $1 billion--health care, education, infrastructure 
improvements, energy efficient technology, and renewable resources come 
immediately to mind, than on a misguided attempt to open our coastal 
areas to oil and gas exploration.
  As I mentioned, conducting an inventory would entail seismic drilling 
that would have a ripple effect up and down our coastline. We already 
know that this type of activity has a devastating impact on marine 
life, including whales.
  I am concerned that any seismic drilling or other similar activities 
along the North Atlantic and mid-Atlantic coast would have a tremendous 
negative impact on the health and well-being of Long Island Sound and 
the coastal areas of Connecticut.
  Long Island Sound is an estuary of national significance with not 
one, but two openings to the sea. It is bordered by Connecticut and New 
York, running 110 miles long and 21 miles across at its widest. More 
than 8 million people live and vacation on or around Long Island Sound. 
Connecticut and New York have already spent millions of dollars and 
dedicated millions more to restore the health of the Long Island Sound 
ecosystem. A healthy habitat ensures a prosperous recreational and 
commercial fishing industry, boating, swimming, and an overall thriving 
tourism industry. Long Island Sound provides an economic benefit of 
more than $5 billion to the regional economy.
  Therefore, I am deeply concerned that any attempt to inventory the 
OCS or begin future oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic would cause 
irreparable harm to Long Island Sound and the State of Connecticut. I 
therefore strongly support the Nelson-Martinez amendment and urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 2 
minutes of the allotted time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, an issue not discussed so far in this 
debate is the fact that we tried mightily to find a reasonable 
compromise that would allow for there to be exploratory

[[Page 13298]]

