[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21386-21389]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            OFFSHORE ENERGY

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are trying to wrap up many important 
issues before we leave. One issue that has remained elusive at this 
point is the solution for our offshore energy bill. The House has 
passed a version; the Senate has passed a version. I am here to talk 
about the benefits of the Senate approach to this subject since there 
seems to be some real confusion on the part of some of the House 
members about the Senate approach. I have had many private 
conversations and many meetings, but I thought I might try to clarify a 
few things as we seek to understand each other a little better.
  I have great respect for many Members on the House side. Chairman 
Pombo and others have worked very hard. I know they are very sincere 
about trying to find new avenues for domestic production. It is most 
certainly a goal I share and that many

[[Page 21387]]

Senators in the Senate share, Republicans and Democrats.
  We have had our arguments, knockdown, drag-out arguments about ANWR. 
I am clearly on the side that supports production in ANWR. I happen to 
be in a minority of Democrats on that, and we could never pass that in 
the Senate, or have not to date. We have been debating it now for 30 
years. But there is consensus--there is consensus--in the Senate about 
opening a significant area in the Gulf of Mexico to help bring much-
needed oil and natural gas to this country.
  I wish to put into the Record from the Consumer Alliance for Energy 
Security what they say about natural gas:

       Natural gas is used to make fertilizer for ethanol.

  For those who are arguing for more ethanol, ethanol needs sugarcane, 
ethanol needs corn. We need fertilizer to grow sugarcane and corn.

       Natural gas is used as a substitute for diesel fuel in our 
     buses and fleet vehicles.
       Electric utilities use natural gas to generate clean power.
       Natural gas is a raw material that goes into lightweight 
     cars for fuel efficiency, wind power blades, solar panels, 
     building insulation and other energy efficient materials.
       Natural gas is used to make hydrogen fuel necessary for 
     fuel cells.

  They say:

       In the face of declining natural gas production, consumers 
     are hungry for a solution to our energy crisis.

  The Senate has provided a solution. Democrats and Republicans agree--
we need more natural gas. So we have carved out an area. Shown on this 
map, is an area that is under leasing moratoria right now and which has 
been under leasing for the last 15 or 20 years. It has been closed off 
to production--8 million acres.
  But this Senate, in a historic vote, has decided that we need the 
natural gas. We believe in what the Consumer Alliance and thousands of 
organizations have stepped up to say. We need natural gas. We are 
prepared to open this section--8 million acres.
  To put this in perspective, ANWR is only 2,000 acres. So when critics 
of our approach say the Senate bill does not do anything, then, why did 
we debate for 30 years over nothing? If we debated 30 years only 2,000 
acres, why is 8 million acres nothing? I do not think that is true. It 
is obviously incorrect. Eight million acres is a great many more than 
2,000 acres. The reserves here are thought to be substantial.
  Shown on this map is the oil discovery that was announced 3 weeks or 
4 weeks ago announced: the Jack well, as it is commonly known, 
discovered by a Chevron partnership. This one well, drilled 28,000 
feet--10,000 feet of water and 18,000 feet of land--will double the 
reserves of oil and gas in the United States of America. This one 
little square, right here.
  So when people in the House of Representatives say, opening up 8 
million acres here will do nothing, they are dead wrong. We might find 
four or five ``Jack'' wells in here. We could find 100. How would we 
know? Because no one will let us go look. And if we do not pass this 
bill, which the Presiding Officer helped to pass and helped to craft, 
we will never know, and our industries will continue to lose jobs and 
lose their competitive edge. We are losing thousands of jobs.
  Experts estimate that there is enough gas in this section alone to 
run 1,000 chemical plants for 40 years. That lessens the need to go 
drilling in ANWR. But this bill is not about ANWR. And the good news 
about this is, the States of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
and Texas are all in agreement. Republicans and Democrats are in 
