[Pages S8329-S8364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
motion to proceed to S. 3711 is agreed to and the Senate will proceed
to consideration of the measure, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3711) to enhance the energy independence and
security of the United States by providing for exploration,
development, and production activities for mineral resources
in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. In my capacity as Senator from
Texas, I note the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

SCHEDULE

Mr. GREGG. On behalf of the leader, I will read the following
statement:
This morning the Senate begins consideration of S. 3711, the Gulf of
Mexico Energy Security bill. I now ask unanimous consent that when the
bill is reported, it be subject to debate only until 10:45 this
morning, with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees, and that at 10:45 the majority leader be recognized.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Yesterday we had a full day of debate in relation to the
Energy Security bill. We anticipate a number of Senators coming to the
floor today in order to speak on the substance of the measure. The
majority leader has indicated that the Senate could turn to other
legislative items today if we are able to reach time agreements on
those bills.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized on the minority
time relative to the debate on S. 2711.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is a bill that
will allow us to drill in areas of the Gulf of Mexico that currently
are not being explored for oil and gas. There is some controversy
attached to this proposal--whether this is an environmentally sound
decision to go into these areas. The fact is in many parts of the Gulf
of Mexico there is currently exploration and drilling for oil and gas,
so it is not the same as the debate on the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge in Alaska, where the administration was proposing that we drill
in areas that have been protected for over half a century.

[[Page S8330]]

This area of the world and off the coast of the United States has been
explored for quite some period of time, and oil and gas have been
brought out of it.
It is going to be an interesting debate and a legitimate debate over
whether this is the appropriate amount of exploration and whether it is
environmentally responsible to do it in this fashion. But we should
never believe that this debate is about creating America's energy
policy. Sadly, America today--with gasoline prices going through the
roof, with no certainty about our future when it comes to energy--does
not have a national energy policy.
This administration, for 6 years now, has had an opportunity to come
forward with a proposal that would move America away from dependence on
foreign oil, but the administration has not done so. The only proposals
we have received from them relate to very isolated, narrow issues. One
of them I referred to earlier, whether the United States should now
start drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The House and the Senate have rejected that idea on a bipartisan
basis. Their belief, which I share, is that we have reached a rather
desperate moment in American history if the only way we can look
forward in terms of energy self-sufficiency is to start drilling in
some of the most environmentally sensitive places in America. That is
why I have opposed drilling in ANWR in Alaska. That is why it has been
defeated. The majority has felt this is not the way we should go.
This is a different issue. This is about drilling in the Gulf of
Mexico.
We will debate it this week and vote on it next week. But we should
not believe that passage of this bill is the creation of a national
energy policy. The fact is if we pass this bill next week, it will have
literally no impact on gasoline prices today and no impact on our
dependence on foreign oil. If we are going to address that, we have to
do it in a larger context. On the Democratic side of the Senate, we
have proposed a bill that will move us forward, looking at the national
energy picture and moving us toward breaking our dependence on foreign
sources of energy in the future. That is important for us to do.
Today we are so dependent on foreign sources of oil that we are at
the mercy of the OPEC cartel, and at the mercy of the major producers
we are doing business with in countries around the world buying their
oil and gas--and these countries are virtually our sworn enemies. There
are many countries in the world that we send billions of dollars to as
we buy their oil and gas that turn around and use the money we send
against us in the war on terrorism. That is as horrifying as I can
think of at the moment, that we would send American dollars to these
countries to subsidize terrorist activities. Yet it is happening
because we are so dependent on these foreign sources.
What can we do? What should we do? First, we should look at the
obvious. Sixty percent of all the oil we bring into the United States
of America is used for our cars and trucks. All of us are burning that
oil as we drive around America. Sadly, the vehicles we drive in are
less fuel efficient and get less fuel economy every single year. The
vehicles are heavier, less fuel efficient, and we burn more gallons of
gasoline each year to travel the same number of miles we went last
year. I am speaking on average. There are some people who have fuel-
efficient vehicles, but by and large, when you look at cars and trucks
in America, that is the story. It doesn't have to be this way.
In 1975, we faced long lines at gasoline stations with the prospect
that OPEC was going to cut off oil to the United States, and our
Government made a decision that the first thing we needed to do was to
have more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. At that moment in time, the
average fuel efficiency of the fleets across America was about 14 miles
a gallon. The Government mandated that over the next 10 years
manufacturers had to have an average fleet fuel economy of cars that
would virtually double to almost 28 miles a gallon in 10 years. The
manufacturers of cars and trucks--particularly those in the United
States--said it was an impossible goal which we could never reach, and
that if we did, it would compromise the safety of the cars we would
drive and would invite importation of automobiles into the United
States. We did it anyway. We imposed the standard to increase fuel
efficiency in America. Between 1975 and 1985 the average fuel economy
of cars in America went from 14 miles a gallon to 27.5 miles a gallon.
We achieved our goal. We did it without all of the terrible outcomes
the opponents had suggested.
What has happened in the 21 years since then? What has happened since
1985 when we reached an average of about 28 miles a gallon for cars in
America? Sadly, the fuel efficiency of cars in America has gone down
progressively. Now it is around 22 miles a gallon, or 21 miles a
gallon, meaning we are driving less fuel-efficient cars today than we
were 21 years ago. And, of course, there was the truck loophole. We
said when it came to fuel economy we would make an exemption for
trucks. Someone invented the concept of a sports utility vehicle, SUV,
and we called it a truck. It escaped the requirements of fuel
efficiency. We all know those SUVs we are glutting the used car lots in
America with, have some of the worst fuel efficiency of any vehicles we
drive. They have helped to drive down our efficiency in America and
driven up our dependence on imported oil.
A national energy policy has to include more fuel efficiency and fuel
economy of cars and trucks we drive--and it can do it.
Recently, my wife and I made a decision about a car. We wanted to buy
American and we wanted a hybrid. So we bought a Ford Escape hybrid. It
is a good car, clean burning. We get about 28 miles a gallon, which is
good but not great. I think we can do a lot better. Many of the cars
that are coming in from overseas manufacturers get much better mileage.
The people who make cars in America tell us there is no appetite for
fuel-efficient cars in the United States. How wrong can they be? Toyota
is about to come out with a Camry with a hybrid engine which will get
better fuel mileage than most cars in the United States, and there is a
10-month waiting list to buy their cars. It tells me there is an
appetite for obvious reasons. People understand gasoline is extremely
expensive. If they can reduce their consumption of gasoline, they not
only save money, but I think they know intuitively it is a good thing.
It reduces the pollution and the greenhouse emissions.
Our failure to have a national energy policy leaves us in a position
where we have foreign automobile manufacturers making fuel-efficient
cars and hybrid cars and bringing them into the United States and
selling them to American consumers who are anxious to buy their
products.

The obvious question is, Why don't we have the leadership in
Washington on a bipartisan basis that would create standards for fuel
efficiency and fuel economy that would move the United States in the
right direction on national energy policy? That is an important
question. It is not addressed by this bill.
If we are talking about a national energy policy, this bill is not a
national energy policy. There are other things which we should do as
well. We have a situation in the United States where the oil companies
are making outrageous profits. You can always tell when they have
stepped over the line because when you open the morning paper, there
will be a full-page ad where the major oil companies are explaining
that they warrant that profit. Really?
ExxonMobil's second quarter profit jumped to the second highest level
for any company in the history of the United States. ExxonMobil said
today that it earned $10.36 billion in the second quarter, the second
largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S.
company. The earnings figures were 36 percent above the profit it
reported 1 year ago. High oil prices, according to this Associated
Press story, helped boost the company's revenue by 12 percent to a
level just short of a quarterly record.
Think of this when you go to fill up at the gas pump. You reach into
your pocket, pull out your wallet or your purse and pull out the credit
card to pay for the gasoline, and the money that is coming right out of
your checking account is going to record profits of the oil companies
across America.
What has been done in Washington to try to contain these profits, to
try to

[[Page S8331]]

say that the oil companies are going too far by creating burdens and
handicaps on individuals and families and businesses across America?
The answer is nothing. Nothing has happened informally. The President
has not called in the leaders of these oil companies and said it is not
healthy for America's economy for you to be taking so much money out of
this economy, driving up inflation, making the cost of business go up
so that they have to lay off employees and can't expand if they would
like to, and making the burdens for families who have to drive on a
regular basis unbearable. The President has not done this. Other
Presidents in history have. This President refuses to.
When it comes to the more formal means of turning to those Federal
agencies that have the power over these oil companies, they have been
virtually silent as Americans and consumers are fuming over what is
happening at their gas stations.
I would say to my colleagues in Congress when they go home over this
August recess to take some time and talk to the people they represent.
Gasoline prices, frankly, are one of the biggest issues that trouble
the people across America.
ExxonMobil's report of earnings comes a day after ConocoPhillips said
it earned more than $5 billion in the quarter at a time when many
drivers in the United States are paying $3 a gallon for gas--and more.
ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company by market cap, said
earnings amounted to $1.72 a share in the April-June quarter compared
with the profit of $7.64 billion or $1.20 a share a year ago. These
results top even Wall Street's expectations. The oil companies are
raking in this money at the expense of consumers and businesses across
America.
If we want a healthy business climate in this country, we cannot
allow one industry--the oil industry--to make outrageous profits at the
expense of other businesses as well as the families and individuals
across America.
I think what we have before us is a bill that is worthy of debate
about drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. It is something we will debate,
but we shouldn't believe at the end of the day, even if it is passes,
that we have addressed the most serious challenge facing America. We
still need a national energy policy.
We should remember two numbers as we engage in this debate. The
numbers are 3 and 25. If you look at all of the energy available in the
world, the United States has access in the continental United States
and offshore to 3 percent of the energy reserves of the world. Yet
every year the United States economy consumes 25 percent of the energy
that is produced in the world.
We cannot drill our way out of this situation. We have to have
environmentally responsible exploration and production, but we also
have to deal with conservation and efficiency. It is not just a matter
of reducing costs and reducing consumption. There is not another issue
that is as important as energy. It is the issue of the environment. We
have to understand that as we burn energy, as we destroy this energy
for our economic purposes--carbon fuels, for example--we are releasing
emissions into the environment. Carbon dioxide, for example, which
ultimately form a cloud over our globe, this greenhouse effect which
captures the heat of the Sun and warming the planet we live on to the
point where we are seeing dramatic climate change in America and around
the world. We are finding from those in the private sector who look at
this in cold economic terms that decisions are made which suggest we
are facing serious problems if we don't do something about it.

When the major insurance companies announce they are not going to
write property insurance for many businesses on the gulf coast of the
United States because of the severity of the hurricanes we have seen in
the last few years, it is a wake-up call to America. When we know that
the glaciers are melting, when we know the temperature is going up on
this globe we live on, when we know species such as the polar bear are
doomed to extinction if we don't make some serious changes, we have to
combine this debate on a national energy policy with the national
environmental policy that sets a standard--that says to the world
engage us in this effort to protect the planet on which we live.
S. 3711 is an interesting and important bill. I am glad we are
debating it. But make no mistake; it is not a national energy policy.
I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following my speech and the speech of the Senator from Georgia, Senator
Chambliss, that Senator Cornyn be recognized.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Isakson and Mr. Chambliss pertaining to the
submission of S. Res. 541 are printed in today's Record under
``Submitted Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Senate is now taking up a very
important piece of legislation that would open a huge area in the Gulf
of Mexico for deepwater exploration for oil and natural gas. I am proud
to be a cosponsor of this important legislation and believe it is long
overdue.
At the same time, I am amazed when I hear our friends on the other
side of the aisle. The Democratic whip this morning said this was an
interesting proposal and he hoped we would have a good debate. I agree
with both of those things. What he said I disagree with is that this is
not about a national energy policy. He criticized the Federal
Government not having a national energy policy.
This is about a national energy policy. This is about eliminating the
moratoria we have created ourselves that have prevented the United
States from relying more on domestic production of oil and gas and
relying less on imported energy from places in trouble, regions of the
world such as the Middle East.
As the current occupant of the chair knows, she and the senior
Senator from Alaska have been fighting for years to open the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge for exploration and development. This is
something that not only do Alaskans support but that would provide a
tremendous boom to the United States in terms of our ability to develop
domestic energy resources.
However, time and time again, for countless years, our friends on the
other side of the aisle have said no, we cannot do that because it will
damage the environment, it will disturb the flora and the fauna in that
region of the world.
The fact is, it is possible for us to explore and develop domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally sound way. Modern drilling
techniques and production techniques are entirely compatible with
preserving the environment and avoiding the kind of calamities that
some want to scare the American people into believing would be routine.
I suggest this bill is all about developing a national energy policy.
It is important to reducing our dependence on imported energy. In fact,
it is estimated when lease 181 is developed, it will produce 1.26
billion barrels of oil, oil that is now selling for $75 a barrel on the
open market.
We all know Congress can pass a lot of laws. We can repeal a lot of
laws. But the one law we cannot repeal is the law of supply and demand.
In a booming economy in the United States, and countries such as China
growing at a rate of 10 percent, we know the demand for oil and gas has
increased. The problem is, the supply has not. This would pinpoint the
solution at the only way we know we can deal with this in terms of
supply, and that is increase it by 1.26 billion barrels of oil and--
this is significant, too--5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Natural gas is not only important because it is relatively clean
burning, but it also is feedstock in a number of critical manufacturing
industries in the United States. It is critical for our farmers and
ranchers, but the price of natural gas has gone through the roof--
again, because of huge demand and limited supply.
So it is absolutely critical to our ability to reduce our dependence
on imported energy to both improve our national security and improve
the prospects for our economy that we pass this legislation.

[[Page S8332]]

My colleague from Illinois, the distinguished Democratic whip, also
said the answer is not to open places such as ANWR, it is to pass
mandates from Washington on more fuel-efficient vehicles. I am all for
people having the choice to buy vehicles that give them extended gas
mileage, but I am against Washington, DC, mandating through some
directive that says to my constituents in Texas, you can only drive a
certain kind of car. I believe we ought to have the freedom of choice
and that Congress should not be in the business of mandating what kind
of cars we drive in my State or any State.
Finally, he mentioned that big bugaboo we hear and read so much
about, global warming, another scare tactic that is used often to
convince people that, no, we can't develop our domestic energy supply,
we can't contribute more to the production of CO<inf>2</inf> in the
atmosphere because it will exacerbate global warming. We are all
worried about global warming. The fact is, there is some debate in
science about what the causes of the current warming of the atmosphere
are, whether they are periodic and we are seeing a spike now, a small
spike now, but it will work out.
The main problem with the solutions that have been offered to address
global warming is that most of the proponents penalize the United
States and damage the American economy by subjecting us to onerous
regulations that would not apply to some of our major competitors in
the world, countries such as China and India that would not be subject,
for example, to the Kyoto Treaty that was overwhelmingly rejected by
the Senate the last time we considered that issue.
Rather than saying no, rather than blocking and blaming, what S. 3711
does is enormously positive. It has done a great job. I have to give a
lot of credit to the Senator from Louisiana who has helped shepherd
this bill to this point so far. This is a bipartisan bill which is the
way we should do things more often, but this provides a very real
solution to a very real problem. It is true we cannot rely on
developing more oil and gas supply, but that is certainly what we have
to do in the near term to midterm. We cannot rely solely on
conservation.
I am all for conserving our energy supply, avoiding waste that can be
avoided. I also think we ought to look for alternative fuels such as
ethanol. They make a lot of sense as part of an overall energy
diversity program. I think energy diversity should be our national
policy because if we rely on one type of fuel or if we rely on one
policy, such as conservation, we cannot hope to get ahead of the curve
when it comes to the growing demand not just in the United States of
America but countries such as China that are growing at the rate of 10
percent a year, and other competitors in the world economy.
So we have to look at conservation. We have to look at additional
supply. We have to look at alternative forms of fuels, renewables.
Texas just moved ahead of California in terms of production of wind
energy. That certainly has a lot of promise. It is not the only
solution, but it is a part of the overall solution. Then, of course, we
have to look at developing nuclear energy in this country. France,
hardly a model that I would hold up in some areas, is a model when it
comes to dealing with nuclear energy. America produces about 20 percent
of our electricity from nuclear power. France, on the other hand,
produces 80 percent of their electricity using nuclear power. They have
figured out that one way to address the environmental concerns but also
produce the kind of energy that a growing economy needs is nuclear
power.
Thank goodness in the Energy bill we passed last year, we have now
the prospect of nuclear energy taking over more and more of the demand
for our energy supply in the United States.
So I believe this is an enormously important piece of legislation. It
does provide a part of the solution to our overall challenge. It will
have a very direct impact on the prices that consumers pay at the gas
pump because most of the cost of gasoline is related to the price of
oil. We know that is not the only cause of high gas prices. Another
problem is we have seen some block the development of refinery
capacity, and we have had no new refineries which are what transmute
the oil into gasoline. We have not had any new refineries built in this
country since the early 1970s, although we have seen a recent expansion
of existing refining capacity which has helped.
But, here again, America is no longer the principal consumer of
energy in the world. We are just one of a number of large competitors
for the same scarce supply. So it is absolutely critical we undertake
measures such as this as part of our national energy policy. So I would
disagree respectfully with my colleague from Illinois, the
distinguished Democratic whip. This is all about a national energy
policy, and it is a part of what we must do if we are going to keep our
commitments to the American people to try to help them keep more of the
money they earn and let them spend it as they see fit and not have to
spend it on rapidly escalating gasoline prices and other energy prices
that not only hurt consumers but also make America less competitive in
the global economy.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we are on a subject that is
near and dear to the heart of the Senator from Florida--both Senators
from Florida. It is a subject of which, a year ago, in bringing up an
energy bill, there was an attempt to drill off the coast of Florida,
and this Senator had to start his first filibuster. We were able to
resolve that with the help of the distinguished senior Senator from New
Mexico, Mr. Domenici, who, true to his word, let the Energy bill go on
without bringing up the portions with regard to drilling off of Florida
when it went to conference with the House of Representatives. And I
have thanked Senator Domenici many times on this floor for being a man
of his word.
I must say, in the negotiations that have brought this legislation to
the floor now, I give great credit to the senior Senator from
Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, in looking out for the interests of her State
in receiving revenue--what would come from new drilling that this
legislation addresses not only for Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, but
especially for Louisiana. It addresses those revenue needs that the
State needs since it is losing all of those wetlands. We saw the
results of that in the great tragedy of Hurricane Katrina a year ago.
So I give great credit to Senator Landrieu.
But I also give great credit to Senator Landrieu because she knew the
interests of Florida had to be protected in order for her to get an
agreement because both Senators from Florida were willing to filibuster
any legislation that threatened the interests of Florida. To her great
credit--Senator Landrieu's--she worked with the two Senators from
Florida. She also worked with the other gulf coast Senators. And what
has been crafted is a piece of legislation that addresses just the Gulf
of Mexico.

Now, you might wonder: Why does Florida not want its waters off the
coast of Florida to be drilled? Well, this Senator is going to explain
that. Certainly, there are economic interests with a $57 billion a year
tourism industry that depends on pristine beaches. Certainly, there is
the delicate environment--the 10,000 Islands, the Big Bend area, the
bays and estuaries, Apalachicola Bay--all of these environmental areas
that are so delicate to the ecology of the oceans where so much marine
life is spawned.
But there is another big reason that most people do not understand,
and it is right here as shown on this chart. Most people do not realize
that the entire Gulf of Mexico off of Florida is restricted airspace.
Why? Because this is the largest testing and training area in the world
for the U.S. military. All of this area has restricted air use and
naval use.
You wonder: When the U.S. Atlantic fleet training in Vieques--the
little island off the eastern end of Puerto Rico--when it was shut
down, why did most of that training come to Florida? It is because you
can do combined air-sea exercises and land exercises from Eglin Air
Force Base, Pensacola NAS--Naval Air Station Pensacola. Squadrons of
Navy F-18s come down and spend 2 weeks, 3 weeks at a time, and are
stationed there because when they lift off out of Key West NAS, within
2 minutes they are over restricted airspace where they can go about
their training.

[[Page S8333]]

So here is a large part of the reason--as shown right here on the
chart--why there is no drilling off the west coast of Florida in the
Gulf of Mexico. The importance of what is called the Eglin Air Force
Base Gulf Test and Training Range has been emphasized in the letter
that was received by the Senate Armed Services Committee, signed by the
Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld. That letter was delivered to the
committee last November, in which he says: You cannot have oil and gas
rigs out here where we are testing and training sophisticated weapons
systems, and where we are training our pilots--Air Force and Navy
pilots--and where we now will have the F-35 all-pilot training for the
new Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35 for all branches of service, all out
here because of that restricted space. So Secretary Rumsfeld made it
very clear: You cannot have oil and gas rigs.
I remember the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, one day said: Why
should Florida be protected? Here, this is the reason. This is the
historical reason, in addition to the reasons of the environment, as
well as the economy of Florida in protecting our tourism industry.
So this is what we are dealing with, as shown on this chart. All of
the yellow on this chart off the State of Florida is going to be
protected until the year 2022. That is three planning periods of 5
years each. That is 15 years after the planning period of 2007 kicks
in. All of that area--which is 125 miles from Fort Walton, it is 100
miles from Perdido Key, 100 miles off of the Alabama coast right here.
Then it comes around, and it then follows this critical line, this
black line that is called the military mission line, a military mission
line that was established in 1981 by the Department of Defense in that
they said they wanted no drilling east of that line. Therefore, that
line becomes the critical line, of which you see that most of the area
of Florida, then, is protected from drilling. And that is all the way
through the year 2022.
That area, by the way--from this point off of Clearwater, which is in
the Tampa Bay area--is 235 miles due west of the Tampa Bay area
beaches. For Naples, it is in excess of 300 miles. No drilling. So you
can see the protection for Florida also happens to be the protection
for the U.S. military in these ranges.
Now, we have had people come to the floor and say they are concerned
about this going down to the House. The House-passed bill basically
lifts the moratorium for drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf of
the entire United States--the Pacific coast, the Atlantic coast, and so
forth.
I want to speak about the assurances I have been given when this bill
will leave here and go to the House of Representatives. But let me tell
you why this bill only deals with the Gulf of Mexico. From Florida's
standpoint, from the military's standpoint, from the Nation's defense
standpoint, we do not want to lift the moratorium and have drilling off
the east coast of Florida and the rest of the southeastern United
States because, look right here on this chart. Here is another major
Air Force and Navy training area off the northeast coast of Florida and
off the east coast of Georgia. In addition, right there is a place
called Cape Canaveral. The Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is where we
launch our rockets to put all of our satellites, our defense
satellites, into equatorial orbit.
You can't have oil rigs out here where you are dropping the first
stages of the expendable booster rockets that are putting our highly
sophisticated and highly classified defense payloads into equatorial
orbit. Just to the north of Cape Canaveral is a place called the
Kennedy Space Center. It happens to have launch pad 39A and launch pad
39B from which we launch the space shuttle and, after the year 2012, it
is estimated we will launch the new space vehicle called the Crew
Exploration Vehicle. You can't have oil rigs out here where we are
dropping the solid rocket boosters from the space shuttle when we
launch, those two big candlesticks on either side of the external tank
of the space shuttle. After they have expended their fuel 2 minutes
into flight, they separate from the space shuttle and parachute back
into the Atlantic Ocean. They are then brought back in, refurbished,
and reused. You can't have oil rigs out here.
So as people talk about wanting drilling off the east coast of
Florida, which this legislation in front of us does not address but the
House bill does address, you can't do that out here with an interest of
the Nation at stake--the military preparedness plus the defense of this
country, with the important payloads that we are launching out of the
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, as well as the Kennedy Space Center.
When people say that this legislation we are passing in the Senate does
not address protections of the east coast, the east coast isn't a
threat. Right now the east coast is under a moratorium until the year
2012. That is not where the threat is. The threat is here in the Gulf
of Mexico. That is why we have the legislation before us that we do.
That is why this Senator is coming to the floor to announce my support
for this legislation, which I have helped craft and on which I have
waited until today, until I had assurances that this legislation was
not going to be in any significant way changed when it leaves this
Chamber and goes down to the House.
What are those assurances? I have been authorized to say from the
majority leader, Senator Frist--and I am reading from an e-mail to me.
This is a quote Senator Frist sent to me today--

The Senate bill is a carefully crafted compromise and I
believe it represents what is achievable in the Senate this
year. I will not bring a bill back before the Senate that
does not provide adequate protections to the State of
Florida. I look forward to working with both Florida Senators
to achieve this goal.