inventorying of those areas which wanted it, while allowing States like 
Florida to opt out of such an inventory.
  As we entered into those negotiations, it was unfortunate we were not 
able to seek common ground or find a way in which we could resolve it. 
The unfortunate issue arises that it is difficult to draw these State 
boundaries in a way that allows Florida to protect not only its coast 
but those that are adjacent to neighboring States. So as we went 
through this exercise, it was unfortunate we could not find that 
reasonable common ground that would have allowed us to reach a 
compromise.
  Unfortunately, now Florida is in the peculiar position, as is North 
Carolina, that we have no option but to object to the entirety of this 
provision in the bill in order to protect Florida from the exploration 
or the inventorying. There is no question that inventorying is a 
precursor to drilling, to exploration.
  In Florida, we have had for many years a moratorium on drilling. This 
moratorium will extend until the year 2012. It is a moratorium that has 
been not only observed but it has been implemented by President Bush, 
President Clinton, as well as by our current President. So there has 
been a compact, an understanding, a reasoned understanding that 
Floridians do not want this taking place off their shores--just as 
North Carolinians do not want it. We should have the opportunity not to 
interfere in our own States' coastline if we do not wish to have it.
  Right now, we would have no such option. There would be no 
opportunity to opt out, and we would have only to acquiesce to 
inventorying off the shores of Florida which, frankly, cannot be 
drilled upon because of the current and pending moratorium.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired. Who 
yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand, according to the unanimous 
consent agreement, I now have 10 minutes to speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 15 seconds.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I will take all 7 minutes 15 
seconds to talk about this important amendment.
  I do so much respect a lot of what has been said on the floor of the 
Senate by my colleagues from Florida and New Jersey about their 
feelings about offshore drilling. Of course, we have different feelings 
about that in Louisiana, and our experience leads us to different 
conclusions. But that is not really the subject of this amendment, 
which is why I have come to the floor to speak in opposition to this 
amendment.
  This is not a drilling amendment. This is a security amendment. This 
is a good stewardship amendment. This is a commonsense amendment. The 
people of the United States--all 240-plus million people who live in 
this Nation--depend on us--us right here--to give them good information 
about their country, about their land, about their water, about their 
oceans, about their resources. They depend on us to tell them the 
truth, not to hide things from them, not to pretend we have things when 
we do not or say we do not have things when we do.
  That is all the amendment the Senators from New Mexico--both 
Senators, the chairman and the ranking member--have put in the 
underlying bill, with support from Democrats and Republicans, with a 
good vote from Republicans and Democrats on the committee, to put in 
this bill simply a direction for our agency, the Minerals Management 
Service of the Department of Interior, to do an inventory so the 
American public can understand how much oil, how much gas, how many 
other resources we might have on the Outer Continental Shelf.
  No. 1, this is not a small piece of land or territory. It is 200 
miles basically out from our coast, a ring around the Nation. If you 
took the OCS, which is 1.67 billion acres of land, and laid it over the 
map of the United States, it would be from the Mississippi River to the 
Pacific Coast. It is a huge asset owned not by the Senators, not by the 
House of Representatives, not by the Governors, it is owned by the 
American people. They have a right to know what resources are there for 
them should they need them, should they want to use them as good 
stewards--not as exploiters, not as destroyers, but as good stewards.
  We are engaged in a war. We have had a strike against this Nation 
from terrorists who have all sorts of vile intentions against our 
Nation.
  The price of oil is at $58 a barrel this week. Gas is at a record 
high. We do not know when or if there will be another terrorist attack, 
but in the event there is some problem--more problems than we have 
today because we have some, obviously--when the country may have to 
draw on resources on the Outer Continental Shelf--it may either be 
because of an emergency or because of economic necessity--we most 
certainly would like to know what is there so we can make a good 
decision. That is basically all this underlying bill does.
  So I know my colleagues have different views about drilling and where 
drilling should be and whether we should drill, but this is not the 
amendment. This is not the attack point. You would want to talk about 
drilling when we get to it. This is about an inventory, a resource 
assessment of what is owned by the American people for their deliberate 
thought about what should be done either now or in the short-term 
future or in the long-term future of this Nation.
  I urge all of us to vote against this amendment that would strip out 
this commonsense approach to letting the American people know what they 
own so they can make, and we all can make, good decisions about whether 
to use those resources, when to use those resources, or decide never to 
tap into those resources. But those good, commonsense decisions cannot 
even be made unless we know what we have.
  The good leadership of both Senators from New Mexico is leading us to 
give the American people a full accounting. I come to the Senate floor 
this morning to say that I strongly support this underlying measure, 
and I thank them for their leadership. I urge my colleagues on the 
Democratic side, as well as my Republican colleagues, to hold to this 
commonsense inventory of our Outer Continental Shelf.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following data be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                           INVENTORY/SEISMIC

       Conducting seismic surveys would provide MMS with a 
     valuable tool to help predict where resources may lie beneath 
     the ocean floor and help inform the American public as to the 
     nature and value of these resources. The inventory language 
     does not eliminate existing moratoria or expand OCS access 
     and the seismic surveys described in the inventory language 
     do not constitute ``actual exploration.''
       Industry has co-existed with the marine environment for 
     decades. In the Gulf of Mexico, new marine ecosystems have 
     been created--and are thriving--as a result of offshore 
     operations. Scientific research has not shown that seismic 
     activities harm sperm whales or other marine mammal species. 
     In it's 2004 report, ``Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean 
     Noise--Determining when Noise Causes Biologically Significant 
     Effects'', the National Research Council concluded that ``no 
     scientific studies have conclusively demonstrated a link 
     between exposure to sound and adverse effects on a marine 
     mammal population.''
       However, MMS has implemented general instructions, 
     including mitigation measures in deepwater, to minimize any 
     possible effects of seismic surveys on marine species. Some 
     of these measures include placement of trained visual 
     observers on seismic vessels; immediate shutdown if a whale 
     is sighted within the vicinity of seismic sources; and start-
     up procedures that require the immediate vicinity to be clear 
     of any animals before activities can proceed.
       Annual appropriations moratoria, not cost, have prohibited 
     MMS from conducting any leasing or related activities in 
     these areas for decades. Any costs must be weighed against 
     the benefits to the nation of understanding the value and 
     nature of its offshore resources.
       Under the OCS Lands Act, Congress found a serious lack of 
     adequate basic energy information regarding OCS resources and 
     an urgent need for this information. Congress

[[Page 13299]]

     noted that this information is ``essential to the national 
     security of the United States'' and directed the Secretary of 
     the Interior to maintain an inventory of the Nation's OCS 
     undiscovered energy resources as well as its discovered 
     reserves. Using sophisticated seismic technologies is key to 
     ensuring accurate resource estimates.