agreement. They understand the need. They want to step up and help 
America. This money generated by this bill will go to support these 
coastal communities and reduce the deficit.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes. I see my 
colleague from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. No problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate that.
  Instead, the House of Representatives has proposed a bill that is 
breathtaking in its reach, and then wonders why we cannot pass it. In 
the House bill, the House committee decided to open up drilling along 
the entire Atlantic seaboard, and they took it upon themselves to 
redraw state boundary lines. Very few people have seen these state 
boundary lines, so I decided I would go ahead and show this map so 
people can see it.
  These lines have not been approved by the Commerce Department. They 
have not been approved by the Interior Department. They have not been 
seen by the Defense Department. And MMS does not certify these lines. 
There are 200 years of maritime law that went into developing the 
original lines that looked like this, as shown on this official 
Interior Department map. The lines shown on this Interior Department 
map are the lines that we are all governed by now. But the House 
committee decided to go into a room and redraw the lines without 
talking to the Governors of these States, the Senators from these 
States, and I am not even sure the House Members from these States ever 
saw these lines.
  They ask me why I can't pass this bill on the floor of the Senate. 
What is wrong with Senator Domenici and Senator Landrieu. They can't 
get this bill passed. I would suggest it is going to take a few 
hearings, a few public meetings, and a little bit of work over there 
before we can get something such as this passed. I will help them. I 
actually believe in what they want to do. I may be in the minority over 
here. I will help. But I do not think I can get this done this weekend. 
But what I can get done this weekend--what we can get done this 
weekend--is to open up 8 million acres filled with the natural gas and 
oil this country desperately needs. We can send a positive signal and a 
necessary signal to the marketplace that America is serious about 
finding more domestic reserves for oil and gas. And we can send a 
hopeful signal--as the Saints did when they carried that ball across 
the goal line earlier this week several times; an extraordinary game--
to the people of the gulf coast that we still know they are suffering, 
and we are going to pass a bill that helps to generate jobs in this 
region, saves their wetlands, builds their levees, and reduces the 
Federal deficit.
  Our bill respects the coast of Florida, it reduces the deficit, it 
saves the wetlands, it builds levees, and it gives everybody in America 
natural gas--and there is a problem with this bill?
  I do not know what the problem is. We had 72 Senators who worked all 
year on it. I respect the House of Representatives. I understand what 
they want to do. But it is too broad of a reach.
  The Senator from California is on the floor, and she has been very 
gracious, and I will only take 1 more minute. I did not have time to go 
get the model they have for the west coast, of which their bill wants 
to open up west coast drilling. With all due respect to Congressman 
Pombo, he does not even have the support of his own Governor in his own 
party. And he wonders why Senator Domenici cannot get his bill passed? 
He cannot get it past his California legislature. How am I supposed to 
get it past the Senate?
  So I am asking the House colleagues, please be reasonable. Take this 
a step at a time. Some people object to drilling on the Atlantic coast. 
I do not happen to be one of them. I will help them, but we cannot get 
that done this weekend. And it may never happen because you have to get 
political support from these States.
  But I will conclude with this: We have a great coalition in the gulf 
coast. The people of the gulf coast know how to drill for oil and gas. 
The technology is superb. We minimize the environmental footprint. We 
know where the gas is. Let us go get it. Then we can use that money to 
continue to help us restore our coast.
  So I am pleading with my colleagues. I will work with you. I will 
continue to work with you. So will Senator Domenici. And I think I can 
speak for the Senators from Florida, as well as the Senators from 
Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. We will put our shoulders to the wheel 
to do what we can, but let us go forward.
  In the Senate, the Gulf Coast States came together and created a 
formula