Yesterday, I spoke personally to Senator Frist on the telephone. He
told me he would do everything within his ability to keep it to the
Senate version when the bill returns to the Senate. That is a pretty
good assurance for this Senator to protect the interests of Florida.
I went to our leader on this side of the aisle, the Democratic
leader, and Senator Reid has written a letter to me:

Dear Senator Nelson:
It is my expectation that the House of Representatives will
accept S. 3711 as passed by the Senate without amending it
and without modifying it in a conference committee. If the
House does not accept the Senate bill as passed, I will join
other Senators and Senator Nelson and produce the votes to
sustain a filibuster to prevent the passage of the bill when
it would return to the Senate.

That is the end of the quote from Senator Reid's letter.
Around here, you have to take a man at his word. I accept the word
and the assurances of the two great leaders of our two great parties in
protecting the interests of Florida. I am prepared to come and support
this legislation and to thank the leadership on both sides as they have
worked with the two Senators from Florida to try to do what is right
for the country.
In the legislation that addresses the drilling, there is another
important component for Florida; that is, there are a few leases out in
this area from years past, decades past, that have never been drilled
because they have never gotten the permits because of all that we have
been going through, keeping these waters protected in a moratorium.
Senator Landrieu has crafted a portion of the bill that revenue will go
to four Gulf States from the revenue generated to the Federal
Government from new leases. The interest of Florida, since there won't
be drilling, is to get rid of the ancient leases that are never going
to be drilled. So there is a provision in the legislation that will
allow the swapping of these leases by their value for new leases in the
area that can be drilled in what is called lease sale 181, and other
leases in the central and western Gulf of Mexico, new leases that we
want to be drilled where a swap would occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority's time has expired.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. People say that is voluntary for the oil
companies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the minority has expired.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. You would ask, if it is voluntary, why would
they do it? Because there is a financial incentive for oil companies
who want to pay for new drilling in 181 or elsewhere

[[Page S8334]]

in the central or western gulf, not to pay that by swapping out their
financial interest in these ancient leases that are still here. They
are of minor value compared to the entire value of the leases elsewhere
in the Gulf of Mexico, but nevertheless that is there.
Why it is important that we keep the Senate bill intact and not
expand it with any version of the House is because the House-passed
legislation works for the Gulf of Mexico, but the House-passed version
lifts the moratorium for the entire country and allows, with State
legislative approval, drilling to come up to 3 miles off the coast of a
State. Of course, Atlantic seaboard Senators, Pacific Ocean Senators,
would be violently opposed to that, and then the Senators who start
realizing that it starts getting into their military- restricted areas,
their defense-restricted areas, would find that enormously
objectionable. That is another reason we need to keep this legislation
intact as it goes to the House and then comes back to the Senate.
My colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, has made several
statements on the floor--and it is my understanding that he will
again--that he is given assurances that the protection of Florida will
be there when this legislation comes back from the House. It is the
privilege of this Senator from Florida to support this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am glad to hear the remarks of the
Senator from Florida, and I am glad that he feels able to support this
legislation. It is something I have worked on for quite a number of
years and supported as a Senator from Alabama. We have a lot of oil and
gas right off our coast. We believe this could be done safely and be
great for the country economically. I am pleased that the distinguished
Senator believes he can support this bill. We do have to work with the
House of Representatives. They do have input in the legislation. But,
hopefully, when all that is settled, we will have something we can
pass. It is critical for our economy.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Sessions are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, we are on the Gulf of Mexico energy
security bill, a bill that has been very carefully crafted in a
bipartisan way. It has been our approach from the outset. One of the
real challenges we have is taking a bill which is delicate, in the
sense that it has been carefully crafted, vetted, and addressed for the
last year--and there are many other people who would like to add other
energy amendments or bills to this single, focused step, this being
built upon the comprehensive energy bill, a bipartisan bill that was
passed a year ago this week. So it is a challenge to keep the body
focused on this issue. In doing so, there are procedures here shortly
that are important to accomplish delivering as many as a billion
barrels of oil to the American people and over 5 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas, enough gas to heat or cool 6 million homes for 15 years.
We have it within our grasp.
We had a good vote yesterday morning in terms of getting on the
legislation, which we are on, and now, from a leadership standpoint, we
have to stay focused on this bill, even though there are a lot of other
good ideas out there, and complete this step and our action in the
Senate. Thus, I will go through a series of steps here, and we will
have comments on that.

Amendment No. 4713

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an
amendment numbered 4713.

Mr. FRIST. Madam 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:

At the end insert the following:
The effective date shall be 2 days after the date of
enactment.

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 4714 to Amendment No. 4713

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an
amendment numbered 4714 to amendment No. 4713.

Mr. FRIST. Madam 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:

On line 1, strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day''.

Cloture Motion

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the cloture motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 529, S. 3711: A bill to enhance the
energy independence and security of the United States by
providing for exploration, development, and production
activities for mineral resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and
for other purposes.
Bill Frist, Pete Domenici, Richard G. Lugar, Mitch
McConnell, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jim Bunning, Trent
Lott, Christopher S. Bond, Tom Coburn, Wayne Allard,
David Vitter, Mel Martinez, Thad Cochran, Jim DeMint,
John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions.

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the live
quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, this cloture vote will occur on Monday.
We have not set the specific timing, but I anticipate that vote would
be at 5:30. We will set the exact time later today.
This will be a very important vote, and it is critical that Senators
be here, and they should prepare to be here at 5:30. We will announce
the specific time later today. I ask them to adjust their schedules
accordingly. In all likelihood, we will be voting on Monday. I hope
they have adjusted their schedules accordingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have expressed to the majority leader my
disappointment in not allowing amendments on this bill. We had agreed
to just have five, with time agreements on each of those. The leader
decided not to do that. I think that is unfortunate. I hope that,
moving beyond that, we can have a better idea of what we are going to
do for the rest of the work period.
The majority leader indicated to me that he has a very important
meeting shortly after lunch, and he will indicate to me at that time
more of a direction as to what we can expect this afternoon, tomorrow,
and the rest of the work period before the August recess.
I also want the record to reflect, as I said yesterday, that I
appreciate the cooperation of Senator Bingaman. Without his agreement,
this parliamentary situation we find ourselves in would not have
occurred until late this evening. This will allow us this afternoon the
possibility of doing other work. So I appreciate very much Senator
Bingaman being his normal cooperative person. He has strong feelings
about this legislation. He expressed them to me personally and on the
Senate floor. But he is always someone who works for the good of the
Senate. I appreciate that very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, while the majority leader is still
here, I understand the procedure he has followed, and that is to do
what we refer to here as ``filling the tree'' with amendments so that
other amendments cannot be offered.

[[Page S8335]]

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so
that I may be able to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, reserving the right to object, filling
the tree is the procedure I have used in order to accomplish what is a
very important next step in building on, as I said, the comprehensive
Energy bill the managers worked for last year, which has been
tremendously successful as we look at alternative energy, such as
ethanol or, in the future, nuclear and biomass, looking at the supply
side and the consumption side of the equation. What is challenging in
floor management is being able to now build upon that bill from last
year and take one step at a time.
As we are commenting on this now, there are so many good proposals,
substantive proposals, that would help our dependence on foreign
sources of oil. We are 60 percent dependent today on foreign sources of
oil. We have to change that by lessening our energy dependence with
homegrown energy. That is what we will be able to do on the floor today
in this carefully crafted, focused, very discrete bill that looks at
the Gulf of Mexico, which has revenue sharing that has been carefully
worked out with Members in this body for the last 6 to 7 months in
terms of the specifics. With that, we will be able to deliver this bill
to the American people and address the squeeze we know they are feeling
today when they are filling up the tractor or the car or preparing to
go on vacation or air-conditioning their homes or heating their homes
at other times of the year.
With that being the approach, I will object to setting aside the
amendments because it would mean actually trying to decide among many
good proposals that would come to the floor--and it is not that they
are not good or they won't be addressed in the future. We are going to
keep this bill focused, tight, and clean.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Hearing objection, I wish to take a few minutes and
explain the amendment I was intending to offer so that Senators will
understand what the alternatives are that we could be considering
today.
Madam President, just to pick up on the point the majority leader was
making, I certainly want to build on the good work we did in this body
last year with the passage of the Energy Act of 2005. I believe very
strongly that the way to do that is to have an open process, allow
Members to offer amendments, allow those amendments to be voted on, and
see what the will of the Senate is. Unfortunately, that is not the
process which is being used in connection with S. 3711.
I stated extensively yesterday the substantive reasons I think S.
3711 is not good legislation, and I will repeat a few of those points.
Let me talk about the amendment I wanted to offer this morning. The
amendment I was going to offer consists of the text of S. 2253, which
is the legislation we reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee on a bipartisan basis in March. My amendment would
take that language and it would modify it to add the so-called 181
south area for leasing.
Let me put up a chart so everybody knows what is involved here. The
white area on this chart, the box there, is the area that we proposed
in our Energy Committee bill that we reported to the floor to open for
leasing. That thatched area to the right of that, to the east of that
on the map, is an area which would be open with the consent of the
Secretary of Defense or under appropriate circumstances and conditions
which would be specified by the Secretary of Defense. That is what our
bill called for.

As I say, I would propose in this amendment, if I were able to offer
it, to add the yellow area below that which is now being referred to as
181 south.
The legislation we came out of committee with and I would desire to
have us consider on the floor today would require that the lease sale
be conducted within a year. It would provide that leasing in the 181
area south be done as soon as practicable after the date of enactment.
Overall, the amendment I would like to have been able to offer would
make available 7.37 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.58 billion
barrels of oil. These are substantially more energy resources than the
5.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and the 1.26 billion barrels of
oil made available under the pending legislation; that is, S. 3711.
At the same time, the legislation we came out of committee with and
that I wish we were able to consider on the floor would provide there
would be no leasing closer than 100 miles from the Florida coast at any
point and leasing east of the military mission line under the bill, as
I indicated, could only occur with the prior consent and agreement of
the Secretary of Defense.
The 1-year timeframe for conducting the lease sale in this 181 area
is intended to allow for full compliance with all environmental laws.
The amendment does not impose any new leasing moratorium, such as the
pending bill would. Also, it does not divert revenue from the Federal
Treasury to four coastal States, as the pending bill proposes to do.
Earlier this year, I was pleased to work with Senator Domenici to
develop and introduce S. 2253. That is the basis of the amendment I am
offering. We had a hearing on the bill in committee. We reported the
bill with a very strong bipartisan vote.
However, after the committee reported its legislation, several
colleagues indicated they had problems with this bill, in particular my
colleagues from Florida, who sought a new long-term moratorium off the
Florida coast, which has been agreed to by those who are now advocating
the pending legislation--this is a 16-year moratorium in a very large
area--and my colleagues from other Gulf Coast States have insisted upon
a provision that cedes to their States Federal revenues for oil and gas
produced in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf off their coasts. Thus,
S. 3711, which was written by Senators Domenici, Landrieu, and others,
includes significant new provisions that I believe undermine the goals
of our original bill.
I am disappointed we did not have a chance to vote on the bill which
was reported out of the committee. I believe the Senate would have
acted favorably on that bill had it been given an opportunity to do so.
S. 2253 is good energy policy; it is responsible fiscal policy. S.
2253 would have resulted in oil and gas being produced without locking
up vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf and without raiding the
Federal Treasury at the same time.
As I stated in the Senate yesterday, because S. 3711, which is the
pending bill, locks up these vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf
off the coast of Florida, and because the bill provides for the sharing
of billions of dollars in Federal revenues, I must strongly oppose it.
The pending bill, S. 3711, expands areas under moratoria and sets
precedence for imposing new long-term congressional moratoria.
This next chart is the one many Senators have been using to make many
different arguments on the Senate floor, but the point is very clear
when one looks at this chart. There is a vast area, the yellow area on
the chart, that is being put off limits to oil and gas development for
a very substantial period, 16 years, longer than virtually any of us
are likely to be in the Senate.
The Department proposed, as I understand it, in return for gaining
access to 2.76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over what the
Interior Department proposed--this bill currently pending in the Senate
puts 21.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off limits until 2022. I
think that is a mistake. I think it is a bad deal for America.
Two of these areas within the original 181 lease sale area that are
more than 100 miles off the Florida coast would be offered for lease
under my amendment. And most importantly, my amendment would not impose
any new moratoria on Outer Continental Shelf leasing.
Likewise, the amendment I would offer would not include the ceding of
Federal revenues to the four Gulf Coast States.
Let me make it very clear: I recognize there are needs to protect the
wetlands along the gulf coast, and I recognize that the Federal
Government should provide assistance to these

[[Page S8336]]

States to accomplish that wetland restoration and protection work. But
I believe very strongly that should be money that comes out of the
Federal Treasury. We should not be taking a stream of revenue that has
historically always gone into the Federal Treasury--that is, royalty
from production in the Outer Continental Shelf--we should not take that
stream of revenue and divert a substantial portion of it directly to
those States. We should, instead, bring those funds into the Federal
Treasury, determine what the needs are for those States and for other
communities in the country, and then appropriate the funds
appropriately to meet those needs.

That is my strong view. That is what the amendment I would have
offered would contemplate, that is what current law contemplates, and
that is what the Supreme Court has always said was the appropriate
course. Of course, I cited former President Truman and his strong
position, which is consistent with the position I am advocating today.
In summary, the amendment I would like to have offered this morning,
if the majority leader had not blocked our ability procedurally to
offer amendments, would open this area called 181 south and also a
larger portion of the 181 area originally than the pending legislation
proposes to do. There would be an additional 1.5 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas made available. There would be an additional 300 million
barrels of oil made available for our Nation over and above what is
being made available under S. 3711.
The amendment would accomplish this in a manner that protects
Florida's coast without imposing new leasing moratoria. It would also
do so in a manner that protects the fiscal interests of our Nation. I
regret I am not able to offer the amendment today for consideration.
Moreover, the amendment would achieve greater oil and gas production
without setting dangerous precedents. I think one of the most
disturbing things about what the Senate is preparing to do, if it goes
forward and adopts S. 3711, is that we are setting precedents, both for
putting areas off limits to production for long periods of time--a 16-
year statutory moratorium--for areas that have not been subject to
statutory moratorium, in some cases at all. I think that is a big
mistake. I think the precedent we are setting with regard to so-called
revenuesharing or ceding of revenues, Federal production revenues and
royalties to coastal States is also a very major mistake, and it sets a
very bad precedent which will come back to haunt us.
I know very well that the other Senators who represent coastal States
will in the future come to this Senate floor and insist, as the
Senators from these four Gulf Coast States have insisted, that if
production is going forward off their coasts, their States are entitled
to Federal revenue as well.
This is bad policy. This is bad energy policy. It is bad fiscal
policy. It is a course of action that I believe the Nation will regret
in future years if we go forward with it.
I am disappointed that there is no place in this debate for us to
offer amendments to correct the policy. I am also disappointed that
there is no place in this debate for us to address other important
energy-related issues. We should be proposing amendments to this
legislation with regard to energy efficiency. We should be considering
the legislation that Senators Obama and Lugar have proposed with regard
to vehicle fuel efficiency. We should be considering a variety of
bills--S. 2747, the Enhanced Energy Security Act, which tries to put in
place a variety of provisions that would add to the efficiency with
which we use energy in this country. All of those are legitimate issues
we should be able to address by amendment to the Energy bill on the
Senate floor.
In fact, if we were building on the Energy Policy Act work this
Congress did last year in the first session of this Congress, we would
be, in fact, allowing those other very meritorious amendments to be
considered as part of our debate as well.
I regret that. I regret the decision of the majority leader to deny
us the right to offer amendments.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent my amendment be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING IN 181 AREA AND 181
SOUTH AREA OF GULF OF MEXICO.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) 181 area.--The term ``181 Area'' means the area
identified in map 15, page 58, of the Proposed Final Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 1997-2002
of the Minerals Management Service.
(2) 181 south area.--The term ``181 South Area'' means any
area--
(A) located--
(i) south of the 181 Area;
(ii) west of the Military Mission Line; and
(iii) in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area of the
outer Continental Shelf, as designated in the document
entitled ``Draft Proposed Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012'', dated February 2006;
(B) excluded from the Proposed Final Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 1997-2002, dated August
1996, of the Minerals Management Service; and
(C) included in the areas considered for oil and gas
leasing, as identified in map 8, page 37 of the document
entitled ``Draft Proposed Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas Leasing Program 2007-2012'', dated February 2006.
(3) Military mission line.--The term ``Military Mission
Line'' means the north-south line at 8641' W. longitude.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Minerals Management
Service.
(b) 181 Area Lease Sale.--Except as otherwise provided in
this section, the Secretary shall offer the 181 Area for oil
and gas leasing pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) as soon as practicable, but not
later than 1 year, after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) 181 South Area Lease Sale.--The Secretary shall offer
the 181 South Area for oil and gas leasing pursuant to the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) as
soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Excluded Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall not offer for oil and gas leasing--
(1) any area east of the Military Mission Line, unless the
Secretary of Defense agrees in writing before the area is
offered for lease that the area can be developed in a manner
that will not interfere with military activities; or
(2) any area that is within 100 miles of the coastline of
the State of Florida.
(e) Leasing Program.--The 181 Area and 181 South Area shall
be offered for lease under this section notwithstanding the
omission of the 181 Area or the 181 South Area from any outer
Continental Shelf leasing program under section 18 of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344).
(f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 105 of the Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-54; 119 Stat. 522)
is amended by inserting ``(other than the 181 South Area (as
defined in section 2 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security
Act of 2006))'' after ``lands located outside Sale 181''.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 3711,
and I specifically rise in strong support of the majority leader's
actions to ensure that we have a focused debate on the carefully
crafted provisions of S. 3711 and not be thrown off track by numerous
amendments about all sorts of ancillary energy and other issues because
I rise in support of actually doing something, not merely talking about
everything, as the Senate so often wants to do, and at the end of the
day doing nothing. That is the choice we have.
The choice is what we so often do: Talk about everything under the
Sun, have wide-ranging debates. This body is a great debating society,
but at the end of the day does nothing. The other choice is focusing on
the carefully crafted provisions of S. 3711, having a fair debate on
those provisions and passing it into law, doing something concrete,
real, meaningful, that will have an impact soon on people's wallets, on
people's pocketbooks, on our energy future.
That is what this choice is all about, and I stand strongly for doing
something and not just talking a good game. What is it we would be
doing, Mr. President?
Well, S. 3711 would be doing more to secure our supply of domestic
energy than anything we have done in a long time. It is not everything
under the Sun, it is not a silver bullet, it is not a magic wand, but
it is a major, concrete, specific step forward that would help secure
our energy future. What is that? It is 8.3 million acres of area in

[[Page S8337]]

the gulf opened to exploration and production for the first time ever;
1.26 billion barrels of oil, brandnew production; and 5.83 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas, brandnew production. That is doing
something, and that is doing something that will have an impact on our
energy future--not in 20 years, not in 10 years, but very soon.
We will see this production in a few years and we could see its
impact on prices even sooner than that. As folks in the energy industry
recognize that we are opening this brandnew area to both oil and gas
exploration, we could see a positive impact, bringing prices down even
sooner than the production would begin.
So I am in support of doing something strong, concrete, and
meaningful--not just talking a good game and, at the end of the day,
doing nothing.
The distinguished Senator from New Mexico made some points in
opposition to this proposal. He said it was very regrettable that he
and others were not completely open to propose any amendment with
regard to this bill. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's understand what is
going on here. The distinguished Senator is absolutely flat out against
the central provisions of this bill. His effort is to gut this attempt
at moving us forward in terms of energy independence. He would take out
of this bill one of its most central and important components: royalty
share.
It is easy for him to take this position. His State of New Mexico
gets enormous Federal revenue from production onshore on Federal land.
Everything that is produced on Federal land in his State--as in any
other State--his State gets 50 percent of that royalty. So it is very
easy for him to take the position that offshore should be a completely
different situation; offshore should be zero. That doesn't affect his
constant revenue stream for States such as his in New Mexico or for
States such as Wyoming, where 50 percent of the revenue from onshore
mineral production royalty is going directly to his State coffers.
In addition, if you look at the 50-percent Federal share, most of
that goes to a Federal fund that goes back to the States in terms of
land reclamation as well, so that all told, 90 percent of that royalty
produced on Federal land in his State essentially goes back to the
States. So he has a very convenient situation in his State which has
been that way for years. It is very easy for him to protect that but,
at the same time, block coastal States from having a similar situation.
But there is no good reason we should do that. We should equalize the
playing field. We should make Federal policy equal and right. Look at
last year, 2005. Federal offshore production yielded, in terms of
Federal revenue, $6.32 billion. Of that enormous total--$6.32 billion--
only $75 million went to the States in terms of a royalty share.
Compare that to the situation of the Senator from New Mexico. Federal
onshore revenue for that same year yielded $3.5 billion of royalties,
and half of that went to the States--$1.75 billion went to the States
of New Mexico and Wyoming and many other States.