           EFFECTS OF SEISMIC SURVEYS ON WHALES AND DOLPHINS

       1. Environmental groups suggest sounds from seismic surveys 
     are a big problem for whales and dolphins.
       This allegation is not supported by the science:
       Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (November, 
     2004). Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral 
     Resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf;
       U.S. Department of Interior--Minerals Management Service 
     (MMS 2004-054). Conclusions: Finding of No Significant Impact 
     (FONSI);
       Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise--Determining when 
     Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects 2004 National 
     Research Council: ``No scientific studies have conclusively 
     demonstrated a link between exposure to sound and adverse 
     effects on a marine mammal population.''
       This allegation is not supported by global experience:
       No physical harm to whales or dolphins has ever been seen 
     or shown as a result of industry seismic operations.
       2. Significant effort is made to ensure seismic operations 
     do not cause harm.
       Careful assessment of the environment and possible impacts 
     from seismic operations are undertaken in advance of 
     operations.
       A balanced, protective approach is applied when science 
     cannot provide certainty.
       As an example, operational modifications are made to 
     provide added protection: Monitoring for the presence of 
     animals of concern; Shutdown or no start-up when they are too 
     close; Slow, gradual ramp-up of operations just in case.
       More aggressive operational modifications are made when 
     warranted (e.g. operating in more sensitive areas).
       3. Industry continues to spend millions of dollars annually 
     on research in this area: Base line biological knowledge; 
     Accurate assessment of potential impacts; Improving 
     operational modifications.
       4. Concern for whales and dolphins should be focused on the 
     true threat: fishing by-catch mortalities (deaths from 
     entanglement in nets and other fishing gear).
       WWF just issued an estimate of daily mortality due to 
     fishing by-catch (June 9, 2005 press release): ``Almost 1,000 
     whales, dolphins and porpoises die every day in nets and 
     fishing gear. Some species are being pushed to the brink of 
     extinction.'' www.cetaceanbycatch.org


          WILL SEISMIC SURVEYS HARM RIGHT AND HUMPBACK WHALES?