[[Page 21388]]

that is fair to all. Each coastal-producing State shares in the 
revenues received according to the length of their coastline, their 
proximity to oil and gas development--and the likely impacts from that 
development.
  Also, the Senate formula recognizes that some of the Gulf States have 
provided oil and natural gas to the country for decades, receiving the 
brunt of the impacts, and few of the benefits. For that reason, States 
that have hosted the industry for the longest would have secured 
marginally more of the revenues by way of compensation.
  The Senate bill also recognizes that the minerals of the Outer 
Continental Shelf are a national resource--belonging to the Nation as a 
whole. That is why every State receives the majority share of the 
revenues: 50 percent would go directly to the Federal Treasury; 12.5 
percent would go into the Land and Water Conservation Fund--a 
conservation royalty that benefits all 50 States.
  Arriving at a formula that was fair and equitable was not easy: each 
of the Senators from the four gulf-producing States met on a daily 
basis over a series of weeks.
  Ultimately, the gulf coast was able to stand united: all ten Senators 
from the Gulf States voted in favor of the Senate bill. But it was not 
an easy feat.
  Agreement among neighboring States is critical--and difficult to 
achieve. What is at stake are billions of dollars and the Nation's 
energy security.
  The House bill creates State boundary lines that would divide the 
Federal OCS into zones controlled by the closest State. Under the House 
proposal, States have the power to authorize or halt energy development 
activities within this zone. They also have claim to the lion's share 
of the revenues generated within this zone.
  The Senate and the House take fundamentally different approaches to 
two key issues:
  The Domenici-Landrieu bill would open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf 
of Mexico--a region that has continuously been one of the most 
productive oil and natural gas basins in North America.
  Since the world's first offshore oil well was drilled near Creole, 
LA, in 1933, the Gulf of Mexico has provided the Nation with more than 
15 billion barrels of oil and 165 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
  Each year, offshore production from the Gulf of Mexico offshore 
accounts for more than 560 million barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas. If you add in the onshore production from the 
neighboring Gulf States, this region produces more than 1 billion 
barrels of oil each year. That is more than the imports from Saudi 
Arabia and Venezuela combined.
  Conservative estimates show that the Senate bill will increase the 
Nation's supply of affordable, domestically produced energy by 1.3 
billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
  That much crude oil will produce enough gasoline to drive 1.7 billion 
cars from DC to New York--with plenty left over to heat 1.2 million 
homes for more than a decade.
  These lines were drawn without any input from the coastal States, 
without input from the Minerals Management Service, the Coast Guard, or 
other stewards of America's oceans.
  In fact, the Minerals Management Service had painstakingly crafted 
``State Administrative Boundaries'' in an effort to clarify which State 
has the most interest in the area seaward of its coastline because of 
the increasing number of commercial activities on the Federal OCS.
  These boundary lines--which were crafted in consultation with the 
MMS, the National Ocean Service, the Department of State, as well as in 
accordance with past Federal and Supreme Court decisions, and 
significant public input--were disregarded in the House bill.
  States that were deemed more likely to drill off their coasts seem to 
have been granted more territory. States that have made their 
opposition to OCS activity well known, seem to have had their 
territories trimmed down significantly.
  Virginia's gain was Maryland's and North Carolina's loss. Georgia's 
gain was Florida's loss.
  I support increased access to the Nation's offshore energy resources. 
I believe strongly that we need to make this Nation more energy 
independent and less reliant on foreign sources of oil.
  But I am also a pragmatist and know that we cannot overturn 30 years 
of poor energy management policy overnight--without consulting the 
States, without consulting our Federal natural resource managers.
  I encourage our neighbors on the east and west coasts to re-examine 
their failed policy on moratoria on developing energy resources from 
the Federal Outer Continental Shelf. But I cannot force them to do so. 
Instead, we need to have an open dialogue on this issue and work to 
improve U.S. policy in this critical arena.
  That much natural gas will sustain 1,000 chemical plants for 40 
years--and those plants would provide jobs for about 400,000 Americans.
  The potential of future drilling in the Gulf was recently underscored 
by a massive oil discovery miles of the coast of Louisiana.
  Some analysts believe that this single find in the deepwater Gulf of 
Mexico could produce more than 15 billion barrels of oil.
  By 2012, daily production from this single prospect could total 
800,000 barrels of oil per day of light, and more than 1 billion cubic 
feet per day of natural gas.
  This discovery effectively increased the total proven oil reserves of 
the United States by 50 percent.
  While the ``Jack'' discovery is not directly adjacent to the 181 and 
181 South area, some geologists have speculated that these mineral-rich 
ridges could extend eastward into the 181 and 181 South area.
  This find shows that the Gulf of Mexico remains one of the most 
promising oil and natural gas regions in North America and the world.
  It is likely that major finds such as the ``Jack'' prospect will spur 
an increase in exploration and production activity in the ultradeep 
waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
  It is highly likely that this discovery--and other major finds in the 
Gulf of Mexico--will cause bonus bids to escalate at future lease 
sales, and increase revenues flowing to the Federal Treasury.
  In contrast to the bounty available in the Gulf of Mexico, the MMS 
anticipates that the total production off Virginia will be about 560 
million barrels of oil and 327 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
  Compare this to the resources opened by the Senate's Domenici-
Landrieu bill in the Gulf of Mexico which the MMS estimates will total 
1.3 billion barrels of oil and 5.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 
The Virginia proposal has 4.7 million acres.
  Domenici-Landrieu is adjacent to existing infrastructure--pipelines, 
ports, and refineries. The area off Virginia is not adjacent to 
industrial infrastructure.
  Virginians may want to open their shores to offshore oil and gas 
production--a goal that I share and support--but Virginia's waters are 
quite close to the shores of North Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware.
  Why is this a problem? In 1990, the State of North Carolina 
successfully forced several oil companies to cease all activity and 
relinquish their rights to drill more than 50 miles from shore, far out 
of sight from shore.
  Similarly, California, Maine, and Florida have repeatedly proven that 
they can shut down production, even when it is far from their shores.
  Today, the President has acquiesced to his brother's request that no 
new drilling be allowed within 100 miles of Florida. As a result, no 
new leases are allowed off Alabama--despite the fact that their oil and 
gas has been safely produced in that region for more than 30 years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that excerpts of document from 
the Consumer Alliance for Energy Security and other relevant material 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 21389]]



              [From Consumer Alliance for Energy Security]

                       Vote on an OCS Energy Bill


                                  why?