So, of course, it is easy for the Senator from New Mexico to protect
what he already has but try to deny it to coastal States. The fact is
the impacts are the same, and the impacts are dramatic. He talked about
them himself, the dramatic negative impacts with regard to coastal
erosion and other impacts on the Louisiana coastline and all of the
coastlines of the Gulf States. That is one of the primary reasons we
have royalty share at the heart of this bill, which the Senator from
New Mexico would strip out with his amendment.
But that is not the only reason we have that royalty-sharing
provision in the bill. The predominant reason is the overarching
national reason, the reason that will promote our energy independence
in the future, and that is simple. If we allow coastal States to share
in the royalty obtained from production off their shores, we can change
the dynamics dramatically. That will change the not-in-my-backyard
attitude of so many coastal States and usher in more domestic
production in the future. That is the model we are building with S.
3711, the positive model that will do, over time, even more than what
this bill alone does, opening up 8.3 million acres, 5.83 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas, and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. That is what the
bill itself does. That is significant. That is concrete and positive.
But when we put this model in place of sharing royalties with the
appropriate coastal States, then we open possibilities in the future
even more. That is why this royalty-sharing provision is so central and
so important to this bill. It is a new model to get us to greater
energy independence, to get us away from the pervasive not-in-my-
backyard mentality that has gripped virtually every State around the
country and has shut off area after area after area to offshore oil and
gas production.
This bill will do all of those things in a fair and reasonable way.
It will open new areas of land to production, it will open enormous new
energy assets, and it will create this model that we can build on in
the future to create more energy independence for our Nation. That is
what we so desperately lack.
As I said at the beginning, this body is very good at debating, at
talking, endlessly sometimes, about every proposal under the Sun, but
so often at the end of the day we do nothing after those endless
debates. This is an opportunity to do something real and concrete, and
to create a model that will provoke even more action in the future.
Because we can have endless debates in this Chamber about securing our
energy independence, and every Senator here in the context of this
debate will likely come to the floor and talk about his or her
commitment to securing our energy independence, what are we going to do
about it? If we don't change the dynamics of our energy policy, the
not-in-my-backyard mentality, which has put a stranglehold on us for
years, will continue to survive. But if we change the model, if we
allow coastal States to share in the royalties produced from production
off their own shores, give them the decision and give them some of the
benefits, then we will change the dynamics and, in my opinion, over the
next 10 years open significant new areas to offshore oil and gas
production and significantly increase our energy independence.
That is why S. 3711 is so important. It does something real and
meaningful and concrete right away. We are acting, not just talking.
Even more importantly, we are building a model for the future, a
positive model that will promote our energy independence by allowing us
to go after those resources, including offshore, where the vast
majority of our energy assets are in the future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could inquire of my colleague from
Washington--and I have my colleague from Alabama who seeks
recognition--maybe we can get some order set up here. I have a 15-
minute presentation. I believe my colleague from Alabama is seeking
recognition, if I could inquire.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, 5 minutes would allow me to complete
remarks I began earlier this morning when the majority leader and the
Democratic leader appeared.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I would inquire of my colleague from Washington a
timeframe she would want, in an effort to establish some order.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want 15 minutes as in morning business.
We could go back and forth. I think we could accommodate that quite
easily if the Senator from Kansas wants to speak. I ask unanimous
consent that following the Senator from Kansas, if I could have 15
minutes in morning business, and then go back to the other side.
Mr. BROWNBACK. If my colleague from Washington would be willing to
allow 5 minutes for my colleague from Alabama to finish up his
comments? Is that asking too much? I don't want to press it too far.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator modify her unanimous consent
request to be that following your remarks, the Senator from Alabama
would be recognized?
Mrs. MURRAY. Following my remarks, if the Senator from Alabama wants
to go, I would be happy to agree to that.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think what the Senator from Kansas was
asking is if I could sort of utilize his time for 5 minutes to complete
my remarks and then go to the Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I revise my request and ask that
following

[[Page S8338]]

the remarks of the Senator from Kansas for 15 minutes, the Senator from
Alabama for 5 minutes, and then I would be recognized for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Washington in particular for
allowing us to do this. It is very much appreciated.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Kansas to yield
for a unanimous consent request that I be placed in line after the
Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Washington to speak on this
bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator yields, can I then make that proposal?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized after the
Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I believe I am to be recognized for 15 minutes. If the
Presiding Officer will notify me when 2 minutes remain?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending business
before the Senate, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Act, S. 3711. I
wholeheartedly support this bill. We face a dire situation in this
country regarding our energy dependence.
I believe this debate is about two numbers and those numbers are 3
and 75--$3-a-gallon gasoline and $75-a-barrel oil. That is what this
debate is about, 3 and 75.
We are reminded about this every day. There are probably places in
this country paying well over $3 a gallon for gasoline. The price of
oil hit $75 this past Friday. There is a good possibility it will even
go up from there. We need more domestic drilling to take place. We must
reduce our foreign dependency, our dependency on foreign oil. In the
future and in the near term as well we have to reduce our dependency on
oil.
Things are striking. In the United States we burn 10,000 gallons of
oil per second. The United States uses four times more oil than any
other nation. Relative to economic output, the United States consumes
7.5 gallons of oil for every thousand dollars of GDP. Oil imports cost
us--this is a 2003 number, so they are higher now--oil imports cost us
$10 billion a month, as a nation. Those are 2003 numbers.
Energy economists estimate that since World War II, oil price spikes
have cost the economy 15 percent growth and $1.2 trillion in direct
losses. There is a $7.4 billion increase in the U.S. oil bill per year
for each $1 increase in the price of oil. Imagine what that adds up to
when you push $75-a-barrel oil. A $1 increase in the price of oil costs
U.S. companies and consumers about $828 million in trucking costs each
year.
In addition to these facts, we get a large amount of our oil from
regions that are unstable at best and unfriendly at worst; 65.3 percent
of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. The Middle
East OPEC States already supply the United States with 2.5 million
barrels per day, 25 percent of our daily imports.
Further, every day, 26 million barrels of oil flow through two
points. One of those points is the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian
Gulf. We know the instability that can happen there. A few targeted
strikes against one of these two states or against oil facilities in
Saudi Arabia, which holds a quarter of the world's oil reserves and
essentially all spare capacity--if you can consider any of the capacity
spare today--it could take several million barrels of oil off the
global market every day for months and send oil prices soaring.
These facts, coupled with the increases in demand that are taking
place in countries such as China and India, do not bode well for our
national and economic security.
There will be very difficult if not potentially disastrous
consequences to our economy if we do not reduce our dependence on
foreign oil and, in the future, oil period. If we remain so dependent
on foreign oil, we court disaster.
Currently, we have these two mega numbers, 3 and 75; $3-a-gallon
gasoline and $75-a-barrel oil.
This bill, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Act, will help lessen the dire
situation we are currently in. It opens up 8.3 million acres of the
Gulf of Mexico for oil and natural gas exploration. It is something we
need to do, we must do now to be able to help reduce our demand for oil
products, for foreign oil.
I want to also talk about the midterm of what we need to do. This is
something we have to do now to mitigate the situation we are currently
in. We really need to do it. But on a midterm basis, we have to reduce
our dependence on oil, period. That is why a bipartisan group of 28
Senators has put forward the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for America
Security Act, S. 2025. I urge my colleagues to look at cosponsoring
this legislation. I think it is the most bipartisan and comprehensive
energy legislation pending in front of the Senate today.
We filed it as an amendment on this bill, but as I understand the
procedural situation we are in, it is unlikely this is going to come up
now. It is still important that we look at this legislation and others
to reduce our long-term dependence on oil. It is appropriate Members of
Congress from every region of the country and every political stripe--
conservative, liberal, everything in between--have all arrived at this
same point. For our national security and our economic security, we
must reduce our dependency on oil.
It is common sense to reduce our oil consumption, and it is doable.
This bill uses new ideas and does not visit old debates or fights. We
know the edges of this debate where we divide this body. This doesn't
go there. It says what areas can we agree upon, and let's press forward
there. For too long our foreign policy has been dictated in part by our
need for foreign oil. It is in the interest of America's security for
us to look at ways of lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and it
is also in the interests of our economy. The pocketbook of every
American is affected when the price of oil goes up.

We can create market incentives to use the technology available today
to deal with the problem that we are facing right now. We don't have to
wait for any new inventions. We can start solving the problem today
simply by sending the marketplace the correct signals. There is broad
public support for reducing our oil consumption.
This, to me, is one of those American-type problems. We have a
problem and it needs to be addressed and we can do it with good, old-
fashioned American ingenuity. It exists. The great thing about this
bill, S. 2025, is that our 10-year goal is for reduction in oil
consumption of 2.5 million barrels per day. That is roughly 10 percent
of our total oil consumption and the same amount we import daily from
the Persian Gulf region.
How do we do it? Ethanol and renewable fuels must play a clear role
in this fight. They are homegrown. We need to be more dependent on the
Midwest than the Middle East. Therefore, this helps keep the money at
home. We ventured down this road before, but we have never fully
committed as a nation to renewable fuels. Now is the time to do it.
I am encouraged by the fact that so many people are literally buying
into ethanol today, and into biodiesel--soybean-based diesel fuel. Bill
Gates has invested over $100 million of his own money into ethanol.
Richard Branson of the Virgin Empire, famous for his success in venture
capitalism, is investing in ethanol. These are great signs for the
future of renewable fuels, as it is an industry that needs capital
investment.
As a government and as a people, we need to fully commit to make
renewable fuels a viable alternative to petroleum-based fuel. As long
as oil remains above $70 a barrel, the economics of renewable fuels
makes good sense. It makes sense for us to continue to push its
development, and it makes clear sense regarding our foreign policy and
security needs.
Biodiesel is another renewable fuel option and is a farm success
story. After Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, soybean farmers
were struggling to maintain profitability. I was the Secretary of
Agriculture in my State of Kansas at that time. Because

[[Page S8339]]

of high energy prices and low commodity prices, the farmers were
struggling. The soybean farmers started investments in the development
of biodiesel. It was a priority for farmers eager to contribute to our
energy supply and develop a new market for soybeans. Farmers invested
more than $50 million of their check-off dollars. These are dollars
they tax themselves to be able to promote their industry. They did this
to be able to conduct research and development in biodiesel.
As a result, the biodiesel industry has shown slow but steady success
since the early 1990s. However, in the past 2 years it has grown
exponentially. In 2004 there were approximately 25 million gallons of
biodiesel sales. That increased to 90 million gallons in 2005, and
currently it is on track to exceed 150 million gallons this year.
Likewise, we went from 22 biodiesel plants in 2004 to more than 60
biodiesel plants currently, and there are over 40 more plants currently
under construction.
Congress has, and continues to put in place, policies that enhance
our Nation's energy security. Renewable fuels are playing a significant
role in helping to achieve this objective while providing economic
benefits to farmers and rural communities.
Another key element to freeing ourselves from our foreign oil
dependency is to introduce electricity as a transportation fuel option.
Recently, I and many of my colleagues in the House and Senate test
drove plug-in hybrid vehicles on Capitol Hill. These cars drive
exclusively on electricity for the first 30 miles of every trip. After
30 miles, these cars switch to a normal combustion engine. Over 50
percent of all Americans drive less than 30 miles each day. That means
we could have over half of our drivers in America driving exclusively
on electricity, not using any oil at all.
The good news is that our electricity generation is produced here in
America, whether it is coal, natural gas, nuclear, or renewable sources
such as water power and wind. We would be fueling a majority of our
transportation sector with American sources of energy as opposed to
foreign oil. Plugging in your car during offpeak hours when power is in
a surplus and cheaper would soon just become part of the modern daily
routine like plugging in your cell phone before you go to bed. Offpeak
electricity can be the equivalent of 50-cent-a-gallon gasoline.
The car I sat in, and other Members drove, went 100 miles a gallon by
using the plug-in technology, the hybrid technology in the car, and
fuel in a combustion engine--100 miles to the gallon, a car available
today.
This was a modified Prius. I don't want to tell everybody that this
is broadly available. But the people who have modified it to include
plug-in technology were using this hybrid vehicle.
Not only will we be sending out money to countries that dislike us,
but we will be buying American-made power instead.
Another great bit of news is that we already have the infrastructure
in place to produce electricity as a transportation tool. All you will
need is an extension cord and a wall outlet. We can't drill enough
domestic oil to break our addiction to foreign oil.
However, this bill takes an innovative market-based approach to solve
these problems. We can provide tax credits for the production and
purchase of advanced technology cars. We expand the renewable fuels
infrastructure through a variety of means. We also expand research and
development in critical areas such as light-weight materials and
cellulosic ethanol. This ethanol, instead of being made out of grain,
is made of plant fibers or out of woodchips. We amend the Federal fleet
requirements to reduce oil consumption by allowing electric drive
technology to qualify under the EPA act.
We require 30 percent of the Federal fleet requirements to be met by
advanced diesel, hybrids, or electric plug-in hybrids by 2006.
We also provide tax credits for companies that have fleets of 100 or
more vehicles to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.
We are all solidly behind the ideas in this bill. It has 28
cosponsors, and we look forward to moving these ideas forward because
it is critical for our national and economic security and our economy
and our future that we do so, plus it is just good old American
ingenuity that we would do something like this and lead the world in
moving toward an important electric renewable source fleet of vehicles
for our consumers.
Clearly, if we are to continue to live freely in this country, we
must figure out a solution to our rising dependency on foreign oil.
That is part of my support for S. 3711. Near term, we have to do more
production. Longer term, we have to reduce our dependency and our
addiction to oil, period. Here is a bill and a way we can do it. As we
observe what is taking place in the Middle East--even today we can see
volatility in that region. As we observe what is taking place in our
marketplace, I believe you can see a yearning for vehicles that get
higher mileage and we can use with plug-in technology.
I think we have to pass S. 3711, and then in the future let's move
this car fleet to be based more on renewables and to be based on plug-
in technology using electricity.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to be able to accomplish
that. I urge us in the near term to do what we have to do--pass this
bill which is before us today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy to yield during the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 50 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute
to ask a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I chair the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.
First, I thank the Senator for supporting this measure. It is vitally
important that we tell the American people that the price of natural
gas rose dramatically today again. There is a big demand.
I think it is exciting to see some Senator like yourself, who has a
vision for other things besides this, saying let's do this because we
can do it now.
That is a point I want to make as chairman. Let's do this because it
will break the mold, break the precedent of moratoria of no deepwater
mining, deepwater drilling, and get on with great production. But I
want to say to the Senator that I am aware of his bill. I am aware of
some of the great ideas in it. I heard him mention it. We had a hearing
on parts of it, as he probably knows.
I think it is fair to tell him that the truth is, with this short
session, in this Senator's opinion--I really worked hard to get energy
legislation passed and was able to pass a comprehensive bill that did
some terrific things. He knows that--ethanol, even in the area of cars
he is speaking of. We made some giant strides with that Energy bill--I
don't believe we could start with the Energy bill this late in the
session with the Senator's bill or somebody else's bill without doing
nothing and just getting bogged down. I thought: Let's take what we can
do and do it. But I don't want the Senator to think the great ideas
that he has have been forgotten.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.

GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have waited day after day in the
Senate on political issues when we should be taking the Senate's time
to make America more secure.
Last week, the majority leader mentioned port security in a long list
of issues to be debated before the August recess.
While Senator Frist continues to pay lipservice to this important
priority, I remain concerned that with only a week left before the
August recess we have no firm schedule or commitment to bring this bill
to the floor.
I am worried that while the majority says it wants to act, it refuses
to put any action behind that rhetoric.
And here's the bottom line--if God forbid there is an incident at one
of our ports--the fingers will point to this Chamber.
And people will want to know: Why did the Senate sit on a bill that
passed

[[Page S8340]]

the full House and passed the Senate Homeland Security Committee? Why
didn't we make these ports secure when we had the chance?
The only thing keeping the GreenLane bill from protecting us is the
Senate's failure to take it up. We have to bring up and pass this bill
before it's too late.
I am here today because nearly 5 years after 9/11 our country is
still vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
Just this week, an article in the Seattle Times showed us that our
ports are not secure.
A reporter was able to enter two West Coast ports simply by hiding in
trucks that were entering those ports.
The reported walked around cargo containers in areas that are
supposed to be secure.
In this case, the security gaps appeared to be on the ``land side,''
but as the article notes--an incident at any port--whether from the
land or sea side--could shut down all of our ports. Time is not on our
side.
Each year, 6 million cargo containers enter U.S. seaports. And that
number is expected to quadruple in the next 20 years. These cargo
containers carry the building blocks of our economy.
But without adequate security, they can also provide an opportunity
for terrorists to deliver a deadly one-two punch to our country.
The first punch would create an untold number of American casualties.
The second punch would bring our economy to a halt.
Today, we are not doing enough to keep America safe. Standing in this
Chamber, it can feel like the dangers at our ports are a distant
concern. But given that our ports are connected to our Nation's
transportation system and are often close to major population centers,
the threat is never far away.
A recent example makes this threat crystal clear. On March 21, a
container ship called the Hyundai Fortune was traveling off the coast
of Yemen when an explosion occurred in the rear of the ship.
About 90 containers were blown off the side of the ship, creating a
debris field 5 miles long. Thankfully there were no fatalities, and the
crew was rescued. Fortunately, this incident does not appear to be
terrorist-related.
Now I want to imagine this same burning ship sitting just a few feet
from our shores--in New York harbor or Puget Sound, off the coast of
Los Angeles or Charleston, Miami, Portland, Hampton Roads, the Delaware
Bay, or the Gulf of Mexico.
Now imagine that we are not just dealing with a conventional
explosion. We are dealing with a dirty bomb that has exploded on
America's shores.
Let me walk through what would happen next. First, there would be an
immediate loss of life. Many of our ports are located near major
cities. If a nuclear device exploded at a major port, up to 1 million
people could be killed.
If this was a chemical weapon exploding in Seattle, the chemical
plume could contaminate the rail system, Interstate 5, and SeaTac
Airport, not to mention the entire downtown business and residential
district.
At the port, there would be tremendous confusion. People would try to
contain the fire, but it's unclear who--if anyone--would in charge.
Then--when word spreads that it's a dirty bomb--panic would likely
set in. There would be chaos as first responders try to react, and
residents try to flee.
Next, our government would shut down every port in America to make
sure there weren't other bombs on other containers in other cities.
That shutdown would be the equivalent of driving our economy into a
brick wall. It could even spark a global recession. Day by day, we
would feel the painful economic impact of the attack. American
factories would not be able to get the supplies they need. They would
shut their doors and lay off workers. Stores around the country would
not be able to get the products they need to stock their shelves.
Prices for these goods would spike, as demand began to outweigh the
supply. And consumers would not be able to afford the items they rely
on every day.
In 2002, we saw what the closure of a few ports on the west coast
would do. It cost our economy about $1 billion a day. Imagine if we
shut down all our ports.
One study concluded that if U.S. ports were shut down for just 9
days, it would cost our economy $58 billion.
Next, we'd realize we have no plan for resuming trade after an
attack--no protocol for what would be searched, what would be allowed
in, and even who would be in charge. There would be a mad scramble to
create a new system in a crisis atmosphere.
Eventually, we would begin the slow process of manually inspecting
all the cargo that's waiting to enter the U.S. One report found it
could take as long as 4 months to get them all inspected and moving
again.
Finally, we'd have to set up a new regime for port security. And you
can bet that any new, rushed plan would not balance strong security
with efficient trade. Unfortunately, the scenario I just outlined is
not the stuff of fantasy. Rather, it is a realistic portrayal of events
that could happen tomorrow.
Nearly 5 years after September 11, we still have not closed a major
loophole that threatens our lives and our economy. Time is not on our
side. We must act, and we must act now.
I approach this as someone who understands the importance of both
improving security and maintaining the flow of commerce. My home State
of Washington is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. We know
what's at stake if there were an incident at one of our ports.
That is why I wrote and funded Operation Safe Commerce to help us
find where we're vulnerable and to evaluate the best security
practices.
It is why I have worked to boost funding for the Coast Guard and have
fought to keep the Port Security Grant program from being eliminated
year after year.
Right after 9/11, I started talking with security and trade experts
to find out what we need to be doing to both improve security and keep
commerce flowing.
Last year, I sought out Senator Collins as a partner in this effort.
I approached Senator Collins because I knew she cared about the issue,
I knew she had done a lot of work on it already, and I knew she was
someone who could get things done.
Since that day, we have worked hand-in-hand to develop a bill and
move it forward. I am also grateful to Senators Lieberman and Coleman
for their tremendous work.
We know we are vulnerable. Terrorists have many opportunities to
introduce deadly cargo into a container. It could be tampered with
anytime from when it leaves a foreign factory overseas to when it
arrives at a consolidation warehouse and moves to a foreign port. It
could be tampered with while it's en route to the U.S.
And there are several dangers. I outlined what would happen if
terrorists exploded a container, but they could just as easily use
cargo containers to transport weapons or personnel into the United
States to launch an attack anywhere on American soil.