       If environmental groups say no to a limited lifting of the 
     moratoria off the Eastern Seaboard because it is home to 
     endangered Right and Humpback Whales, the following points 
     should be considered in the debate:
       The biggest threat to both are from ship strikes and 
     entanglement in fishing gear, not sounds from seismic 
     exploration.
       The seasonal migration of both species is well known and 
     documented (they go south for the winter).
       Seismic operations can easily be conducted in the seasons 
     when the animals are away.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield back the floor but reserve my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Time is equally charged to both sides if no one yields time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I assume the time is going to be charged 
proportionately against all the remaining speakers?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time will be equally charged against each side 
if no one yields time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Do we need a 
quorum call for that to occur?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. That occurs without a quorum call.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Domenici). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have been yielded 4 minutes of 
Senator Bingaman's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are talking today about whether to 
find out how much natural gas we have offshore. Let me try to put that 
in personal terms. In the mountains of east Tennessee, we have a 
company, Tennessee Eastman. Mr. President, 10,000, 12,000 jobs are 
there. They have been good-paying jobs for several generations. They 
make chemicals at Eastman Chemical. Their raw material is natural gas. 
The cost of that gas has gone from the lowest in the world to the 
highest in the world. If it stays that way, those jobs will not be in 
Tennessee; they will be moving overseas.
  There are 1 million blue-collar manufacturing jobs in America in the 
chemical industry that depend on natural gas for a raw material. We 
must lower the price of natural gas. We can do it by conservation. That 
is in the Domenici-Bingaman bill we are considering. We can do it by 
nuclear power, which we need to accelerate. Support for that is in the 
Domenici bill. We can do it someday, we hope, by coal gasification.
  But right now we have $7 gas, the highest in the industrial world, we 
are building all our new powerplants for natural gas, and we are 
refusing to find out how much natural gas we have offshore to supply 
more and reduce the price. So we have farmers who are taking a pay cut, 
homeowners who cannot heat and cool their homes, we have blue-collar 
workers across this country who are going to have their jobs shifted 
overseas, and what we are saying is we do not even want to know how 
much gas we have.
  We can have a later debate about whether to give more States the 
option, as Texas does, as Louisiana does, as Alabama does, to drill for 
oil and gas. You can do it today 20 miles offshore. You will never see 
it. It is environmentally clean. That is not the debate here today.
  The debate today--and the Presiding Officer brought it up last year--
if we are in a crisis on natural gas, if we have jobs moving overseas, 
why don't we want to know how much natural gas we have?
  So I hope we will oppose this amendment and support the Domenici-
Bingaman legislation, which puts us on a path toward a low-carbon 
production of energy plan for our future. It is an essential part of 
that. I hope we defeat the amendment and support the Domenici-Bingaman 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment to strike 
the Outer Continental Shelf inventory provision. During committee 
consideration of the bill, I supported adding this provision which 
requires a comprehensive survey of OCS oil and gas resources. I 
continue to support the provision. These resources belong to the entire 
Nation. I believe it is useful for us to know the extent of the oil and 
gas resources underlying the OCS.
  It is important to note what the underlying provision does not do. 
The provision does not modify or rescind any moratorium. The provision 
does not allow drilling in any area that is covered by a moratorium. 
The provision does, however, provide for the development of important 
data and information about our energy resources. The language in the 
bill is identical to a provision that was approved in the Energy 
Committee during the last Congress, and the Senate rejected efforts to 
strike the language then. I hope we will have the same outcome on this 
issue in this Congress.
  I oppose the amendment. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as 
well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I appreciate the support of Senator 
Bingaman.
  The Energy and Natural Resources Committee included the language 
which is going to be stricken if the amendment passes. I urge the 
Senate not to strike the language. All Americans today are looking at 
the gas pump. They are seeing the price. The average price in the 
United States is $2.13. That means something. They go home and they 
wonder about it. They ask questions: What are we going to do about it?
  Americans should know that not at the gas pump but out there across 
the land there is another phenomenon occurring. That is the terrific 
increase in the price of natural gas, this marvelous product that years 
ago we didn't think we had very much of, and then we

[[Page 13300]]