       A vote for an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy bill is 
     a vote for clean, alternative energy. America must develop 
     alternative and clean sources of energy. But it can't happen 
     without natural gas. Congress can make it happen by safely 
     accessing the abundant supplies of American natural gas on 
     the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
       Natural gas is used to make fertilizer for ethanol.
       Natural gas is used as a substitute for diesel fuel in our 
     buses and fleet vehicles.
       Electric utilities use natural gas to generate clean power.
       Natural gas is a raw material that goes into lightweight 
     cars for fuel efficiency, wind power blades, solar panels, 
     building insulation and other energy efficient materials.
       Natural gas is used to make hydrogen fuel necessary for 
     fuel cells.
       If Congress is serious about pursuing alternative energies, 
     then it must get serious about safely accessing America's own 
     natural gas supplies. We urge you to send an OCS bill to 
     President Bush this month. Doing so, Congress can reverse a 
     more than 25-year `Just Say No' energy policy. Congress holds 
     the key to ending the current energy crisis in the U.S.
       In the face of declining natural gas production, consumers 
     are hungry for a solution to our energy crisis. Both H.R. 
     4761 and S. 3711 break new ground. Time is running out. We 
     strongly urge you to get the job done.
       American consumers are counting on your action.
                                  ____



                                          Business Roundtable,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.
       To Members of the Senate: . . . S. 3711 represents a 
     crucial building block for our long-term vision of greater 
     energy security and economic vitality. As you know, our 
     country is blessed with abundant supplies of deep-water oil 
     and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico, much of which is 
     currently off-limits to development. S. 3711, which reflects 
     a strong bipartisan consensus, would open more than eight 
     million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to leasing 
     within one year. Estimates suggest that such action would 
     make nearly six trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.25 
     billion barrels of oil newly available for production. The 
     availability of new supplies of natural gas, in particular, 
     would be a boon for industrial companies who rely on natural 
     gas as a critical raw material, and I consumers, who depend 
     on natural gas for home heating and electricity. . . .
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael G. Morris,
         Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, American 
           Electric Power, Chairman, Energy Task Force, Business 
           Roundtable.
                                  ____


      Atlantic Coast Governors Pledge to Oppose Offshore Drilling

       ``Energy independence is something we're all after, but we 
     think it makes more sense in the long run to pursue that goal 
     through focusing on alternative forms of energy rather than 
     fossil fuels. Tourism is our state's number one industry, and 
     we don't think it makes sense to undertake something that 
     could potentially damage our coast.''--South Carolina 
     Governor Mark Sanford (R).
       ``While it is clear that the United States must become more 
     energy independent, such independence must not come at the 
     cost of the fragile ecosystems and vital tourism economy of 
     our coast.''--North Carolina Governor Mike Easley (D).
       ``Drilling in our ocean waters should be a last resort, not 
     a first step toward achieving energy independence. Before we 
     sanction further exploration and drilling off our shores, we 
     need to aggressively pursue strategies to reduce our 
     dependence on oil and natural gas, regardless of where it is 
     produced.''--Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Miner (D).
       ``We urge the United States Congress not to take any action 
     that would have the effect of undermining or undoing the 
     legislative and administrative moratoria that have protected 
     our shore from the risk of drilling for 25 years.''--
     Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell (R).
       ``Any pollution associated with offshore drilling incidents 
     could easily spread from one state to adjacent states that 
     have chosen to ban exploration and production. This would 
     expose Maine's coastal ecosystem and economy to unacceptable 
     levels of risk from potential drilling and associated 
     accidents over which we would have no control.''--Maine 
     Governor John E. Baldacci (D).
       ``New Jersey and its elected officials--at the federal, 
     state and local levels--have demonstrated their leadership on 
     coastal protection, whether by enacting land use laws to 
     preserve our shoreline, working for sustainable management of 
     our fishery resources, protecting endangered marine and other 
     species, or leading the fight to end ocean dumping of human 
     and other wastes. We must, once again, stand united against 
     this latest threat to our shore ecosystem.''--New Jersey 
     Governor Jon Corzine (D).

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to add 5 minutes to the time I was 
allocated, so it would be 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, Senator Landrieu--
--
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could ask unanimous consent that 
following the Senator from Idaho--I believe right now the Senator from 
California is to be followed by the Senator from Idaho--I ask unanimous 
consent that following the Senator from Idaho, I be allowed 15 minutes, 
and that following me, the Senator from Massachusetts be allocated 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I trust my 15 minutes will 
start at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleague Senator Landrieu, I think she 
made a very clear statement about where we stand on oil drilling in 
this country. And she is so right. A narrow bill passed here that is 
going to help her State. It is going to help the country. It stays away 
from the hot-button issues. It stays away from the California 
coastline, which Republicans and Democrats in our State are united in 
saying we need that coastline protected for our economy. It is quite 
different than my friend's. We respect each other, and we understand 
it.
  So what she is simply saying to the House is: We want to do 
something. We do not want to be a do-nothing Congress. Let's do 
something. Let's do the bill the Senate crafted, which again, I say to 
the Presiding Officer, you were involved in.
  Just before she left the Chamber, I wanted to say how strongly I 
appreciate her explanation of where we are.

                          ____________________