In fact, in April, 22 Chinese stowaways were found at the Port of
Seattle. They had reached the United States inside a cargo container.
In that case, they were just stowaways. Imagine if they had been
terrorists sneaking into our country.
The programs we have in place today are totally inadequate. Last
year, thanks to the insistence of Senators Collins and Coleman, the
Government Accountability Office found that C-TPAT, the program in
place, was not checking to see if companies were doing what they
promised in their security plans. Even when U.S. Customs inspectors do
find something suspicious in a foreign port, they cannot force a
container to be inspected.
We have a very clear and very deadly threat. We know today that
current programs are inadequate. What are we going to do about it? We
could manually inspect every container coming into this country, but
that would cripple our economy.
The real challenge is to make trade more secure without slowing it to
a crawl. That is why Senators Collins, Coleman, Lieberman, and I have
been working with all the stakeholders and the experts to strike the
right balance. The result was the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security
Act. It provides a comprehensive blueprint for how we can improve
security while keeping our trade efficient.
At its heart, this challenge is about keeping the good things about
trade--

[[Page S8341]]

speed and efficiency--without being vulnerable to the bad things about
trade--the potential for terrorists to use our engines of commerce.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield for a minute without her
statement being interrupted?
Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to do that if I can have additional time to
answer the Senator's question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that following the remarks of the Senator,
Senator Hutchinson of Texas be recognized for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is already part of the order.
Mr. DOMENICI. And that I, the Senator from New Mexico, follow her for
up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous consent request,
the Senator has already been recognized, but no specific time amount
was set for the Senator from Texas. Following the Senator from Texas,
the Senator from New Mexico will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the GreenLane Maritime Security Cargo Act
does five things.
First of all, it creates tough new standards for all of our cargo.
Today, we don't have any standards for cargo security.
Second, it creates the GreenLane, which provides an even higher level
of security. Companies have the option to follow those higher standards
of the GreenLane, and their cargo--those companies which agree to
that--will be tracked and monitored from the moment it leaves a factory
floor overseas until it reaches the United States. We will know where
that cargo has been, we will know every person who has touched it, and
we will know if it has been tampered with. The GreenLane will simply
push the borders out by conducting inspections overseas before cargo is
ever loaded onto a ship bound for the United States. And we will
provide incentives for companies to use those higher standards of the
GreenLane.
Third, our bill sets up a much needed plan to resume trade quickly
and safely to minimize the impact on our economy.
Fourth, our bill will secure our ports at home by funding port
security grants at $400 million. That funding will help our ports and
our port operators to develop and implement security plans. They can
use this funding to strengthen their perimeter of security, which would
have helped prevent a number of security lapses that were highlighted
this week in the Seattle Times article.
Finally, our bill will hold DHS accountable for improving cargo
security. The Department of Homeland Security is long overdue in
establishing cargo security standards and transportation worker
credentials. We need to hold them accountable. The bill we have written
provides the infrastructure to ensure accountability and coordination.
I take a minute to thank Senator Collins for her tremendous
leadership on this critically important issue. I thank Senator Coleman
for his leadership and work as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations. Senator Coleman has helped expose our
vulnerabilities, and he has worked with us to develop solutions. I also
thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership on this issue. I commend all
the other cosponsors of our bill: Senators Feinstein, Snowe, DeWine,
Salazar, Santorum, Graham, Cantwell, Durbin, and Byrd.
We are seeing tremendous progress on the House side with the Safe
Port Act. I thank Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane Harman for their
bipartisan leadership.
Finally, I thank the numerous Federal, State, and local officials as
well as all the industry representatives for their tremendous
assistance in crafting this legislation. Those people truly are the
front lines of securing our Nation's ports. I have been very proud to
work with all of them.
Right now, today, we have a choice about how we deal with cargo
security and the challenges facing us. If we wait for a disaster, our
choices are going to be very stark. We should make those changes now on
our terms before there is a deadly incident.
Let's protect America before an image like this hits our television
screens. Let's not wait until a terrorist incident strikes again to
protect our people and our economy.
Earlier this year, the American people woke up and spoke out when
they heard that a foreign government-owned company could be running our
ports. That sparked a critical debate. Now we need to set up a security
regime that will actually make us safer. Until we do, none of us should
be sleeping well at night. A terrible image like this, a burning
container ship with a dirty bomb in one of America's harbors, could be
on our TV screens tomorrow.
This Congress needs to act today. We have heard the majority leader
say we need to address port security, but words will not protect us
from terrorists, words are not going to help us find a bomb that is
hidden in a cargo container, and words won't help us tell which
containers could be holding a group of terrorists who are trying to
sneak into our country. We need more than words. The Senate needs to
take up and pass the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act. We only
have a few days left before we can do this. We need to act. I urge the
leadership, before the August break, to finally bring up and pass the
GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act before it is too late.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of
the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. I was very encouraged
by the strong vote to proceed to debate on this bill. I hope we can do
this for the people of America to begin to see the energy prices in
this country start coming down.
I am a cosponsor of this bill. It is a compromise and reflects much
hard work from all of the gulf coast producing States, including
Florida. I especially want to mention Senators Landrieu and Vitter from
Louisiana, who have pushed for a long time for this kind of proposal.
The people of America are not interested in political rhetoric. They
want Congress to take action on the rising energy costs in this
country. This is a potential near-term solution for a long-term
problem.
For too long, we have neglected our own resources in this country,
including those in the Gulf of Mexico. This bill will bring access to
more than 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and natural
gas, with the production in leases 181 and 181 south. It will provide
access to over 1.26 billion barrels of oil in these areas.
To put this in perspective, the average annual fuel consumption for
cars and light trucks, according to the Federal Highway Administration,
is 14.5 barrels of gasoline; that is, 607 gallons. This 1.26 billion
barrels of oil is enough energy to fuel approximately 87 million
vehicles for a year.
We cannot afford to stand by and allow our import costs of oil to
continue to increase. Since 2001, those prices have gone up 150
percent. Additionally, the bill will provide access to 5.8 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas.
To put that figure in perspective, it is six times the amount of LNG
we import every year, three times the amount of gas currently in
storage, and enough natural gas to serve 107 million households.
America's yearly natural gas bill has risen from $50 billion to $200
billion over the last 6 years. This increase impacts farmers, ranchers,
business owners and households. We must continue to discover and
support alternative energy proposals. Congress has done that. Congress
passed a bill last year, signed by the President, that focused on other
sources of energy besides oil and gas. We gave credits for solar power,
biofuel, ethanol, wind energy, all of which are renewable sources of
energy that are safe and environmentally clean. That has made a
difference. Even wind energy has now become almost 10 percent of the
electricity used in my home State of Texas. We know if we put together
a number of different kinds of renewable sources of energy such as corn
and soybeans, it can be an alternative that takes a tremendous burden
off oil and gas, which has been the largest supplier.
I am also encouraged that some of our largest integrated oil
companies are moving toward those kinds of alternative fuels. I opened
a biodiesel plant

[[Page S8342]]

in Galveston, TX, a couple of weeks ago. That is a step in the right
direction. It was being opened by Chevron. We are doing some good
things.
The global demand for oil and natural gas is rising at a rapid rate.
That is what is causing the prices to go up. We have to look to our own
resources. One of those major resources is the Gulf of Mexico. I also
hope we eventually will look at other resources, such as Alaska, which
contains comparable resources to that of the Gulf of Mexico.
We can do something ourselves with the resources of our own country
if we combine the research and new emerging sources of energy as well
as the old standard oil and natural gas sources we also have. If we
don't act, we are jeopardizing our economic and national security.
This bill also helps the States that are allowing drilling to
mitigate the costs this production brings to their States. In my State
of Texas, we have 367 miles of coastline which has sustained impacts
from production. Texas has helped finance and support much of the gulf
coast production. The entire Nation has benefitted from lower fuel
costs due to these investments. This production, however, has had an
impact on my State and the coastal areas of my State. This bill will
begin to help mitigate those impacts. It provides the gulf producing
States, beginning in 2007, with 37.5 percent of revenues. Fifty percent
will go to the U.S. Treasury, and the rest, 12.5 percent, will be
shared among all the States of our country. Every State is going to
benefit from passing this legislation.
Today, a barrel of oil is selling above $74.
Every American is feeling the impact. This is a piece of legislation
that can have a very positive impact very quickly. I urge my colleagues
to support this legislation. Let's send it to the President. Those
leases will soon be ready for bid. It is our responsibility to do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, fellow Senators.
First, Mr. President, and fellow Americans, for those who have
watched the Senate over the last couple days, it must have been a
pretty enjoyable time because Senator after Senator came to the floor--
maybe 12 or 15 versus 2 or 3 opposed--12 or 15, all positive and for
something, for a change, sending a signal here in the waning days of
this session before we go home for a recess when it is hot out there
and the price of natural gas is going up. The people know it, and they
are hearing rumors that pretty soon we are going to be importing
natural gas from all over the world, where we used to be a totally
self-reliant country on natural gas.
We have made a mistake. In the last 17 years, every new powerplant we
built--because we were frightened to death of nuclear power--we built
for natural gas. We took this fantastic ingredient, this beautiful
product of nature--natural gas--and we poured it into the powerplants.
And we are still doing some. I did not think we were, but we are still
building a couple. Rather interesting. I do not want to even insinuate
by saying where, but we are building some.
In the meantime, millions of American homes have done what everybody
thought was right, and that was to hook on to natural gas. Then across
this land we built a manufacturing base, huge in size, made up of, for
example, the chemical industry. I assume the occupant of the Chair
knows about industries like that. Many Senators do, and they probably
have been contacted by their industries--the fertilizer industry, the
plastics industry, involving thousands of workers. What raw product do
they use for manufacturing so they can employ and sell products?
Natural gas.
So what happened? We used it up. All of a sudden, we had a big
problem in the gulf and the price went through the roof. And we had
some rigging and a few other things occurring that we found out about
with that Houston company. But, in any event, what happened is the
price of natural gas skyrocketed and the supply produced by Americans
for Americans became insufficient to meet our needs, and we began to
say: We are going to have to go buy natural gas around the world.
What a frightening thing. We just got through this huge problem of
gradual dependence upon foreign crude oil to where we are more than 60
percent dependent, and there is nothing we can do about it. We cannot
produce sufficient crude oil to change that equation, the crude oil
needed to run America's transportation needs.
And when we complain, remember the old idea of Pogo: ``We have met
the enemy and he is us.'' The transportation needs are 70 percent of
the oil used. And that is your cars, ladies and gentlemen, your SUVs,
the trucks and buses. That is 70 percent of the oil.
Now here we grow dependent for that. And here in America we grow more
and more dependent upon natural gas. And here sits--while all of this
is happening--along the seaboard of America a giant sea of natural gas
and crude oil which has been taken off the market by what have been
commonly called moratoria or moratoriums, saying: Do not touch that
because it is off the sea coast of California; do not touch that
because it is off the coast of New Jersey. In this case, we have a
small piece of Federal real estate. I am not going to put the maps up
again today, but it is 8.3 million acres. Sounds like a lot, but,
believe me, when you look at the coast, it is small.
We are looking in this bill at 8.3 million acres, which we cannot put
out to bid for American companies, large and small, to go drill for
what is known to be there. What is known to be there? Oil: 1.2 billion
barrels. What else? Natural gas, that thing I just talked about that
builds an industry, that builds a manufacturing base, that keeps the
price down. Right? It makes supply more rational.
There sits 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in that property.
Well, that does not sound like anything except it is enough energy to
take care of 6 million houses for 15 years. That is pretty good if you
look at that as an average American.
So what we decided was: Yes, we surely, last year, passed a great
energy bill--which I will talk about in a moment--but we couldn't get
this one done, so let's get this one done this year for the American
people. I regret to say we were moving forward with, again, locked arms
with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to get this done
when we had to break. We had to break paths because I decided to stand
for the past would get us the fruits of the past, which would be
nothing, so that if we did not share some of the revenue with the
surrounding States, we would still get no oil and gas, we would still
be in moratoria, and we would get no revenue for the Treasury and no
revenue for the States. But, most importantly, that beautiful product,
natural gas, and the crude oil that is there with it would still be
there and nobody could touch it.

So with that in mind, we worked and we worked and we worked, with the
help of the great Senator, Mel Martinez, from Florida, who was
courageous, and we protected his State sufficiently, I think admirably,
for him to say yes. Today I understand his co-Senator said yes. Thank
you, Senator. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. He came here and
said yes. Four coastal States said yes. They had been saying no more,
and now we have an opportunity.
We do not need to wait around and say: Let's add 20 other items for
the American people. You cannot add 20 more items. They still have to
go to the House. They do not have 20 items waiting around. So whatever
great ideas are pending, we cannot pass them, first, because if you
keep adding them, it means you will not pass this bill, and, secondly,
they do not go anywhere.
So let's do this one for the American people. And if this happens, it
says, put that land out to the American drilling companies now, and a
big portion of it will be available within a year--within a year.
Now, I will respond to Senator Bingaman's points in opposition.
I do believe that every point he made in opposition is refutable, and
I will refute them later. But I want to say the simple fact is we had
to go our own ways for one simple proposition. Both of us understood we
needed to go ahead and deepwater drill this land, although with the
passage of negotiations beyond the time that he and I--Senator

[[Page S8343]]

Bingaman and I--had reached accord, we added substantial property to
this arrangement. But the point of it is, we broke on the proposition
of: Shall we bring a bill to the floor with no revenuesharing with the
States--which I concluded will never pass; we will not get it done, and
we will be right back where we were--or do we do what we have done here
and say the abutting surrounding States get a portion?
Now, let's get this straight: The Federal Government still gets the
majority. They get 50 percent straight up of the royalty. And 12.5
percent is for the Statewide Land and Water Conservation Fund. And then
37.5 percent over time--which is not much in the beginning, but over
time is substantial--is shared with the States that abut so they can
say: We are sharing in the burdens while we are joining in sharing in
the wealth.
We believe the precedent will flow, once this is done, and we will
begin to look to other States, such as the State of Virginia, perhaps
the Carolinas, perhaps Georgia, et cetera, and say: What about similar
arrangements later? But right now let's give the people a gift of what
is theirs now by passing this measure.
Now, there is one very positive thing that is happening that is big
on the scene for the American people that is hard to appreciate because
it takes time. That is the impact of the Energy Policy Act that is a
year old this August. The energy policy bill is beginning to take hold.
I regret to say the higher the price of crude oil, the more
breakthroughs will occur on the part of innovators and technologists
and companies that are making breakthroughs in terms of new kind of
cars, new kinds of technology, because the price of crude oil is saying
to them it is worth the investment and the risk in something new.
So the high price is bringing on new things. But the act we passed is
bringing on huge results. We are in a renaissance period on nuclear
power. I wish I could come here and show you the dedication of the next
plant, but that takes a while. But 25 applications have taken place
since that act, 25 applications for nuclear powerplants. So the
Senators who come down here and say: Why do this bill; why don't we do
more things; we did more things in this huge bill we passed. We created
a nuclear renaissance in the United States.
Second, we have a revolution in biomass which is going to change
rural areas into a more vibrant and diverse economic rural America
because we are going to use farm products to fill our gasoline tanks
with ethanol instead of crude oil. That is all in the Energy bill. The
targets are set. The huge mandate is set. And we are rolling with 29
new plants having been built.
One of our Senators implied we should not be so narrow and take just
this bill. Just this bill? Just this bill is pretty much--the one we
are talking about, right? It is big. It was said: We should not do
this. We should do many other things. We did the other things. I am
trying to tell you, we did many of them, and we probably should start
with a second round next year. But if we start trying to get more
instead of this, we will get nothing for the American people, nothing
for natural gas supply, nothing for our consumers to rely upon in terms
of bringing the price of natural gas down. And that is what I want to
do and want to get done.
So the Energy Policy Act did what I have described, and many more
things, some of which I will describe later. But I am very proud that
in the period of 12 months we will have passed an energy bill that has
done all these significant things. They are moving along.
Right now we are wondering about the reliability of electricity on
the grid. I can tell you that in the Energy Act the studies are just
about completed. Within a month to 2 months they will be ready. And
they will tell us how to fix the grid so it will be totally reliable,
and the exchanges between the various portions of the electricity
distribution system will all be made reliable so you will not have the
kind of blackouts we talk about.
That is because of the Energy Act. But you cannot do it immediately.
It is in the mill. That is happening, too. So when you look at it,
Congress has done some important work in the energy field. Hybrid cars
are coming on in large quantities because of the credit, plus the high
price of crude oil.
We can continue, but in a nutshell this bill is good for the people
who are burdened with the high cost of natural gas, the high cost of
oil. It is their property. We ought to develop it and do it now. So it
has been my privilege, having served here for quite some time, to be
the leader in this particular area. Of that I am very pleased, proud,
and grateful.
I remind everyone, while natural gas was taking a little bit of a
back seat to the rising costs of energy, it has now joined a parade of
increases. Today, my staff informs me that the price of natural gas
reached a 5-week high, just in time for us to remind you that you
better put this piece of property on the development table so that it
can be rendered a productive piece which will, in fact, cause that
price to continue to stop rising and to abate over time.
Mr. President, I have said on a number of occasions that passing this
bill is the most important thing that we can do in the short term to
move toward correcting the supply and demand imbalance of natural gas.
I would like to take the time to refute some of the specific criticisms
made against this bill by a handful of people.
First, I would tell you that if we do not develop our resources
domestically, this revenue sharing question will be moot--because we
will not have revenues to share. The capital will be spent overseas for
foreign exploration and development and we will continue the cycle of
sending our American dollars abroad for our energy sources for use here
at home. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act begins to address this
problem.
Now, it is argued by a few that this bill is not worth doing because
the Minerals Management Service is proposing to open parts of the 181
area in its recently published 5-year plan. Critics argue that since
the administration has announced intentions or plans to open parts of
181 equal to 2 million acres--containing approximately 620 billion
barrels of oil and 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas--it is not
worth passing this bill which opens over 8 million acres with 1.26
billion barrels of oil and almost 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Even if I were to entertain that logic as being sound, let me tell you
the pitfalls of assuming that the administration lease sale will go
through as planned.
It starts with the very point that the critics make. In November
1996, the MMS announced and approved a 5-year plan that included an
intention to offer 6 million acres known as the original lease sale 181
area for oil and gas leasing. The decision to include this area was the
culmination of extensive consultation between the Federal Government
and the State of Florida. However, in 2001 when the Department of the
Interior went to lease this 6 million-acre area, the administration
reduced the lease sale to 1.5 million acres. So recent past tells us
that if we hang our hats on the draft plan as critics seek today, we
will be disappointed. Critics say--trust the very process that
disappointed us a few years earlier in the very same area. I say--in
this bill--direct the Secretary to lease the area. I say--make it
clear, make it direct and we will get all the resources, and there will
be no doubt.
I ask this to those who would rely on a draft plan as a certainty.
Since the time you were in school, have you ever written a draft that
was the exact same as the final product? A draft is just that--a draft.
It represents what could be opened, not necessarily what will be
opened. History shows us the peril of assuming that a draft plan will
be followed out to completion.

Furthermore, we should not assume that coastal states will sit by and
go along with leasing without the compensation needed to fix the energy
infrastructure and coastal environment that is so critical to our
domestic energy survival. Last week, the State of Louisiana filed suit
in Federal district court to block the upcoming lease sale 200 off of
Louisiana. They did so because they claim that our flawed policies were
inconsistent with their State coastal plans. This should be a warning
to all of us. Today marks the beginning of the end of the days of
turning our backs on our coastal States while we turn our energy
dollars over to hostile regimes.
The critics of this bill will also say that we took too much property
off the table in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to

[[Page S8344]]

get the resources in 181 and 181 south. They point to the areas east of
the military mission line off the Florida coast and say that we have
given up access to 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off of
Florida's coast. But this argument is illusory.
We do not have access to these areas currently. With or without this
bill these areas are under executive moratorium--that has been set
forth by two Presidents, one Republican and one Democrat--through 2012,
and these areas have been under this executive withdrawal since 1990.
Furthermore, for each of the past 16 years, Congress has placed an
additional moratorium on these areas without a whisper of challenge. To
say that this bill locks up these areas is not forthright.
These areas are locked up until 2012 and ultimately, under the
authority granted to the President over 50 years ago in the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, the President can continue this moratorium
at any time. The current executive moratorium expires in 2012 in the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico. This bill extends this time on certain areas to
2022. Does anyone assume that the moratorium will be removed anytime
soon? Does anyone see a viable path toward lifting this moratorium in
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida in the near term? The answer,
for the time being, is unequivocally--no.
Furthermore, Secretary Rumsfeld is on record as saying that, while
the Department of Defense is fully supportive of the national goal of
exploration and production of oil and gas offshore, the Department of
Defense believes that any such activities east of the military mission
line would conflict with essential military activities. Critics say
that it is my bill that locks up these areas when in fact, these areas
are deemed essential to our Nation's military needs. Until the
President, Secretary of Defense, and both Houses of Congress render a
different decision about this area, it is specious to suggest that this
bill is locking up these areas to production.

Unquestionably, this bill opens up 8.3 million new acres to
development of nearly 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26
billion barrels of oil. The proof of the substantive merits of this
bill lie in its broad support around the Nation from America's
agricultural community, manufacturing community, producers of chemicals
and plastics, the textile industry, the utility sector, and small
businesses. Literally, thousands of consumer groups representing
millions of Americans and millions of American jobs say the same
thing--that S. 3711 provides the much needed relief for the American
people. I know that I only addressed a few of the criticisms of this
bill, but I dismissed them, because they are not real. If I had all day
to myself, I would continue to dismiss the criticisms one by one. I
will leave that to my many distinguished colleagues who support this
measure.
But I will say this--the criticisms are not based in fact, but rather
cling to a flawed philosophy of the past. Over the next couple of days,
people will trot out quotes, cases, statutes, and general precedent
from years gone by. Mind you, all of this data and precedent will come
from a time when we did not import 13.5 million barrels of petroleum
per day from unstable regions of the world. All of this data and
precedent will come from a time when we did not consume 22.2 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas and pay more than 3 times the price for it
that nations competing for our jobs pay. All of this data will come
pre-Katrina and Rita, when our Nation's energy coast that hosts nearly
50 percent our refining infrastructure was ravaged by natural disaster.
I ask the critics to rethink their policy of the past, to reexamine
this precedent in light of the facts as they exist today, not as they
would wish for them to exist.
This compromise agreement is the best thing that we can do now in the
short term, to relieve the cost burden on the American consumer.
America is watching.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today proud to be
part of a Republican majority that is working to build a future of hope
by securing our homeland, securing our prosperity, and securing our
values.
This week, we are debating a bill that will lower the cost of living
for all Americans by cutting the cost of gasoline, natural gas, and
heating oil. By opening additional oil and natural gas reserves in the
Gulf of Mexico, this legislation will secure our homeland by reducing
our dependence on foreign oil and securing our prosperity by providing
real relief to millions of Americans who are struggling to keep up with
their rising cost of living.
Unfortunately, while there are some Democrats who are working with us
on this bill, most are threatening to obstruct this important
legislation even though it would help lower energy costs for American
families and increase our energy independence. We cannot allow a few
extreme environmental lobbying groups to continue to hold our country
hostage.
American businesses, both large and small, are feeling the pinch.
Recent estimates show that since the year 2000, 3.1 million high-wage
manufacturing jobs have been eliminated or moved overseas, where energy
supplies are plentiful and costs are lower.
American families are also struggling to make ends meet. In a recent
survey, nearly 80 percent thought the rising cost of energy was hurting
our economy and threatening jobs; 90 percent of those polled said high
energy costs were impacting their family budget. Despite having been
through the warmest winter on record, heating bills for homes that are
heated with natural gas and oil went up nearly 25 percent. Last year,
the percentage of credit card bills 30 days or more past due reached
the highest level since the American Banking Association began
recording this information in 1973. The ABA's chief economist cited
high gasoline prices as a major factor.
We recently had good news that Republican tax cuts continue to
produce strong economic growth and have helped to create 5.4 million
new jobs since 2003. But even as the economy grows and wages rise,
family checkbooks still feel the pressure. If you get a $25-a-week
raise but you have to spend $50 a week more than you did before for
gas, food, or medical care, you are still $25 worse off than you were
before. It is no wonder that Americans' optimism about their economic
future has faded as concern over their cost of living has increased.
There is no quick fix to this dilemma, but there are many things that
will work together to secure our economic prosperity. We can address
rising health care prices by making health insurance more affordable
for small businesses and individuals and by returning control to
patients by ensuring that every American has a health plan they can
afford, own, and keep.
Unfortunately, so far this year the Democrats have succeeded in
obstructing these key things which would lower the cost of health care.
We can also invest in the flexibility and choice necessary to train
the best workforce in the world, so that we can attract the best jobs
in the world.
Our goal as Republicans is maximum wage, not minimum wage.
Unfortunately, again, the Democrats are obstructing ways that we can
create more alternatives and choices to improve the quality of our
workforce and the amount of pay people earn.
We can also work to increase our natural gas and oil supplies and to
reduce the cost of gas, increase America's supply of energy, while we
encourage conservation and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The good news is that Republicans are working--one step at a time--to
secure our prosperity. We understand the American people need real
solutions, not more Democrat obstruction.
Some say there has been no coherent Democratic energy strategy since
early in the Clinton administration. Well, I disagree. They have a
strategy; it is just the wrong one. As you can see from the chart
behind me, the Democratic energy ``policy'' is built on two key
principles: raise taxes and block real solutions.
The Democrats, back in 1993, attempted to raise the taxes on gasoline
by 7.5 cents a gallon. They were unsuccessful there. But with the
Democratic majority and President Clinton in the White House, they were
able to add 4.3 cents a gallon to gasoline later in 1993.