started finding it. All of a sudden we thought we had an amount which 
we would never run out of. So we started putting it in the big 
powerplants because it is clean. We pumped it in by the trillions of 
cubic feet to produce electricity.
  Now, all of a sudden the price is going up because demand has gone up 
dramatically. It has increased 300 percent in a short period of time. 
It is predicted, if something doesn't happen, the price could go as 
high as $13; today it is only $7. It was at one time down in the 
neighborhood of $1.50 or $2. That means if it continues to go up, we 
will have no fertilizer business in America. We will have no chemical 
business in America. Natural gas, which we use in our powerplants, will 
begin to run out. We are using it for all kinds of purposes. Then we 
will understand. We don't understand it right now.
  All we are saying is, America, out there in the ocean, 200 miles, you 
can put these drilling platforms--I flew out and landed on one--you can 
put them out there. People have seen them on television. They are 
absolutely tremendous technological feats. There is no pollution. 
Nothing happens except 10 or 12 wells are drilled, this valuable 
resource that we own comes up, and we use it.
  We thought it was very important for our citizens to know how much 
natural gas or crude oil exists out there. Nothing is going to happen 
to the States. Nothing is being changed versus the States. The 
moratoria exist. If we brought a moratoria amendment up here and said, 
lift the moratorium on Florida, it would lose. The bill would die. A 
filibuster would occur.
  We are not asking for that. As a matter of fact, the bill says you 
can't even drill to determine the assets that America owns. It will be 
done by new, modern technology, seismic and otherwise, that in a few 
years will say to America, through Congress, to the President--and it 
will be a truthful, full disclosure, a transparency--America, if you 
have a problem, you have some alternatives. You can import natural gas 
in big ships that will bring it over here in a liquefied manner. We 
will still be paying foreign countries for it. We don't know if the 
price will come down. We don't know if they will have a cartel. They 
don't now. But if I were them, they are not subject to any national 
laws of ours, they could form a cartel. Natural gas could keep going 
up. We would keep importing it.
  I can tell the American people, if we have this asset out there and 
some State thinks that maybe we ought to drill, or the United States of 
America believes we are throttled, we ought to know what is there. That 
is all. Some decision can be made in the future.
  I say to my fellow Senators, please understand, this is not a 
proposal to change any moratoria. This is not a proposal to harm the 
State of Florida. We compliment the distinguished Senators, Mr. 
Martinez and Mr. Nelson, who have argued eloquently on behalf of their 
State. Senator Dole has been here. The Senator from New Jersey has been 
here. We recognize all of them.
  Did Senator Bingaman have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Bingaman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Senator Domenici may have my 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  What we are asking is nothing more, nothing less than on behalf of 
the American people, let the experts go out and find out how much is 
there. In a rather superficial way, without having ever done the real 
seismic work, we have an idea of what is there, across the circle 
around America that has been described so eloquently by Senator 
Landrieu. We know somewhat what is there. But we don't know with any 
kind of assurance. We need that. That is what the amendment is about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I tell the Senator, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, we already know what is out 
there.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is not a vote in order at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes left.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, again, I tell the Senator that 
we already know what is out there. In fact, the MMS does an inventory 
every 5 years. Here is the latest one. This is a 2003 update. The new 
one will come out this summer, in 2005. So we are not doing an 
inventory here as it is explained. What we are doing under this bill is 
doing something new. We are doing seismic explosions that could cost 
the Federal Government, in all of the Outer Continental Shelf, up to a 
billion dollars.
  Seismic explosions. These air guns shoot air pressure all the way to 
the surface of the ocean floor. Now, that is what we are trying to 
stop. Since we know what is there--and they drilled several dry holes 
in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, off Florida. We know there is not any 
oil and gas there. They want to do a new type of exploration. Yet this 
is in a moratorium. So if it is in a moratorium until the year 2012, 
why are we going to allow, under this bill, going out and doing seismic 
explosions in the Outer Continental Shelf all around the United States? 
It makes no sense.
  What it is is the first step to drilling. It is the proverbial 
camel's nose under the tent. Once he gets his nose under the tent, the 
camel is going to get in the tent, the tent is going to collapse, and 
there is going to be drilling all off the coast of Florida, all off the 
eastern seaboard and all off the western Pacific coastline.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, is 
recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, my understanding is that I have one 
minute to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That time has expired.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to close on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I simply want to note that I am very 
appreciative of the chairman and ranking member of the committee where 
I have had the pleasure of working. I believe this is a great and good 
bill. I want to take this one little provision out that would do so 
much harm to the people of Florida and would be potentially invasive to 
our future. I want to remove it so that we can continue forward with 
this good bill.
  I believe, without question, the issue here is not just about these 
inventories but about future drilling. We cannot drill ourselves to 
energy sufficiency by what we might find in the Gulf of Mexico.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so we can take out 
this one piece of the bill, and the bill can be a successful bill. Then 
we can go into conference and provide an energy future for our country 
that is desperately needed. There are many things I want to vote for in 
the bill. I continue to be greatly concerned about not just an 
inventory but about where that path would lead. This is not only for 
the people of Florida but many other coastal Senators have expressed 
themselves as this being in the best interests of many of our States. I 
yield back my time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Dorgan), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 52, as follows:

[[Page 13301]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Dorgan
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Thune
  The amendment (No. 783) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DeWINE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________