[[Page S8345]]

The Democrats have blocked energy solutions by refusing to write a
national energy policy of their own during the whole 8 years of
President Clinton's administration. They have tried to block President
Bush's comprehensive national energy policy, and they succeeded for 4
years. As we heard from our chairman, last year, we were able to pass
a comprehensive energy bill despite Democratic obstruction. The
Democrats have continuously opposed our developing oil supplies in
Alaska.

Let's look at one chart to show what happened over the last couple of
decades. This makes the point about what this does to energy prices.
Our graph shows the increase in gas prices since 1991. At every point
along the way is when we voted to expand our oil supplies from Alaska,
and at every point along the way the Democrats have blocked this and
obstructed it and attempted to blame Republicans when gas prices
continued to go up.
Let's go back to the other chart. The Democrats have blocked
expanding our refinery capacity, which we know is a key element in
increasing the cost of gasoline. We look at boutique fuels, which are
the regulation that has required refineries to produce different fuel
blends for a number of different States. That raises the price. When we
tried to change that, they blocked it.
Coming up to today, the Democrats have blocked energy solutions that
would lower the cost of gasoline for Americans and then they attempt to
come down here on the floor of the Senate to blame President Bush and
the Republicans when it doesn't get done. It is clear that active
Democratic obstruction has escalated the American energy crisis and
increased the cost of gas.
Republicans recognize that our energy problems didn't occur overnight
and they won't be fixed overnight. But we understand that if we fail to
address rising American energy costs, we will create yet another
incentive for businesses to locate overseas and leave American workers
behind.
To keep the United States competitive, we must transform our energy
policy to meet pressing short-term supply needs, while exploring new
alternative solutions to meet the long-term needs for abundant,
affordable, emission-free energy.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we did just that, despite
Democratic obstruction. Now, our natural gas capacity has expanded by
1.34 billion cubic feet a day, and 25 new nuclear facilities are being
planned. If these 25 plants are built, experts estimate that 15 million
households will be powered by this zero-emission source of energy, and
120 new, clean, coal-based facilities are in various stages of being
planned.
These are a lot of facts and figures to be sure, but the bottom line
is that all these numbers translate into real savings both now and in
the future for American families.
But we must do more. To address the short-term issue of constantly
fluctuating energy prices, we must eliminate Government-imposed
regulatory roadblocks in order to increase our energy supply and get
these resources to consumers quickly and affordably. We can unshackle
American entrepreneurs--the best in the world--and allow them to fully
develop our natural resources and still protect our environment.
Our long-term energy policy must focus on creating a diverse energy
infrastructure that includes new technologies such as hydrogen, fuel
cells, and other alternative forms of energy. Many of these
technologies--currently in early stages of development--have shown
great promise and can revolutionize the way we fuel our cars, homes,
and businesses.
Mr. President, energy costs are on the rise and the ball is in the
Democrats' court. For years they have complained about high energy
prices and then blocked the very solutions that would lower them.
Republicans have real solutions on the table, such as the deep sea
exploration in the gulf that we are debating today. We know it would
diversify our energy infrastructure, and it would increase our supply
of affordable, abundant, and environmentally friendly energy. Most
importantly, it would reduce the cost of living for Americans and
stretch their paychecks all the way to the end of the month.
I ask my Democratic colleagues to reject their leaders' tired
strategy of blocking real solutions and then blaming Republicans for
the problems that remain. Working together, we can bring down the cost
of living for all Americans by reducing the cost of gas, increasing
America's supply of energy, encouraging conservation, and reducing our
dependence on foreign oil.
With that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to join the discussion
about the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, and I want to say at the
outset that I support legislation to open up lease sale 181 as reported
out of the Senate Energy Committee, and I support new environmentally
responsible energy exploration in the gulf.
Obviously, this legislation before us differs from what we passed out
of the Energy Committee, and we are still looking at the various
impacts of this particular legislation. Some of my colleagues have come
to the floor to talk about the larger energy debate, and I wanted to
make sure I came down and expressed my concerns and comments about what
we need to do to move forward on not just having a piece of energy
legislation come to the floor that only has one particular provision in
response to our energy needs, but what we can do for a broader energy
strategy.
Many of my colleagues may have also turned on the television and seen
that oil companies continue to report astronomical profit, and the
public has a right to ask why. I hope that next week, when we take up
the legislation dealing with the reauthorization of the Commodities
Futures Trading Act, we might be able to discuss the issue of price
gouging and what we can do to protect the public from those kinds of
activities. I know many people in America are shocked to see, again,
quarter profits from companies like Exxon jump 36 percent, and that is
over last year's $10 billion record profit. So a lot of people in
America want to know what we are going to do not only in the short
term, but also in the long term on this energy issue.
I know that while we are only discussing this particular proposed
piece of legislation on one issue, this Senator thinks it is very
important to bring up a broader global context to the challenges that
the United States faces in this energy crisis and why it is imperative,
with everything going on in the Middle East, that we continue to be
very aggressive about a U.S. energy policy that will get us off of our
focus on oil and get us on to being a leader in the world economy not
just in the United States on energy technology but around the globe.
Earlier this month, I spoke to the Washington Council on
International Trade. That is in Seattle. It happened to coincide with
the 33rd anniversary that Senator Magnuson had taken a trip to China to
visit with the Foreign Minister. Maggie led that congressional
delegation after President Nixon opened up the door to China, and he
had a 2-hour meeting with the Foreign Minister there. It is interesting
because there are notes from that meeting in which Senator Magnuson
said he was going to talk about everything from the Pacific Northwest
to energy issues, but he happened to scribble a little phrase on a
piece of paper that is still recorded in history, which says that China
can no longer be an island in the world. I certainly believe that China
can no longer be an island in the world. Three decades ago, this policy
was correct, but it is even more important today as it relates to our
global energy needs and the United States and China working together.
It is no surprise that China's influence has come to the forefront of
the global economy debate and that everybody realizes that we are tied
together in so many ways. President Hu was recently in Seattle, and we
discussed a variety of issues between the Pacific Northwest and,
obviously, we have a great economic relationship in selling airplanes,
coffee, software, and a variety of agricultural products to China. We
continued those discussions.

[[Page S8346]]

What we see today is that the global energy issues are prevalent in
our trading relationship with China, and they are also important to our
national security issues and, obviously, to our environmental issues.
That is why I believe it is time for us to take up and establish a
formalized, high-level dialog between the United States and China on
energy policy. There are various accidents of geology in this world,
and I think I have said many times on the Senate floor that the United
States only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. So when it comes
to that situation, basically, China and the United States have landed
in the same boat; that is, neither one of us can drill our way to
energy security within our borders. But both of our economies have
grown increasingly susceptible to these global energy spikes, and we
need to act aggressively together to address these issues from a global
security perspective.
As a result, I think it is in our mutual interest not to view
ourselves as competitors for scarce energy resources but as global
partners in the race to move beyond the petroleum dependency.
Establishing a sustained cooperative relationship with China on energy
policy will open up new markets for new American technologies and
companies that we can help create and foster with our energy policy
here.
Recently, Thomas Friedman wrote that you can, with these new markets,
``turn Red China into green China,'' providing America with economic
opportunity and a long-term environmental benefit.
But here are some of the facts: Today, China accounts for 40 percent
of the increase in oil demand. The number of passenger vehicles on the
Chinese roads have more than tripled since 2001 and may equal the
United States by 2030. So China faces a massive transportation
infrastructure modernization. We know there are still 30 million
Chinese who didn't, in 2004, have electricity. So trying to keep pace
with the growing demand, China is essentially adding a huge 1,000-
megawatt coal-fired plant to its grid each week. That is like adding
the capacity every year to serve the entire country of Spain.
These new coal plants have created problems such as widespread
pollution. Sixteen of the world's 20 most air-polluted cities are in
China.
Even with the influx of plants and patchworks to the grid, there are
various areas of the country that still have uncertain access to power.
In 2004, China had a power shortage in 24 of its 31 provinces. They are
struggling with the mammoth task of trying to keep pace with their
energy needs. Since 2001, their consumption has grown at a rate 1\1/2\
times the growth of its overall economy. So we see that China, because
it was poorly endowed with natural resources--except for coal--has
increasingly become dependent on oil imports.
Now China relies on the Middle East for half of its oil, which is
similar to our circumstances. Beijing has been racing around the world
trying to lock in production for oil and gas in Canada and Saudi
Arabia, and they are looking at suppliers for a variety of energy
needs. Unlike the United States, they are looking in places such as
Sudan, Angola, Burma, and Iran. As one of our distinguished
international national security experts, Henry Kissinger, has
suggested, energy resources may cause international conflict in the
coming years.
So what do we need to do about that? I believe we need to get serious
about this effort here and that the United States and China share
concerns about high oil prices. We have a common interest in working
together to mitigate global supply shocks and resulting price spikes.
Both nations need to work harder to increase energy efficiencies and
to achieve continued economic growth. There is no reason the United
States and China should not work together on the same side in virtually
all international energy negotiations.
Currently, this is far from the case. Today, China views the United
States as a competitor in these energy markets, and we look at them the
same way.
The congressionally chartered U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission warned of a ``petroleum collision course well before the
world's aggregate petroleum supply is exhausted.''
I think they are saying that because they realize this collision
course could be avoided if we work aggressively.
This Senator believes we must take three concrete steps that will put
us on a proactive path for engagement and cooperation.
First, President Bush should work with President Hu to convene a
U.S.-China energy summit.
Second, we should put at the top of our agenda an effort to establish
a U.S.-China working group with Cabinet-level leadership from the
administration. Establishing such a group was one of the major
recommendations of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission in a report to Congress in 2005.
Specifically, this proposal reinvigorated a 1995 U.S.-China energy
efficiency and renewable protocol which I think we should get back to.
At the time, over 30 U.S. firms were involved in activities and
programs which were designed to strengthen the bilateral cooperation
and advance the role of the private sector by the United States in
China's energy development.
A permanent working group would also be necessary to oversee any kind
of joint R&D effort and could serve as an arbiter and negotiator for
technology transfer issues.
And, third, I believe, in addition to the bilateral engagement, we
should work to bring China into a membership of the International
Energy Agency.
I know the Presiding Officer has thought a great deal about energy
issues, energy cooperation, and protocols. The International Energy
Agency is an intergovernmental organization with 26 different member
organizations which prepares and seeks information about how to
mitigate global supply and shocks.
In recent years, this organization has served as a clearinghouse for
information on global energy prices and technologies. With China's
membership in this organization, I believe we would see a lot more
cooperation and information that could help us mitigate some of these
spikes.
Some people have looked at China's energy policy and called it
``mercantilistic'' as they go around and buy up these resources at the
wellheads in various regions of the marketplace. Encouraging them
instead to be involved in the IEA would move Beijing to be a more
constructive player in the global energy marketplace.
Clearly, these initiatives--a Presidential summit, establishing a
direct U.S.-China working group, and promoting China's engagement in
the International Energy Agency--are just a few steps down a very long
road to a complicated energy security issue.
But it is clear that the economies of the United States and China are
now intertwined, and our energy security should be considered with a
common purpose.
This issue will color our relationship with China for decades to
come, but if we are direct and proactive in our engagement, there is
also opportunity, and an opportunity for the United States in meeting
China's energy needs is key to their domestic stability and economic
growth. Improved cooperation between our nations could have significant
economic benefits for both countries.
Let me talk about that innovation for a second.
The reason I am raising this issue within the context of today's
debate is because we are missing an opportunity today. Rather than
simply focusing on drilling, we should be debating what is going to
give America and American companies the lead in 21st century energy
technology.
Because there is an opportunity on the horizon in China and other
growing economies, there is a huge opportunity to export American
technologies and products, but we need to seize the technology lead to
do so.
Earlier, I spoke about the challenges China faces with its incredible
growth in demand. Modernizing China's domestic energy infrastructure
will require a $35 billion investment. That is every year for the
foreseeable year--$35 billion in investment every year for the
foreseeable future.
So we must work to open up these Chinese markets to grid management
software, smart metering technology, new transmission technology,
biomass and biofuels, and related innovations. These things are
emerging technologies in the United States, which we

[[Page S8347]]

could further accelerate not just for our domestic benefit, but also as
a supplier for that growing, demanding Chinese market.
Given the evolving nature of China's energy industry from its
complete state-controlled entities into more hybrid models, we can help
crack open these markets, I believe, overnight, and gaining entry, once
again, requires us to be very proactive and engaged, with a sustained
commitment. I believe whoever develops these technologies that break
through to these economies will hold the key to the 21st century. I
want the United States to be the technology leader there, and I want us
to continue to look for these huge market opportunities to do so.
Essentially, China today has a 20-percent more fuel-efficient target
than we do. The 2005 renewable energy law mandates that 15 percent of
China's energy comes from renewables by 2020, and the plant also sets a
20-percent savings standard for new appliances and other technologies.
Consistent bilateral involvement with U.S. counterparts through a
U.S.-China energy working group could help foster the changes that we
would like to see with U.S. technology companies and could help us grow
those businesses and opportunities.
Figuring out how to navigate these barriers, as I said, I believe
requires greater cooperation and greater administration involvement in
making sure there is a U.S.-China relationship.
The International Energy Agency estimates that China will spend $2.3
trillion over the next 25 years to meet its growing energy demands, and
that just modernizing its electricity grid would require $37 billion
annually, a figure that I referred to a few moments ago.

So these are great opportunities for U.S. markets. They are great
opportunities to show that we can work together to be effective. For
example, already some organizations on the west coast are working
together with private foundations and public-private partnerships. For
example, last year the State of California signed a pact with a sister
province in China to provide technical assistance to work together on
demand-side technologies. The agreement came in large part due to the
work of the U.S.-China Efficiency Alliance, a nonprofit group that
counts as its founding members and leaders various State officials,
academics, environmentalists, and, obviously, some of the large
utilities.
The reason China is a huge market for these kinds of opportunities
and that this is taking place, obviously, from the west coast
perspective is because the west coast has already had an aggressive
trade relationship with China and also has been aggressive about these
clean energy technologies. So this is happening to a certain degree
already on the west coast, but it is a great economic opportunity for
our entire Nation if we continue to accelerate it.
The question I have in mind today is, why are we ignoring this larger
debate and opportunity? Why are we not debating a larger energy bill
for the 21st century in which we continue to promote the energy
innovation that can lead to a cleaner environment, better energy
security, and certainly greater national security?
Fourteen years before he went to China, Senator Magnuson told the
Seattle PI newspaper that failing to trade with China was basically
``pretending 700 million people in the world don't exist.''
Thirty-three years later, it is about time that the United States
really understand that phrase. It is time that we understand the
internal transformation and opportunity to work together on energy
policy to solve some of our common problems and realize some of our
great economic opportunities.
I hope next week we will continue to discuss various energy policies.
I hope we will continue to open up this legislation to further
amendments so that we can get to other issues that will really help the
United States succeed in addressing our energy challenges.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have come to the floor again today to
speak about the bill Senator Domenici and many of us have brought
before the Chamber. The Presiding Officer has been a great leader in
this effort to fashion a bill that has many fine points and good points
and needed points for the country.
One, it would provide us with a new source of oil and gas that will
help us increase supply in hopes of reducing and stabilizing the price
of oil and gas in this country. The other fine and wonderful point of
the bill is that it takes a portion of the revenues that are now going
into the Federal Treasury--but future revenues--and dedicates them to a
conservation royalty, because Mother Nature every now and then needs
its share, too. Being from Tennessee, Mr. President, and a leader in
the environmental area, you most certainly can appreciate the value of
that.
Of course, the great point for Louisiana, the gulf coast--not that
those two points aren't very exciting to us as well--is the chance to
have a new source of revenue to actually reverse decades of loss of
precious and valuable wetlands. These wetlands not only protect the 10
to 15 million people who live along the gulf coast from Texas to
Alabama, but also that will restore the wetlands, which we in Louisiana
call America's wetlands because it is the mouth of the greatest river
system in North America. So many of these wetlands help the industries
of trade, commerce, oil, gas, fisheries, and the general environment
for the whole Nation.
But today I wish to speak a little bit more about the history of how
we got where we are today and then talk about the value to the Nation
of taking such a positive step forward, a big step, a positive step and
a step absolutely in the right direction. Yesterday, Senator Domenici,
the chairman of the committee, and I spent some time clarifying the
record regarding President Truman. The fact is, this was not Mary
Landrieu's idea, as much as I would like to take credit for it; this
was Harry Truman's idea: to establish a partnership with the States
when oil and gas was first discovered, knowing it would take a strong
partnership to sustain this effort over time, and an interest on the
part of the Federal Government, the local government, and the State
government to engage in the technology necessary and the financial
wherewithal necessary to pursue this frontier, basically, whether it
was the frontier of the West or the frontier on the Outer Continental
Shelf, to get the natural resources to make this country great.
Now, of course, President Truman, having come from the experience of
the Second World War, really understood what he was talking about
because although our military and the allied forces were quite
spectacular in winning that war, sometimes I think we forget that it
was the steel workers and the iron workers and the shipbuilders and the
boat builders and the women and the families who sacrificed at home,
saving their pennies to send every spare item we could for the
machinery necessary to win a war. Yes, it takes bravery. Yes, it takes
men and women in uniform. But it also takes a lot of steel, a lot of
supplies, a lot of petroleum, and a lot of natural resources to win a
war. America won that war in large measure because we had the natural
resources and the military might combined to provide the strength to
the allied forces to win the great war.
It was America's oil production--America's oil production--that
Winston Churchill said made him transfer the British fleet from coal-
powered to oil. Here is a nation literally under siege, and a great
leader makes a strategic decision. He would rather depend on American
oil than maybe his supplies of coal in Europe to give him the staying
power to sustain that war. In the Second World War, German tanks
stalled for lack of fuel, and Japan had to cut the operations of her
fleet. It was America's natural resources that propelled our allies to
victory.
I think perhaps sometimes in this world in which we live, where
everything seems so automatic and you just turn on a switch and the
lights come on, you plug in your computer and it

[[Page S8348]]

gets booted up, you turn your coffee on in the morning and it
automatically smells beautiful in your house, it takes a lot of effort
to produce the energy which is necessary to make our lives the most
comfortable the world has ever known and perhaps will ever know. But in
the Second World War, they understood they needed lots of things to win
that war, and one of them was the natural resources of oil and gas. We
didn't know too much about the environmental aspects of it back then
but, frankly, all we cared about was getting our troops home, beating
the Germans, winning the war, and saving the world for democracy, which
we did.
Then, through the 1950s and 1960s, we got smarter, just as you should
if you are growing all the time and you learn, and we understood better
about the environment. Then something went wrong in the 1960s.
Something happened in the 1960s. We forgot where we came from. We
forgot the sacrifices that had been made. We had a very dramatic spill
off the coast of California--not a pretty picture. The country was on
fairly good financial footing, and we just sort of started backing up.
In my mind, we have been backing up ever since.

We need to get in a forward gear with a proper mindset to move this
country back in the direction of natural resource production, with all
the benefits of the new technology, with all the benefits of knowing
the mistakes we made--no turning our back on them--not pretending the
spills didn't happen, and not pretending oil and gas isn't a dangerous
business at times.
I can remember seeing on television one night--I think it might have
been on the Discovery Channel, which is a wonderful channel my family
enjoys watching--they were talking about how we first designed hot
water heaters. Of course, we take hot water coming in our house, clean
water in America and hot water, for granted. It happens so frequently,
we don't think about it. But when I was watching this on television,
the story was saying we didn't always have hot water in our houses and
it was quite a feat to try to get hot water heaters.
In the beginning, when people had them--and I am sorry I can't
remember the year--they kept blowing up, and they would just blow
people's houses up and people got hurt and people died. But nobody
said: Oh my gosh, we just can't have hot water. We pursued and
developed the technology, and now we take for granted the most amazing
thing which is in almost every house in America: you can turn on the
faucet--not in New Orleans, where you can't get any water pressure
today, but in most places you turn on the faucet and get clean hot or
cold water, to the temperature of your choice. But it didn't happen
because there weren't accidents or problems, but we learned and we
perfected the technology. You can say a thousand times how that
happened in America, but for some reason we got stuck on this natural
resource issue and can't get off of it.
We have an opportunity this week to move past the 1960s and 1970s and
to be responsible at a time when our country needs more gas and oil.
Now, we are going to move beyond petroleum. We are going to develop new
technologies. If Senator Domenici has his way, he would have the 15 new
programs we authorized in the last Energy bill funded to actually
invest in new technologies.
We are good in this Chamber about talking about things, but actually
we don't put the money to them. So we sort of pretend we are doing
things. But even saying that, we are making progress. I would support
more investments in alternative energies and real money for real
projects to move in that direction. But until we do and as we are doing
that, we need to drill for oil and gas where we can.
I want to show you here in America what the pipeline systems look
like today. This is the pipeline system: an extraordinary network of
private sector--with government support--pipelines that bring gas from
Canada, that bring gas in from the northwest part of Canada, bring a
multitude of riches from the gulf, the gas connections that move up
through your State, Mr. President, all the way up to the Northeast. And
then you can see another in north Texas, in Dallas, Oklahoma gasfields,
because, of course, Oklahoma and Texas understand gas. They have a lot
of it. It is shallow in large measure, but they are producing a great
amount of gas for the Nation. This is what it looks like now.
This is the area which we along the gulf coast understand is rich in
natural resources, and we have almost perfected the technology to
reduce the footprint, to drill far down into the floor of the ocean,
deep into the coastal areas here that are abundant in resources and
provide the gas necessary to keep people cool in the summer, warm in
the winter, and to keep the manufacturing sector of this country
competitive because we have competitors now, big competitors--China and
India--and if we don't want to lose every manufacturing job in America,
and we are on track in some measure to do that, we better find some gas
and oil somewhere here.
But in the 1960s, as I said, we got stuck in a place that has been
dangerous for this country and went from being a net exporter to win
the greatest war ever fought. But in the 1960s, the situation flip-
flopped and the United States became a net importer of oil, a situation
which has deteriorated to the point where today we import 60 percent of
our oil. It would be bad enough if we were importing that oil from
friends because when you deal with friends, maybe they would give you a
good price and maybe, even if it was tough for them to produce it, they
would still give it to you because they are your friends. But we are
importing oil from places in the world that are not friendly, that are
dangerous. When the price goes up, they are happy if it goes up higher
because they know we are dependent on it. I don't know if Americans
feel as strongly as I do, but I know people in Louisiana do. We are
happy to have a mutual dependence, I guess. We don't think we live on
an island, but we don't like to feel dependent. We like to feel strong.
We like to have choices. When you owe people a lot of money or you get
your oil and gas from people and can't get it yourself, it puts you in
a dependent position--not a good place to be most of the time. That is
the place we are in right now in America. So one of the reasons this
bill is so important is that it reverses 30 years of drift, 30 years of
not clear thinking about what dependency really means, and we have to
make the change.
I would like to see this bill be a little broader in its scope, but
it has been a compromise, and that is the nature of our political
system. This is not a dictatorship, it is a democracy. We on the gulf
coast have worked out a system that seems to work pretty well,
protecting Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama, and respecting our
friends in Florida who have chosen a different path for this time, and
that is just the situation we are in right now.
I think as we open this 8 million new acres here and we can see more
of the benefits for the whole Nation, that perhaps, as some of us
continue to speak and travel the country and speak about the benefits
of being less dependent on foreign oil and gas and more independent,
more self-sufficient, and developing alternatives and conserving where
we can as well, maybe the situation will change. But this is the step
which needs to be taken.
Some people say: Oh my goodness, there is just not enough oil and gas
here. I want to tell you how much there is. It contains enough natural
gas to heat and cool 6 million homes for 15 years. It holds six times
the amount of liquefied natural gas imports we are importing today. It
represents more oil than we import from Saudi Arabia, and it will
produce more oil than found in the reserves of Wyoming and Oklahoma
combined. So I know when you look at the whole country and you see just
this little 8,337,000 acres, people say: Oh my goodness, that is not
very much. But it is more than the reserves of Wyoming and Oklahoma
combined. This is a very rich area, and Americans deserve to benefit
from the natural resources that belong to them.
Believe me, people around the country, some people think: Well, they
must not care about their environment.
I do not have a statistic about this, but I bet people in Louisiana
and Mississippi and Alabama and parts of Texas spend more time in the
water than anywhere else because we are hot most of the time and we
like to swim. We swim in our bayous and we swim in

[[Page S8349]]

our lakes and we swim in our gulf water, and we swim all year because
it is warm all the time. Our temperatures are good throughout the year.
I do not have statistics on it, but I bet you we fish more per
capita. We have more fish than we know what to do with. I laughed when
I told my children--I took them out fishing in the West--not to be
critical of the West. It is beautiful, of course. But we fished in a
stream, and the rule was, after you caught three fish, you had to throw
them back. My son, who is 10 years old, said: Mother, I have never been
to a place where you have to throw the fish back, because where we
fish, we have limits, but they are pretty good limits. You can catch 30
redfish, lots of trout, and you keep them and then you eat them that
night. This would be a sad world if you had to throw back every fish
you caught. It is a matter of managing your resources. We do that very
well.
People look at me, and they think: Mary, you are not saying the
truth. But I am. The best fishing is around the rigs. The best fishing
is around the rigs. And when you are on these rigs--these big
platforms--you can look down, and you can see the fish. I do not need
to read this in a statistic. You can see the fish around the rigging.
Why? Because it acts as an artificial reef, and it creates a food
supply, and the fish naturally gather there. So we have been doing this
a long time in Louisiana. We would not suggest it.
We do have beaches. We do not have the same kind of beaches as
Florida, but we have a proud and beautiful wetlands. We are concerned
about our environment, and we know that while there every now and then
are mistakes, the technology is getting better and better and better,
and we can get American gas so we do not have to talk to Iran, if we do
not want to, we do not have to send our troops to Iraq unless there is
good reason, and we can keep our business right here in America.
I want my colleagues to know how appreciative I am, and Senator
Vitter, for the help and support for this bill and what it will mean to
the gulf coast and for Louisiana to save our wetlands. But I also want
to say that for the Nation, as a Senator, I know this is the right
thing. And it is long overdue. We have to open up resources in this
Nation and use the technology.
Now, I do not know when we got off this track. I do not know when it
happened. I do not know if it was gradual. But we have to be confident
in our ability to move forward and to not be afraid but to be bold and
press this technology so we can have the independence and energy we
know we must have.
I look forward to the day when I do not think my children will have
to be dependent on either China for financing or the Mideast for oil
and gas, that they can be like my parents' generation: pretty darn
independent. We better get back to that independency in this country.
We can make friends when we want to, but we do not have to when we do
not need to or do not want to.
In addition, I say to the Presiding Officer, because you have been so
good about this issue, I want to say something about a program. There
is a program--we have tried to make it a trust fund. We did not
succeed. But in 1965 some very bold, progressive-thinking individuals
created the Land and Water Conservation Fund because they knew the
American population was going to grow exponentially.
We now have almost 300 million people in this country, and many
people around the world who want to come and live here, as you know. So
we created the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a little program
relative to the billions of dollars we spend up here--only $450 million
for the State side and $450 million for the Federal side--to try to
provide some--in the scheme of things, it is pennies--to provide for
parks and recreation and the expansion of bike trails and walking
trails and to preserve the great outdoors.
I say to the Presiding Officer, you have been a great leader on the
outdoors. When you think about the beauty of the Smoky Mountains and
you think about the beauty of the Rocky Mountains in the West, you
think: Please, God, don't let us ruin that. Let us keep it.
Well, the way you keep it is not by wishing for it but by paying for
it. And the way you pay for it is to put it in your budget. We tried
that, but it did not work. So in 1965 we spent $10 million in the whole
country. In 1982, we spent nothing because it got zeroed out. Then, in
the 1980s, it went back up. You can see basically the high point was in
the late 1970s, at $350 million. One time, 1 year, we sent $350 million
out to all the States, which is not very much money per State, to help
them with parks and recreation. Even though this was not much, I will
tell you what this money did. It built thousands of parks and thousands
of ballparks for our kids to play in and helped shore up the urban
parks in New York and New Orleans and Memphis. It saved the redwoods.
It helped to establish the great wilderness in the Smoky Mountains. You
could go on and on with what this little money has done because it got
sent to the States. They stretched those dollars, and they made it
work.

In this bill, we have a plan to fund this gradually until it will go
up to, hopefully, $450 million out of new revenues. So it does not
contribute to the deficit. It does not take one penny against any other
program. But it helps us to build the parks and recreational areas so
my children and grandchildren can continue to swim in those bayous, can
continue to enjoy Lake Pontchartrain, and whether they are in an urban
area in a little pocket park or in the great Smoky Mountains where they
could walk for days without seeing a person and only a few bears--
wherever they are, they can enjoy it.
So that is a great thing this bill does. I hope it survives the
conference and the negotiations because sometimes Mother Nature does
not have the advocates she needs here in Washington. This bill we have
presented is not only good energy policy--because we need more
production--it is good environmental policy, and it is good economic
policy.
One final argument I would make for the bill is this: I know anytime
you bring a bill to the floor, everybody has an important amendment. I
have several other amendments. People could not believe it, but I want
to have several other amendments on this bill. I know my colleagues
have some great ideas. And they say: Well, why can't we debate all
sorts of other things? Why do we have to debate the focus of this bill?
I have an answer for that. Because we debated, for the last 6 years,
an energy bill. We debated for 6 years--day after day, month after
month, for 6 years--up until a few months ago an energy bill. We had
CAFE amendments. We had alternative fuels. We had reliability
amendments. We had nuclear power. We had amendments about how to
distribute the waste from nuclear power. Should we use electricity? We
debated and debated everything about it.
So I do not want people to be left with the impression that those of
us who are on the Energy Committee provided no opportunity for people
to debate. We literally took 6 years to pass--10 years--10 years,
excuse me, to pass the last Energy bill. So 10 years we debated. We do
not have 10 years. We have until August. We have until September. We
have to limit the debate. I know it is unusual, but we have to take, in
my view and in Senator Domenici's view, a positive step forward. We
have time again to debate CAFE. We debated it for the last 10 years,
and we will debate it again.
But right now let's take this time to remember our history, to
remember the great strength natural resources are for the country, to
not think of this as helping the gulf coast, which most certainly needs
help, but that it is the right thing for America at the right time for
America, and in a way that honors the spirit of this body, which is
open to debate. We do many debates, and will continue, but for this
bill, let's pass it. Let's send a signal to the American people that we
are changing course.
Today's debate is focused on 8.3 million acres of submerged land in
the Gulf of Mexico, but it is really about something much broader and
much more important. It is about our country's future.
It is hard to believe today, given the complete turnaround in
circumstances, but the energy reserves of this country were once the
security blanket for Western democracies.

[[Page S8350]]

When Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, transferred
the British fleet from coal power to oil, he did so knowing that it was
American oil production that he would rely upon in a crisis.
In the Second World War, as German tanks stalled for lack of fuel,
and Japan had to cut the operations of her fleet, it was American
natural resources that propelled the allies to victory.
U.S. energy production was a strategic asset that allowed our economy
to hum in the 1950s and become the envy of our competitors during the
cold war.
Yet sadly, we allowed this great strategic advantage to slip away.
Economics played its part. At the same time as U.S. energy resources
became more scarce, readily accessible oil from the Middle East started
to come online.
By the 1960s the situation had flip-flopped. The United States became
a net oil importer--a situation that has deteriorated to the point
where the United States must import 60 percent of the oil, making us
the largest consumer of energy in the world.
The truly frightening thing is that this country is bracing to allow
the same circumstance in natural gas. With seemingly no one guiding our
strategic energy direction, this Nation is now preparing to double the
amount of natural gas imported into this Nation by 2014. The country is
faced with 45 planned or proposed liquified natural gas terminals.
While it is obvious we need them, we must also acknowledge that we are
building the infrastructure of dependence.
So one of the reasons this bill is so important, is that it reverses
30 years of drift, 30 years of policy avoidance masquerading as an
energy policy. We are sending a signal to the American public and the
world that we are serious about regaining the strategic initiative in
energy.
We are in a hole that took a long time to dig, so we must understand
it is going to take us a while to dig ourselves out.
But we are not going to allow American security to be crippled by
this strategic weakness any longer. The idea that we can do this by
additional exploration and drilling alone is false on its face. But it
is equally false to say that the step we take today will not help.
For the first time in 20 years, America is taking approximately
6 million acres of land that is currently under moratoria out of
moratoria. That is a signal that we are getting serious. Furthermore,
we are opening up a resource-rich region of the coast. It contains
enough natural gas to heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15
years. It holds six times the amount of our annual LNG imports. It
represents more oil than we imported today from Saudi Arabia. It will
produce more oil than found in the reserves of Wyoming and Oklahoma
combined.

That is an important step, and it sends an important signal to the
world.
A couple of months ago, I hosted a group of French Senators who are
involved in energy issues for their nation. When I showed them a map of
the coastal resources that we have put off limits in this country,
their mouths dropped. They could not believe that we would place so
much of our security in foreign hands, while tying the hands of
American production behind its back.
We have taken an attitude that somehow drilling and tourism are
incompatible no matter the distance involved. Do you know that our
colleagues in France are drilling for oil on the outskirts of Paris?
Now that is making energy independence a priority.
Richard Holbrooke is well known to Members of this Chamber and has
engendered real respect in the foreign policy community. He stated that
our failure to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is the greatest
failing of this country over the last 25 years. I agree.
We can only wonder what an American foreign policy not hobbled by
dependence on foreign oil would look like. I promise you this, everyone
in the world would sleep a little safer.
Iran derives 50 percent its revenue, and almost all of its hard
currency, from the sale of oil. We know where those revenues go. They
go to Katushka rockets, they go to Hezbollah terrorists, they go to a
covert nuclear weapons program.
It is fine to say that the United States does not buy oil from Iran.
But oil is a global market. It does not matter if it is Americans who
buy the oil from Iran or the Chinese. If demand is high, Iran will
derive huge revenues.
The truly sick piece of this policy is that the American public pays
twice. First, they pay at the gas pump, and then they pay taxes so that
our Government can spend billions of dollars trying to undue the evil
that Iran propagates around the world. It is like giving money to the
neighborhood burglar so that he can buy a gun.
It is time that our country retake the high ground and the strategic
initiative on energy. This is only the first step of many.
Conservation, alternative energy, nuclear power must also all receive
consideration and attention from Congress. But this is a step that we
can take today.
It took the Congress a decade to pass an energy bill--we did it with
bipartisan leadership last year. Imagine the signal we are sending by
passing another important piece of energy legislation within a year of
that effort.
Mr. President, I yield the time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for as much time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 3711, the Gulf
of Mexico energy bill which is before the Senate.
At the outset of my remarks, I say I come to the Senate today to
speak about this particular bill with a heavy heart. It is a heavy
heart because the approach which the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources has taken over the last year and a half has been a
good template for how we ought to do the business of our country; that
is, bringing Republicans and Democrats together to try to work out an
agenda in the best interests of America.
In this particular circumstance with this bill, with the opening of
the gulf coast of Mexico, we did have a bipartisan bill that emerged
from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Unfortunately, from the time it came out of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee until today, it has been changed in some
significant ways.
The concerns that have been raised by ranking members are legitimate
concerns for several reasons. One is a reason related to the
relationships in this Senate and how we get along with each other to
try to come up with solutions to face the common problems we face in
America today. We were able last year in the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to put together
the kind of broad bipartisan coalition that emerged in a good bill. It
was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill.
I hope the relationships that carried us to a successful conclusion
with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will be more the norm around here
than the exception. I am hoping, as we work our way through this
particular legislation, that those positive relationships will also be
restored.
From my point of view, when we worked on the national Energy Policy
Act of 2005, I saw that as an effort, as a Democratic and Republican
effort to build a house of energy independence

[[Page S8351]]

for America. I saw the house of energy independence being built on
cornerstones that are important for us to achieve energy independence.
We knew then and we know today that we could do much better with
conservation. The experts at the Department of Energy tell us in the
Senate, oftentimes in our Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, that we waste 62 percent of the energy we consume in America
today. We in America can do better. We can do a lot better with
conservation.
The experts also say we are at the dawn of a whole new revolution
with respect to biofuels. There are many Members of the Senate who have
worked to advance the cause of biofuels over the last several years.
That renewable energy future for America has great potential to help
build this house of energy independence.
Third, a key cornerstone is the new technology being advanced and
explored throughout our country, including the possibility of looking
at things such as coal gasification. We know coal for the United States
is no different for us than oil is to Saudi Arabia. We have vast
resources of coal. The only problem we have with coal is when we burn
it, there are environmental problems created. As we have the
technological breakthroughs in coal gasification, we can take advantage
of one of the greatest natural resources we have in our Nation. So
technology is one of the cornerstones, one of the keys that will help
get us to energy independence.

Finally, the development of our natural resources is very important.
For instance, on the gulf coast or mountain lands of my State of
Colorado, it is important that we develop those natural resources in a
way which is sensitive to the environmental impacts created from that
development.
As we move forward and look at the possibility of the increase in the
modest production which will come from the opening of lease 181 and the
area to the south, we ought to look at other issues relating to energy
and energy independence.
With gas prices over $3 a gallon and with growing instability in the
Middle East and a deepening dependence on foreign oil, today should be
the day in the Senate where we are talking about the broad array of
ideas relating to energy independence. We ought not to be so narrowly
focused on a very small development in the Gulf of Mexico--an important
development, but nonetheless, in the grand scheme of getting us to
energy independence, it is simply a small step in that direction.
Now is a time for this Nation to embrace new ideas with regard to
energy. Now is a time for a real discussion of energy in this Senate.
It is time for a new direction for America as we look at the future of
energy for this country and for our world.
Gas prices today have jumped 25 percent in just a little over a year.
And let's not forget they have doubled in the last 3 years. Today we
are paying twice as much for gas at the pump as we were 3 years ago.
Second, we remember, at the near anniversary of Hurricane Katrina,
the great disruptions that were caused across America because of
Hurricane Katrina, those disruptions showed the vulnerabilities of our
oil and gas infrastructure.
Third, today we are facing a deepening cycle of violence and
confrontation in the Middle East, making it a stark reminder to all of
us that our overdependence on foreign oil brings grave risks and
dangers to America's security.
The American people and a large bipartisan group of Senators in the
Senate share a vision for an energy-independent America. That vision is
one which is powered by renewable energy. It is a vision which
recognizes the new generation of clean coal and energy-efficient
technologies. Unfortunately, because we are not allowed to amend this
bill, we will not have the chance to have that discussion about these
ideas which have been generated by many of the Senators in this
institution. We should allow those ideas to come.
I will highlight four ideas I believe we should be considering in the
Senate today.
First, we should create a national renewable electricity standard. We
passed a renewable portfolio standard less than 2 years ago in
Colorado. It is a modest standard. It was not a standard that required
30 or 40 percent; it required 10 percent of the power the utility
companies deliver to come from renewable resources by the year 2037.
That forward-thinking initiative has already spurred a boom in
renewable energy production in our State, creating jobs and
revitalizing rural economies. You see them in the wind farms in Logan
County. You see it in the solar energy utility farms now being built
across my State. We can do the same thing on a national level. In fact,
Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard that passed in the
Senate last year but was rejected in a conference with the House was a
step in the right direction. We should have that kind of a standard, or
perhaps we could try flexible renewable electricity standards that
account for regional differences in our country. There is no doubt that
a renewable electricity standard would usher in a new era in renewable
energy production across the country. That would, in turn, reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels.
Second, we should establish aggressive goals for reducing our
dependence on foreign oil. We should employ the full force of our
policies in our Nation to achieve them. S. 2025, the Vehicle and Fuel
Choices for American Security Act, which has 25 sponsors, Democrats and
Republicans alike, establishes achievable goals of saving 2.5 million
barrels of oil a day by the year 2015, 7 million barrels a day by 2026,
and 10 million barrels a day by the year 2030. We should be having a
debate on S. 2025 in the Senate today.
Third, we know we must do a lot more with biofuels. We must also do
more to put biofuel-powered vehicles on the road. Right now, the United
States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Two-thirds of
the oil we consume is for transportation. We need to substitute that
oil with biofuels, biofuels grown right here in America, on our farms
and in our fields. To do this, we need to bring more gallons of
biofuels to the market. We need to give consumers access to alternative
fuels at filling stations.
We need to retool America's vehicle fleet to run more efficiently and
on alternative fuels. S. 2025 does this, and we should bring to the
floor that legislation so that we can have a discussion about the
positive contribution that would make on our road to energy
independence.
Finally, we should have a candid discussion of how we can improve the
fuel economy of our vehicles. A number of proposals are circulating in
this Chamber that would, for example, raise CAFE standards or implement
a ``feebate'' program. Last week, Senator Coleman, along with Senator
Obama, and others, introduced a bill that takes a somewhat different
approach to raising fuel standards--one that moves us in an honest
direction to have a much more efficient national vehicle fleet for
America.
Mr. President, there are many other great energy legislative
initiatives circulating in this body. You see them in the Clean EDGE
Act, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act, the
Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006, the Alternative Energy Refueling
System Act, and other bills that have yet to receive appropriate
attention. We should bring them forward to the floor. It is not as if
they belong to one party or the other. The Roman philosopher Seneca
once wrote: ``The best ideas are common property.''
We ought to be thinking about energy independence, not as Democratic
or Republican ideas. We should be thinking about them as American
ideas. The question is, How do we as an institution, as the Senate,
move forward in a new direction to get us to energy independence?
It is time that we write an additional chapter in the energy future
of America that takes the building blocks of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 and moves forward with the great ideas that have been developed by
so many Senators over the last year.
Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I see my colleague from New Jersey.
Through the Chair, may I ask the Senator how long he will be?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, recognizing that our colleague from
the other side is here, traditionally, we

[[Page S8352]]

switch sides on recognition. I ask that after our colleague from
Wyoming speaks, that I have 20 minutes to make mine.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator
Salazar finishes his remarks, and Senators Thomas and Lautenberg
finish, I may speak as in morning business. I will revise that. I ask
unanimous consent that after Senator Salazar is done and Senator Thomas
is done and Senator Lautenberg is done, that I may speak, unless
another Republican comes to the floor, and that if another Republican
comes to the floor, that I be allowed to speak after that in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I think that order
makes sense as we proceed with the discussion and debate.
I want to make a point about the contributions of my State of
Colorado to oil and gas development for our country. We know natural
gas prices are spiraling out of control, hurting families and farmers
all across this country. Colorado farmers, for whom natural gas is an
essential ingredient for their fertilizer, are already suffering under
the weight of very high gas and diesel prices. Now they are also having
to pay record prices for fertilizer. Needless to say, they are
struggling to make ends meet.
Colorado is doing more than its fair share, much like Wyoming, to
help our country produce more natural gas. There are currently some
29,000 producing natural gas wells in Colorado, and industry estimates
project that between 24,000 and 27,000 new domestic gas wells will be
developed every year to meet the growing natural gas demand in our
country.
I am proud that Colorado is home to such a wealth of resources and
that we can help our country through this energy crisis. But we have
also paid a price for these contributions. We know the development must
be done in an environmentally responsible way, but the rapid pace of
exploration and development is having a huge impact on Colorado's land,
water, and communities. The vast open spaces of the Rocky Mountain West
are home to pump jacks, pipelines, roads, and compressor stations. Many
communities are very concerned. Hunters and anglers are seeing habitat
loss and wildlife depletion. Local communities are fighting to protect
their watersheds from lease sales that could jeopardize the safety of
their drinking water.
While I am proud that Colorado can help satisfy the Nation's energy
needs, we should also be pursuing balanced production of our resources
in the Gulf of Mexico. As much as possible, the country should share
the benefits and burdens of our energy production, including the
production and revenues from the Gulf of Mexico.

As I have said before, S. 3711 will make modest additions to our oil
and gas supplies with additional leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. It is
not, however, a perfect bill.
I deeply respect the concerns that Senator Bingaman and several other
colleagues have made about the fiscal implications of this bill. The
new areas being opened for leasing, they point out, come at a high
price. These leases will be on Federal submerged lands on the Outer
Continental Shelf, which belong to the taxpayers of all 50 States. Yet
37.5 percent of the revenues from those leases will be paid directly to
only four Gulf Coast States--Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi.
I appreciated hearing Senator Bingaman's thoughtful presentation on
the fiscal repercussions of this revenue distribution, and I applaud
his work on the OCS issue, both in this debate and in the consideration
of S. 2253, which was a bipartisan bill that emerged from the Energy
Committee.
As I said, this bill is not perfect, but it does, for the first time,
establish direct funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
stateside grant program. It is truly historic that we are finally
creating an honest to goodness conservation royalty for offshore
leases. I appreciate Senator Lamar Alexander's work on this initiative.
In 1964, Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act,
which said that if we are going to drill for oil and gas in the OCS, we
should be reinvesting a part of those revenues in parks, trails, and
open space for the use and enjoyment of the American people.
President Kennedy's vision and Congress' vision was a bold one in the
early 1960s. They authorized $450 million a year for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund stateside grants program to be provided to States and
local communities as matching grants, to help them build ball fields
and trails, to help protect wildlife and open spaces across America.
Unfortunately, what was envisioned as a conservation royalty has been
subject to the budgetary whims of Congress. This meant that the program
has been consistently underfunded. Year after year, Congress has
appropriated far too little money--an average of $94 million over the
program's 42-year history. In the last 2 years, the President has
proposed eliminating the program down to zero.
With this bill today, we finally create a permanent funding
mechanism--a conservation royalty--that Congress envisioned in 1964.
This is a new chapter in the history of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. It is the first step--only the first step--toward securing full
and permanent funding for this overwhelmingly successful program.
As it is drafted, this bill does not provide the level of funding for
LWCF stateside that the program needs.
I want to point to this chart, Mr. President, which indicates with
the red bar on the left side that the authorization amount for the LWCF
program stateside is $450 million. It averaged about $94 million. About
98 percent of the counties of America benefited from the grass from the
stateside program. The amount of money projected to be supplied in the
LWCF through this legislation is only $15 million a year. When you take
that $15 million a year and divide it among the 50 States, every State
would get approximately $300,000 per year on average. That is not a
significant contribution relative to the historic amounts that have
been made available to the States through the assistance of the
stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund program. So it is important
that, as we look at this issue and this legislation, we recognize that
we should not be taking away the historic appropriations that have been
made to the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am hopeful
that we can ensure that those higher levels of funding for LWCF can, in
fact, be made.
Mr. President, the prospect for LWCF stateside funding after 2017 is
a little less clear. Because spending after 2017 is outside the budget
window, it is not included in CBO's score of the bill. But based on
available estimates of revenues and direct spending under the bill, it
is likely that, beginning in 2017, stateside LWCF will receive at least
$125 million per year. Indeed, it appears likely that beginning in
2018--12 years from now--stateside LWCF will receive additional funding
from ``new receipts'' from the area 181 and 181 south.
Mr. President, Senator Alexander and I introduced legislation, S.
3562, that would fully fund the stateside LWCF. I have prepared an
amendment that echoes that. It would provide at least $125 million per
year of funding for the stateside LWCF program beginning in 2007 and at
least $450 million per year beginning in 2017. My amendment would
direct revenues from the renegotiation of leases issued for the
production of oil and gas from the OCS that provides royalty relief
without the necessary price thresholds.
The Federal Treasury is owed billions of dollars for those leases.
Those leases mistakenly have provided royalty relief without these
price thresholds. My amendment, with its $125 million annually between
2007 and 2016 and up to $450 million per year beginning in 2017, would
ensure that stateside LWCF will be adequately funded.
Mr. President, I wish we were having a larger debate on the energy
policy for our country. I wish we were bringing some of the new ideas
on energy legislation to the floor. I believe the American people
deserve a great public debate on our energy future and they deserve a
comprehensive forward-thinking energy policy. But for now, we must
satisfy ourselves with what is at hand: a bill that includes modest
increases in production in the Gulf of Mexico and, I am proud to say, a
conservation royalty.

[[Page S8353]]

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor be the next
Democrat to speak following Senator Wyden, with the understanding that
we will go back and forth to a Republican Senator in between them if a
Republican Senator is here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have had a long and important
discussion about energy. Indeed, there is nothing more important to
this country than to proceed with that. I am proud to say we have an
energy policy that is quite broad. Of course, our challenge now is to
implement that policy.
I rise today in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act. I begin by saying that the economy is doing well; that we
require greater supplies of energy is proof of that fact. There is more
demand than there has been in the past because our economy is strong.
This is not to say that Americans are not struggling with the costs of
energy. Of course, they are. We are. The price of gas, the cost of
heating and cooling their homes, the need for electricity provides for
difficult problems. This is true in Wyoming, where we must drive long
distances, and we have cold winter seasons. We know how to solve the
problem. We need to increase our supplies.
The bill we are discussing today will provide 1.26 billion barrels,
5.8 trillion cubic feet of American oil and natural gas.
There are, of course, many other things we must pursue. I understand
as well as anyone that we cannot drill our way out of the energy
problems we face. We must support alternative fuels, renewable energy,
clean coal plants, new nuclear capacity, and increased efficiencies.
Many of these efforts will take place over the longer term. Hydrogen
cars, FutureGen, and the next generation of nuclear plants will take
time. There are plenty of good ideas to look for in the future. It is
important, however, that we be realistic about what we can and should
do to provide for our needs in the meantime.
Many of my colleagues have their own energy proposals. I have
introduced a bill that would reduce the cost of energy for Americans,
and it would do so comprehensively by addressing production, refining,
infrastructure mileage standards, and other conservation measures.
We need to pass the measure before us today, however. The bill we are
debating is a delicately crafted compromise. Chairman Domenici is to be
applauded for his hard work on the measure.
The bill we are debating today will increase domestic supplies of oil
and gas. It will do so in a way that is sensitive to the environment.
It will make us more secure and strengthen our economy, and that, of
course, is the goal. It represents an agreement between the States that
are most directly impacted by the gulf coast production.
The timing of this debate coincides with the release of second
quarter financial statements. We heard this morning from the
distinguished minority whip about energy company profits. I feel
compelled to respond to the issue.
As I said before, there are many Members who have energy proposals.
Some of them are bad ideas. Among the bad ideas is a windfall profits
tax, and that is one of the worst. It does not work. I raise this
because the idea or the notion of punishing companies is a knee-jerk
reaction we deal with every time another fiscal quarter comes to an
end. It should go away.
As we talk about the massive profits energy companies reap, we need
to remember these are massive companies. It is inaccurate and
misleading to look at the dollar amounts. A more accurate measure is to
look at how the energy industry is doing relative to other sectors of
the economy. Let's take a look at the second quarter of the last year
as an example. In terms of cents earned per dollar sales, the average
across the U.S. industry was 7.9 cents per dollar. Oil and natural gas
earned 7.6 cents on the dollar, a reasonable return on investment.
Insurance companies earned 10.7 cents on the dollar. Software companies
earned 17 cents on the dollar. Pharmaceutical companies earned 18.6
cents on the dollar.
If we are going to talk about placing punitive taxes on successful
businesses that bring so much prosperity to my State, that is fine.
Please know that I will ensure the inclusion of Connecticut's insurance
firms, California's software industry, and New Jersey's pharmaceutical
companies in that discussion as well.
Energy companies are making massive investments. Drilling rigs,
pipelines, refineries, exploration, and other business requirements are
not cheap. They do profit from having made these investments, but it is
not out of proportion to other industries that operate in our global
economy. That is the truth.
Unfortunately, this sort of talk is not only part of our discussion
that must be further clarified.
When we talk about reducing prices for consumers in the short to
midterm, it is clear that increasing supplies is the effective way to
do so.
It is troublesome that those who complain most loudly about energy
costs are the same ones who stand in the way of responsible and
effective measures to do something about it.
Wyoming has been doing its part in the national supply of energy for
a good long time. We need other States to follow. If you are not part
of the production solution, don't stand in the way of States that are.
It is in fashion to oppose new development, for some reason. People
do so under the auspices of protecting the environment. We can produce
energy with very minimal impacts. We do it every day in my home State
of Wyoming. It would be possible in places such as ANWR, too, if a
minority of Members would not stand in the way.
We talk about NIMBY, the ``not in my backyard'' mentality. Now we are
going to be told that it can't happen in someone else's backyard. We
should respect that in much the same way we are respecting the concerns
of Florida in this bill, and we should respect the other Gulf States
desiring to allow development off their coasts.
Yes, they stand to benefit from the revenues generated by new
production under this bill. I understand this production happens as far
away as 50 miles from their shores. These energy products have to make
their way onshore at some point, however. That requires infrastructure
and ship traffic to maintain the rigs. There are impacts associated
with that. We ought to help States with those impacts if they are
willing to produce energy for our country.
These States are host to a significant amount of offshore
infrastructure as well. The 4,000 offshore platforms in the gulf are
accompanied by dozens of refineries and countless production,
transportation, and marketing facilities.
Personally, I would like to see the revenues from offshore production
used to reduce the national debt. We must base these decisions on the
realities that exist, however. We must recognize the burdens to be
shouldered by the producing Gulf States. They provide nearly 30 percent
of our oil and 20 percent of our natural gas. If we act in good faith
toward them, I am hopeful other States will recognize the value and
benefits of taking part in offshore production as well.
There are 19.3 billion barrels of oil and 83.5 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas in the ocean that are completely off limits right now. This
does not make sense. We need those resources.
But what we need more right now is a bill on which we can agree. We
need something that can make a difference in the short term. This bill
achieves that goal. It recognizes the value of increased production and
strikes the necessary balance to make those activities a reality.
I look forward to the passage of this bill, to move it forward to
have more production, to increase production and reduce the costs to
American users.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today we heard some interesting news.
I would have used the term startling, but based on the news we are
seeing from the various war fronts, it is hard to find anything more
startling.
The reference I make to this news is brought about by a report. I
come out of the corporate world, so I am interested in corporate
performance in this

[[Page S8354]]

country. I saw the report. If you watch television or read the papers--
ExxonMobil, I would say, had a pretty good year. Their profit for this
quarter was $10.4 billion--for the quarter. That is up from $7.65
billion the same quarter last year.
That is pretty stunning news. It is the largest quarterly earnings of
any corporation in America, save one. That is in the history of this
country. In the history of this country, ExxonMobil, the quarter just
ended in June, was the second highest in the history of the country.
If they were selling widgets or some product, we would say: OK, that
is a pretty good job. But when they are selling a commodity that people
are literally begging for by way of availability, it is a different
picture.
This oil and gas is so much a part of our life that it is almost like
the air we breathe or the water we drink. It is incredible.
That then spurred my curiosity. I am, going to file an amendment to
the Energy bill. I send it to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Is there objection to setting
aside the pending amendment?
In my capacity as a Senator from the State of Florida, I object.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am sorry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of
Florida, I object.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not offering the amendment, Mr. President. I am
simply filing it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was not clear. The Senator may
submit an amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Presiding Officer.
This amendment is to change the bill's title, to call it the ``Lee
Raymond Oil Profitability Act.'' I propose that we rename the Energy
bill to reflect Mr. Raymond's profitability courtesy of ExxonMobil.
It is quite a thing. As we look at the turmoil this country is going
through while people struggle at minimum wage jobs and we see the kinds
of profits that are being made off the backs of working people, it
struck me, as I dug further into the history of the company--it is a
pretty well-run company, but it is so profitable because Americans are
going to the pump and buying gasoline at over $3 a gallon typically. I
have seen it as high as $3.35 a gallon. People who work in these gas
stations can't even afford to buy the gas they are pumping. That is how
extraordinary this pricing is.
I come from the corporate world and I ran a very successful company.
The company is called ADP. It has been in business 50 years. I started
it with a couple of other fellows, and we watched our profits
carefully. So I know how to read a financial statement.
When I see this, while people are stuck at minimum wage of $5.15 for
9 years--I am going to detail some of the extraordinary results Mr.
Raymond got as a result of his leadership in that company. The profits,
I think, are unconscionable. I don't understand where Board of
Directors' conscience is, as I read his benefits program. There is no
conscience, and there is no soul at all.
At the end of 2005, Mr. Lee Raymond retired from the chairmanship and
CEO position of ExxonMobil. He was working and got a decent week's pay.
I think his salary was running about $500,000 a week. That permits a
lot of things to be acquired. But he also then held $151 million in
stock options and holdings. His total compensation for 2005, including
salaries, stock options, and pension, totaled $140 million. He made
$140 million running a gasoline company where prices typically have
gone, since January 2002, from $2.24--and any of the audience that sees
this should mark it in their mind--it was $2.24 at the beginning of
this calendar year; it is now $3. That is the average price. So it has
risen some 36 percent I think is what the number works out to be.

It is incredible that during this period of time, while the average
working person is struggling and things are getting harder and harder,
the cost for gasoline, which is a requirement for virtually every
family in this country--whether they have a car or are using fuel oil
in their homes--it is outrageous that Mr. Raymond, in addition to those
things I just mentioned, has seen his package of stock ownership and
stock options go from $151 million in this period of time--$151 million
he had at the end of 2005--to $250 million now, so it is a $100 million
boost. Remember, he made $25 million in salary. But the absurdity of it
all and the offensiveness of it all, is that Exxon's board also agreed
to pick up Mr. Raymond's country club fees so he could make sure he
could buy enough golf balls for a round of golf. Country club fees, use
of the company aircraft, and still pay him another $1 million to stay
on as a consultant for another year. Where is their conscience? I don't
understand it.
So that is why my amendment would rename this bill the ``Lee R.
Raymond Oil Profitability Act.'' That is what it ought to be called, so
everybody knows what is happening in this country of ours. People are
struggling for a living with a $5.15 minimum wage, which has been in
place for 9 years. Those people are making $206 a week, if they are
working at minimum wage, and they haven't had a raise in 9 years. That
doesn't matter. Big business is the interest served by this Government
and by the Bush administration. It is incredible.
When President Bush took over, gas was $1.06 a gallon. That was back
at the end of 2000: $1.06. Now it is over $3 a gallon. Two years ago,
President Bush threatened that if John Kerry was elected President of
the United States, he would tax gasoline. Look at this: From $2.24 up
to $3, this year alone. There is no limit. But that doesn't bother the
conscience of the board members of ExxonMobil, and it doesn't bother
the conscience of Mr. Raymond. If he asks for country club dues to be
paid on top of everything else, to have an airplane for his private
use, he feels entitled to it. These are company expenses, and because
they are company expenses, they are tax deductible. It is shameful, I
think, and I hope we will do something about it.
I rise to speak against this so-called energy bill. The bill is
simply another gift to the oil industry. It is dressed up as some kind
of benefit to consumers. I know the media likes to talk about who is
winning the debate on this issue or that issue. But you don't see these
commentators saying: Let's look back at the effects of legislation
after it is passed. So here we are considering a second Republican
energy bill. We should ask: What was the effect of the first Republican
energy bill? My colleagues across the aisle said of the first energy
bill that it would lower gas prices as it goes into effect. Well, here
is what we have seen happen in just this year alone: up by 36 percent.
A few months after President Bush signed the first Republican energy
bill, gas prices started to soar. So now we know what happens when you
take care of the oil companies: Tax breaks and subsidies, and everyday
Americans get charged more, pay through the nose, as we say, and now we
are ready for a repeat performance.
Will this bill help get gas prices over $4 a gallon? Think about
that, for the average family. Spend 80 bucks to fill up your gas tank.
Right now you have to spend over $60 to fill up a 20-gallon tank. We
have to do a reality check about who is writing these bills. President
Bush and Vice President Cheney are both former oil company executives.
They focus on helping their friends in the oil business. Big oil
companies want to open up our coastline to oil drilling, to platforms,
pipelines, and tankers.
Everyone jumps to attention in the Cabinet room there and they say:
Yes, sir, as they do here on the Republican side of the aisle. And the
oil companies' profits continue to explode.
Just this week, BP announced its largest quarterly profit in their
history: $7.27 billion. BP is a piker compared to Exxon, which made
over $10 billion. This was 30 percent more than the same period a year
ago.
I remember hearing in the Commerce Committee when we asked about
price gouging and so forth, and the oil company executives denied it:
Oh, we don't price gouge, no. Well, somebody is making a heck of a lot
of money while people who struggle for a living have to pay more than
they can afford just to buy gasoline. Other big oil firms continue to
enjoy record profits as well. Royal Dutch announced second quarter
profits of $7.3 billion, almost $2 billion more than the same quarter a
year ago. While Shell's profits increased 40 percent, its total revenue
increased less

[[Page S8355]]

than 1 percent. So look what has happened. Their profits increased 40
percent, but their revenues increased less than 1 percent. I would like
to hear an economist or an accountant explain how wonderful their
management is, how good management must have been to pull that trick.
In other words, sales were relatively constant, but profits jumped
significantly.
Then there is our favorite, the poster company, ExxonMobil. In 2005
ExxonMobil raked in a record $36 billion in profits. That translates to
almost $100 million a day in profit and more than $4 million every hour
in profit for one oil company. And while all of these oil companies
profit, consumers pay.

Now, as this Congress winds down its work for the year, the majority
and the administration have proposed nothing that will lower gas prices
at any time in the near future. They have nothing to offer in the way
of a serious idea or a plan to reduce consumption, to improve
efficiency, or to develop renewable sources of energy.
Whatever the question, the answer for this administration and the
majority in this Congress is always the same: Hand over some more money
to their friends in the oil industry, and give them more opportunities
to drill and explore in environmentally sensitive areas. What do we get
in return? Higher and higher gas prices. And now they want permission
to drill in areas that are sensitive, areas where an oil spill could be
disastrous. We had an oil spill in the Delaware River that separates
Pennsylvania from New Jersey, and it didn't look too bad, but the cost
to clean it up was $267 million. So there are a lot of risks with
drilling in these areas. Higher prices aren't the only negative
consequence of this bill.
The bill is going to harm our grandchildren's birthright to enjoy the
natural beauty of our coastlines and beaches. I have seen the worst of
oil spills. I was sent to Alaska with the Coast Guard 3 days after the
Exxon Valdez ran aground. Exxon paid approximately $4 billion in
compensatory damages and the punitive award was $5 billion, and that
was in 1989. So we are looking at 17 years ago, and Exxon has yet to
pay a dime on the punitive damages. The company has smart lawyers, and
they have kept it bottled up in court. They say: Don't pay the bill,
whatever you do. ExxonMobil makes $10.4 billion in a quarter, and the
company is still trying to get out of paying the $5 billion that
resulted from the court decision.
It is clear the plan is to pass this bill in the Senate, and then
combine it with the House bill that opens up the coastal waters of New
Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, California, Oregon, and Washington State to oil and
gas drilling.
The effects of even one spill off the shore of New Jersey would be
devastating. Tourism, a principal business for us, is a $26 billion
industry in New Jersey, and it supports 390,000 jobs. My State has
already seen how much economic damage can result from threats to our
shore. In 1988, a bag of medical waste washed up on the New Jersey
shore. The incident was widely reported in the media and we lost a
third of our tourism revenues that year--one-third of our tourism
revenue.
We can be sure of one thing: If we drill for oil, we will spill oil,
and New Jersey and other States cannot afford to have oil washing up on
their shores or polluting their water. States that depend on beaches
and marine recreation and clean water for fishing and other activities
can't afford to have oil spills along those shores. Our commercial and
recreational fishing industries in New Jersey are worth hundreds of
millions of dollars. An economic catastrophe would result from an oil
spill that reaches our shores, whether the drill rigs are located in
the waters off New Jersey or Massachusetts or Virginia.
In short, it is absolutely certain that the current bill can only go
from bad to worse. This bill is a Trojan horse and it should be
rejected by any Senators who are concerned about protecting their
coastlines and their coastal economies. It also should be rejected by
Senators who care about developing a long-term, sustainable energy
policy, and by any Senator who has a vision for our country which says
we owe our children and our grandchildren a clean environment. We owe
them relief from what we see now. I have not even discussed fossil
fuels and global warming.
In the Netherlands last week, they reported the hottest temperature
in June--this past June--ever since temperatures have been recorded:
1704, I believe, was the year. The hottest month ever since that time,
since 1704. We see evidence of global warming all over the place. I
don't hear anybody on the Republican side standing up here and saying:
My gosh, we have to find a way to get these temperatures normalized. We
have to find a way to reduce the number of hurricanes. We have to find
a way to reduce the ferocity of these hurricanes. We don't want any
more Hurricane Katrinas. But here we are, big oil companies are soaking
the public with $3 per gallon for gasoline. It is not fair. We can do
better than ``more of the same.'' I hope my colleagues will hear from
their constituents back home and oppose this bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, am I recognized?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
(The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are debating the Energy bill, the bill
that would allow drilling in deep sea waters off the coast of the
United States in the Gulf of Mexico. We have heard a lot of
conversation about that. I don't want to repeat all of the arguments
that have been made, but I want to put it in a perspective that I think
might be useful to some who would be watching.
Of course, we have this debate against the backdrop of $3-a-gallon
gas. Everyone gets excited about that, and they say it is caused by
$75-a-barrel oil, and what can we do to bring down the price of oil?
The law of supply and demand determines what the price might be.
There are those who think that is determined ultimately by oil costs,
but that is not true. It is determined by the world market, and the
United States is only one country that is drawing on the world market
and asking for this oil to fuel our economy.
We must start with the understanding that the world runs on oil right
now in a variety of ways and in a variety of places, which means that
everyone in the world--whether they are in China or India, in Europe or
the United States--needs oil.
Why oil? Why don't we have other kinds of energy? The answer is that
historically oil has been the cheapest source of the energy we need.
People said: Well, let's have wind, let's have solar. Wind and solar up
until now have been unable to survive unless there is a serious
government subsidy for it. As soon as the subsidy is withdrawn, all of
a sudden we can't afford to generate energy from these other sources
because it is cheaper to generate it from oil. So we have the
infrastructure for oil built up, we have the infrastructure for
gasoline for our transportation system built up, and it would take an
enormous investment and a great deal of time to try to change it. So
people need oil.
All right. There is plenty of oil in the world, and it is relatively
cheap to produce in some parts of the world. But what is known as the
lifting cost--that is, what it costs to lift a barrel of oil out of the
ground and put it into that tanker--for Saudi Arabia is about $1.50.
You can produce a barrel of oil at a cost of about $1.50 in Saudi
Arabia. The lifting costs elsewhere are much higher than that.
If we come to my home State of Utah, where we have more oil than they
have in Saudi Arabia, the lifting cost to get all of that oil is around
$30 to $40 a barrel because the oil is locked up in rocks known as oil
shale. That is why we don't produce oil from oil shale--not because it
isn't there but because it can be produced more cheaply someplace else.
Since it is a world market, people put their oil on the world
markets, and the world law of supply and demand determines what will be
paid for it. The key number to keep your eye on to determine what the
oil is going to cost is

[[Page S8356]]

the excess capacity that is available. Let me explain with some
numbers.
Right now, the world as a whole is using about 85 million barrels of
oil a day. The world capacity to produce oil is about 86 million
barrels a day. These figures are not exact. They never are. They change
from day to day. But let us use them as representative figures to
illustrate the point.
All right. If you are in a position where you have to be sure you can
get your oil for your future needs and you look at the world situation
and say: You know, there is only a million barrels a day of excess
capacity out there, and that million barrels a day could disappear with
the snap of a finger--a problem in Iran, a decision by the oil minister
in Saudi Arabia, another outburst--explosion, if you will--by the new
President of Venezuela. A million barrels a day is not enough excess
capacity to guarantee me that my oil will be there when I need it, so I
will bid a higher price than I normally would pay just for the
certainty that the oil will be there when I need it.
So the oil goes from $50 a barrel to $60 a barrel to $70 a barrel. We
have seen it approaching $80 a barrel. Then when word comes out: Well,
that excess capacity is a little more than a million barrels a day.
Well, I may not want to bid quite so much for the oil. And the price
will settle down a little. When there are indications that the supply
of oil will be more secure in the future, the price starts to come
down.
This is what we see in what is called the futures markets because
people are buying oil for the future. They are making long-term
contracts.
All right. The key ingredient in bringing the price of oil down is to
make sure the surplus capacity above the amount of oil we use gets
bigger and bigger. Right now, as I say, it is only about a million
barrels per day. If it were 2 million barrels a day, if there were an
additional source of oil, then the price would come down because you
would have a bigger cushion to be sure you can get your oil in the
future.
Look, there is overcapacity of 2 million a day. Back in the days when
oil was available for $30 a barrel or $25 a barrel, the excess capacity
was 5, 6 and 7 million barrels a day. People were comfortable making
long-term contracts because they knew that excess capacity would make
the oil available to them.
Just as a side note, in this body, we approved, along with the House
of Representatives, back some 6 years ago authority to drill in Alaska.
President Clinton vetoed that bill. It takes about 6 years for that
kind of investment to bring oil on line. If the bill President Clinton
vetoed had been signed, we would have an additional million barrels a
day of oil on line in the world right now. That would virtually double
the amount of excess capability that is currently available. But that
was not done. We are where we are.
That is why this bill we are debating is so important--not just for
the amount of oil that is there but for the amount of increased
capacity it will deliver to the world markets when it comes on line.
And then what happens? Then, by virtue of that amount of excess
capacity above the amount the world is using, the futures price for oil
will start to come down. That is the way the law of supply and demand
works. Around here we have never been able to figure out a way to
repeal the law of supply and demand. That particular law trumps
virtually everything else we do.

That is one of the reasons I am supporting this bill, to say the time
has come for the United States to have that impact on the world price
of oil by virtue of our ability to produce that additional capacity.
But there is something else here as important as oil with respect to
what is available to us in what we call area 181, and I am talking
about natural gas. The same thing that I have to say about the impact
of excess capacity on oil applies to natural gas. Natural gas is
something more than just energy. This is why natural gas is doubly
important. Yes, we use natural gas to heat our homes. We use natural
gas to cook our meals. We use natural gas to generate electricity.
Natural gas is the fossil fuel of choice. Everyone wants it. Everyone
says it is clean, it is plentiful. Historically, it is cheap. Let's put
in natural gas. When everyone wants it, that means the demand for it
goes up, that means the supply gets tight.
We discovered a few years ago something about natural gas that is
very obvious but that some people had not realized. Natural gas is the
one form of energy we cannot import. Natural gas gets imported by
pipeline. The only place we can bring in natural gas once we have
tapped all of the natural gas available in the continental United
States is by pipeline from Canada and Mexico. There is a lot of natural
gas elsewhere in the world, but we cannot bring it to the United States
because it comes in by pipeline.
Now, it can be liquefied. It can be put on a ship. It can come here
as LNG, liquefied natural gas, but we don't have that many ports that
can receive LNG. It is a very major financial investment to build the
port, to equip the port to handle LNG, to build the tankers that can
handle LNG. There are those who are doing that, but in the meantime the
amount of natural gas available in the American economy is confined by
the rising demand.
Natural gas, the petrochemicals in natural gas, are a critical
element of the chemical industry. When the price of natural gas goes
up, the price of all of our chemicals goes up. It is a critical element
in the fertilizer industry. We are proud of our capacity to produce
enough food to feed all of America and still make it a major export,
but we cannot do it if the cost of fertilizer drives farmers off the
land. And the cost of fertilizer is tied to the cost of natural gas.
When you realize that in area 181 there is not only enough oil to
change the balance of the overcapacity that can bring down the futures
market in oil, there is also enough natural gas to have a significant
impact on the price of natural gas and help us with lower costs in the
chemical industry, lower costs in agriculture, lower costs with
fertilizer across the board, you realize that opening this area for
exploration and drilling is something that should have been done a long
time ago.
We know one of the main reasons why it was not. It has to do with
State interests and State concerns about what will go on. This bill
very cleverly and carefully crafts a series of royalty incentives to
get the States on board.
With Senator McConnell, I went down to Mississippi and then to New
Orleans to see firsthand the devastation. In the presentation that
Senator McConnell and I received was an exposition of the damage out in
the Gulf of Mexico to those lands that have acted as some kind of a
barrier for future hurricanes. That area desperately needs to be
rebuilt. It needs to be rebuilt for economic reasons, it needs to be
rebuilt for environmental reasons. It is in serious trouble. The State
can't afford to rebuild.
But with the revenues that are in this bill for the State of
Louisiana, there is a possibility that they can start to rebuild and
produce enormous benefits for all of their people and for all of the
country. This becomes a source of revenue that can be dedicated to that
particular ecological activity that is good environmentally and good
economically.
So you put it all together, you have a bill that I think should pass
unanimously. I know it won't. We never do anything unanimously around
here unless it is completely noncontroversial, and something of this
kind always has a little controversy connected to it. It probably comes
as close to being the right bill at the right time in the right place
as anything we have seen.
A year ago we passed a comprehensive energy bill that has us started
down the road toward increased nuclear activity with respect to
creating electric power. This bill, coming a year later, is a logical
companion piece to the bill we passed a year ago because it starts us
down the road toward alleviating the upward pressure, the constant
upward pressure on the price of oil and the price of natural gas and
doing it in a way that those States that have previously resisted this
kind of economic activity now say we understand and we will participate
in a beneficial way. That is why this bill is bipartisan. That is why
it is supported by the Senators from the States most heavily hit by
Katrina and the other hurricanes that occurred.
One of the things Katrina taught us that should give us further
comfort as we debate this bill is that our technology for deepwater
drilling is sufficiently stable that it can withstand a

[[Page S8357]]

hurricane of Katrina's force and not produce any kind of an oil spill,
not produce any kind of an ecological difficulty.
It is interesting to recognize the greatest ecological damages from
oil spills have come from tankers bringing oil across the ocean, rather
than from oil platforms drilled in the ocean. If we want to reduce our
dependence upon the oil being shipped in the most dangerous way in
terms of the environment, we should pass this bill and proceed with
this activity.
It comes as no surprise that I express my strong support for this
bill for economic reasons, for environmental reasons, and for long-term
planning reasons. It is, as I say, the right bill at the right time and
in the right place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Wyden are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have enjoyed hearing my distinguished
friend from Oregon, who is always an effective and enthusiastic
advocate. We worked together on many things, and I hope we will on many
more things in the future.
I want to talk a little bit about the price of natural gas and how we
can get it down. We have an opportunity to do that next week in the
Senate. The Senate is considering the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security
Act of 2006. It directs new oil and gas leasing in 8.3 million acres of
the Gulf of Mexico. It directs the Department of the Interior to begin
oil and gas leasing in designated parts of what we call lease sale
181--that is just the name of a geographic area--no later than 1 year
after the bill becomes law, and directs leasing in 181 south, an area
below the one just described, as soon as practical.
From the revenues that come from that, we will deal with those in the
traditional way. First, there is a royalty, and 37.5 percent of the
royalty will go to the affected States, which I assume includes
Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama, and perhaps the Presiding
Officer's State of Texas. Then 12.5 percent will go to the State side
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund under an arrangement that has
been in the law for 40 years, to take some of the money we use from
offshore drilling and use it for State parks, soccer fields, city
parks. The money goes to the States.
We do a lot of things here in the Senate, and some may sound more
relevant than others. But this is legislation next week that will
affect blue-collar workers in America, it will affect homeowners, and
it will affect farmers. It could affect the price of gasoline. The
price of gasoline is set by the world marketplace, as the natural gas
price is as well. But the major effect, I think, will be on the price
of natural gas. Let me explain for a few minutes why I am talking about
natural gas instead of gasoline.
If you stop and think about natural gas, one could easily argue that
an extraordinarily high price for natural gas has more of an effect
upon the lives of Americans than an extraordinarily high price of
gasoline. A year ago, when the price of natural gas was about $15 a
unit--to put that into comparison, that would be about the same thing
as if gasoline were at $7 a gallon. That would be about the same thing.
Now, imagine that. What if gasoline were $7 a gallon across the United
States? We would have revolutions from Odessa, TX, to Mountain City,
TN, and North and South, and in every direction. People would say: We
can't stand that.
Well, we were having a very hard time a year ago with the natural gas
prices at $15 a unit. Now, fortunately, they are back down to a little
below $7 a unit. But this economy of ours, this United States of
America, was built on a natural gas price of about $2. So it is three
times as high as we were accustomed to it being.
And what difference does that make? Well, if we pass this legislation
next week, we can reduce--or at least begin to stabilize--the price of
natural gas, and that helps American workers. A lot of speeches are
made here--and the Presiding Officer has heard as many as I have--
saying no more outsourcing. Let's not send jobs overseas. Don't let
them go to Germany, India, and China. Why don't we adopt policies that
stop that?
Here is a good way to stop jobs from going overseas. There are 1
million jobs in the chemical industry in the United States today. These
are good, high-paying jobs. Most of them are blue collar, but many are
white collar. These are manufacturing jobs in the United States of
America, millions of them. A place like Eastman Chemical in Kingsport,
TN, is an example. Eastman Chemical, as far as we are concerned in
Tennessee, has been there about as long as the Great Smoky Mountains.
My uncle used to work there. In the Appalachian part of Tennessee,
where income has never been high, for a long time Eastman has paid a
good, high, steady wage to families. It has transformed the area. There
are good schools, good roads, strong families, and good communities,
with 10,000, 12,000, or 15,000 jobs right there in that area. People
drive 50 to 80 miles to go to work. Some have been working there three
and four generations. Eastman makes chemicals. Out of what? The major
raw material for chemicals at Eastman is natural gas.
The president of Dow Chemical testified before the Energy Committee
that natural gas, used as a raw material, accounts for 40 percent of
Dow's costs. So if the price of natural gas goes from $2 to nearly $7,
as it is today, or to $15, as it was last year, what do you suppose
happens? If Eastman is going to expand, or if Dow or another company is
going to build another plant, are they going to build it in the United
States? No, those jobs will go overseas, and they have been. There are
maybe 100 chemical plants being built around the world. Only one is
being built in the United States, and the major reason is the high cost
of the raw material, natural gas.
So there is the first reason the vote we are having on Monday
afternoon at 5:30 makes a difference to the average American and to all
Americans. Well, none of us are average. We are all individuals. We
like our jobs. There are a lot of jobs at stake, and it is not just the
chemical industry that is affected by the high cost of natural gas.
A year ago, the Tennessee Farm Bureau joined me in sponsoring a
roundtable on natural gas prices when they were at $15. One of those
who was at the roundtable was the president of Saturn. The General
Motors Saturn plant came to Tennessee when I was Governor. It is an
innovative plant, and we are proud that they chose Tennessee. At the
roundtable, the president of Saturn said to me: We have done about all
we can, in terms of efficiency, to deal with this incredible cost of
natural gas in our automobile plant. After this, it is going to begin
to affect the cost of our cars.
If the cost of auto parts suppliers and the cost of automobiles that
are manufactured in the United States goes up, the jobs go overseas. If
you can put an engine plant in Germany, or some other kind of supplier
in Mexico, they will do that because of the high cost of natural gas.
So it affects manufacturing.
The Tennessee Farm Bureau was helping me host that roundtable because
the high cost of natural gas affects farming. Farming uses a lot of
energy and uses a lot of fertilizer. The biggest raw material in
fertilizer is usually natural gas. So the price of fertilizer doubles
when the price of natural gas goes up like that.
The rising price of natural gas affects millions of Americans--
workers, farmers, and also those who are heating and cooling homes with
natural gas. What do you suppose the local gas company does after a
while when the price of natural gas goes from $2 to $15? What do you
think that will do to your local bill? It is going to go right through
the roof. For retired families, for low-income families, the high price
of natural gas hurts. So the vote we are having on Monday is about blue
collar workers, about farm families, and it is about all the families
who heat and cool with natural gas. That is the importance of natural
gas prices.
Now, I see my friend from Arkansas here. I assure him that I am not
going

[[Page S8358]]

to be too extensive in my remarks. I look forward to his. I have a few
more things I would like to say.
The second point I want to make is that the bill we are dealing with
Monday is part of a comprehensive plan. I have heard a few colleagues
come here and say we cannot drill our way out of this big problem we
have with oil. They are absolutely right about that. Everybody in this
Senate knows that because we spent 10 years working on a comprehensive
energy bill--the Energy Policy Act--which we enacted about a year ago
after weeks and weeks of debate. It could have been called the
``Natural Gas Price Reduction Act.'' I am not going to stand here and
say that bill is the reason the natural gas price has gone from $15
last summer to $7 today, but I hope it helped.
Market forces overrode all of that. But the Energy Policy Act surely
put us on the right path, because to reduce the price of natural gas
and to begin to stabilize the price of oil and make sure this big
country of ours, which uses 25 percent of all of the energy in the
world, has a steady supply of reliable, low-cost energy that is clean
and as carbon-free as possible, we set this country on a different path
by passing that comprehensive energy legislation a year ago, and we
started with conservation.
We need to be more aggressive about conservation, and there may be a
conservation bill that we ought to enact later this year or next year.
We also aggressively moved to encourage nuclear power because nuclear
power produces 20 percent of all of the electricity in America and 70
percent of the carbon-free electricity in America. That means it is our
major weapon against global warming. If my friend and fellow
Tennessean, Al Gore, were to do a sequel to ``Inconvenient Truth'' and
call it ``Inconvenient Truth II,'' it would be about nuclear power.
That is the solution to global warming.
So, first, we encouraged conservation. Then we began what is turning
out to be a renaissance of interest in nuclear power.
Third, the Energy Policy Act included incentives for clean coal. We
have a lot of coal. So if we make more electricity by nuclear power and
more electricity by coal and we conserve to begin with, then there is
less demand for electricity made from natural gas and the price goes
down. Almost all of our new electric powerplants over the last 10 years
were made by natural gas. That is like burning antiques in the
fireplace to heat your home. That is a pretty dumb way to go about the
business of producing electricity.

Let's conserve, build nuclear powerplants, encourage the use of clean
coal, recapture the carbon, deal with global warming, reduce the price
of natural gas, and that is not all. We also made it easier in the bill
last year to import liquefied natural gas from overseas. That is a
complicated process. We don't want to get into the same shape in
natural gas that we are with oil, where we get most of it from
overseas, but we can increase imports of LNG. Bringing it into
terminals here and piping it into our system helps increase our supply,
and that lowers the price and, apparently, that has begun to work.
Renewables help. There are some things we can do in that area. We can
make ethanol from corn. We can make biodiesel from soybeans. I held a
roundtable in Tennessee on biodiesel the other day. I even heard in a
hearing that a factory is opening in Oak Ridge that will make ethanol
from coal. We can make fuels from other sources, but we need a lot of
fuel for cars and trucks, and we need a lot of fuel for electricity in
this country that uses 25 percent of all of the energy in the world.
One thing we did not do last year was take any significant step to
increase the supply of natural gas that comes from the United States. I
think any logical person would say if you are going to take a
comprehensive look at the high price of gasoline and the high price of
natural gas and its affect upon Americans, you would want to include
increasing the supply while we are transitioning to other forms of
energy production. This is going to take us 5 or 10 years. In the
meantime, we don't want to pay $7 for gasoline and $15 for natural gas.
One way to do it is to increase our supply.
That is why we are voting on Monday on deep sea exploratory drilling
in one of the most promising areas in the world for more natural gas.
That is what we call Lease Sale 181. Someone said on the Senate floor
there wasn't much gas down there. I heard the Senator from Louisiana
say the following, and I believe this is true: It is enough to heat 6
million homes for 15 years.
It is six times the amount of the liquefied natural gas that we are
importing today in the United States. That is a lot of gas. It is more
oil than we import from Saudi Arabia, our principal supplier of
overseas oil. It is more oil reserves than Wyoming and Oklahoma
combined.
So in our great big economy, where we use 25 percent of all the
energy in the world, it may only be a small part of our overall needs,
but it is a lot when you think about heating 6 million homes for 15
years. And I suspect that if we move ahead aggressively to tap this new
supply of natural gas and oil, it will help to stabilize the price of
natural gas and might even move it down a little and help the blue
collar worker, the farmer, and the homeowner.
Some say that energy independence is not a real goal. I don't agree
with that. What I mean by energy independence is that the United States
will not ever again be held hostage by some other country. It doesn't
mean we won't buy oil from Mexico or natural gas from Canada. But we
don't want to have to do that if we don't want to. So that is why, in
the comprehensive Energy bill last year, we accelerated research for
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and gave incentives for hybrid cars. We
want to reduce our dependence of oil overseas and transform our economy
permanently. We don't want to drill our way out of the problem. We all
know we can never do that.
Over the next 5 or 10 years, we'd better make sure we use the oil and
natural gas we have available in this country if we want people to be
able to drive their cars, work their farms, keep their jobs, and pay
their bills. That is what we will be voting about Monday at 5:30.
We have been extremely careful with the environmental impact of this
bill. I am very proud of Senator Domenici and others for what they have
done on this issue. These rigs will be 125 miles away from Florida. You
can only see about 20 miles out to sea. So that is a long way out. They
are out of the way of airplanes and military craft. The technology we
have means there is more natural leakage of oil from the sea floor than
from all these rigs out there. So the environmental damage is minimal.
Plus, we are going to take half the revenues from this drilling and use
it for environmental purposes. I think that is great. Mr. President,
37\1/2\ percent goes for wetlands and other areas in the Gulf Coast
heavily damaged by hurricanes, and 12\1/2\ percent is an outdoor
recreation and conservation royalty. It is not a lot of money, but it
begins to say that we are going to have an environmental benefit. It is
a balanced formula that a majority of Senators can easily support.
Mr. President, this is a focused bill. This is a little left over
work that we didn't get done last year when we passed a comprehensive
piece of energy legislation that put that ``freight train'' energy
policy moving slowly down the track in the right direction, toward
large amounts of clean, low-cost, reliable, domestic-produced energy.
We had in that bill conservation, nuclear power, clean coal, and we
made it easier to import natural gas. We had extensive support for
renewables, but we didn't do anything about domestic supply. This
finishes the job. So that is why this is a focused bill.
There are many other great ideas about energy, and whenever we
subject ourselves to an energy debate, it will take us a long time
because we have many good ideas and opinions. But from time to time, we
need to take a focused idea about which there is emerging consensus and
do it.
Two years ago, you could not even mention the idea of offshore
drilling here. Last year, we had a majority of votes in the Senate for
it, but we could not get to 60. This year, we got 86 votes on the
motion to proceed, and we have a broad bipartisan consensus. I suspect
in future years we will find other ways to permit, say, Virginia, for
example, if it chooses, to permit drilling for oil and gas in certain
areas offshore where

[[Page S8359]]

the rigs cannot be seen, and use some of those revenues from drilling
to create a trust fund for education, use them to lower taxes, or use
them to improve the coastlines of Virginia. I know if I were Governor
of a coastal State, I would do that in a minute. I would rather not
have an income tax, and I would rather have the best and biggest trust
fund for my university system. That is exactly what Virginia could do,
but we are not doing that here. We will address that when there is a
consensus about it. There is a consensus about this.

As we move toward the end of the week and as people begin to think
about what the Senate is doing that affects their lives, if you are a
manufacturing worker in this country, we are going to affect your life
at 5:30 on Monday afternoon. If you are homeowner paying your bill for
105-degree heat with natural gas, we are going to affect our life at
5:30 on Monday afternoon. If you are a farmer and have seen the price
of fertilizer double, we are going to affect your life at 5:30 on
Monday afternoon. We are going to vote for you if we vote for the
energy security bill on Monday.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3711. I found
the comments of our colleague from Tennessee, the distinguished junior
Senator from Tennessee, very interesting. Basically, he and I are on
the same page on this issue; that is, I hope S. 3711 is part of a
larger, smarter energy policy for this Nation.
There are really two sides of this equation, and then there are some
complications in between. Basically, the two sides are supply and
demand.
We have not done a lot on the supply side in the last few years, so I
think it is important for us to look at drilling as an option.
Certainly lease area 181 makes a lot of sense. We have infrastructure
there. Generally speaking, we know how much oil and natural gas is in
lease area 181. It is not a big stretch for people in those industries
to get out there and find that oil and gas and get it to the
marketplace. So traditional drilling in that sense makes a lot of
sense, in my mind.
Also, I hope the Senate will continue to work on legislation to
encourage alternative fuels, such as biofuels--I know the President in
his State of the Union Address mentioned cellulosic fuel, and that is
important--ethanol, agriculture products, animal waste, et cetera. That
is just smart energy policy, and it creates a supply of energy. And
that is very important.
On the other hand, we need to look at demand and we need to look at
conservation. Certainly, this country can do much more with regard to
conservation, with some industries and some aspect of our economy, and
also efficiency. We need to become more efficient and smarter and use
technology to try to get smarter on our energy usage.
I certainly concur with what the Senator from Tennessee talked about,
supply and demand. We know under the current conditions gas prices will
not go down by themselves. We are going to have to do some things in
this country to help the oil markets get where the American public want
them to be.
Also, S. 3711 on offshore drilling makes a lot of sense because it is
narrowly focused and narrowly tailored. It is the right policy at the
right time. Maybe one of the more controversial parts of this bill is
revenue sharing. I am from an interior State. Under the circumstances
as presented today, I don't have any objection to revenue sharing. I
know Arkansas will not benefit as much as the States on the coast, but
that is OK. We know the devastation the hurricanes caused in that
region of the country, and we understand that one of our 50 States--
Louisiana, in particular--has been dramatically impacted and maybe
forever altered by Hurricane Katrina. Certainly Alabama and Mississippi
have had their share of hardship.
When we look at New Orleans and look at that coastal area of
Louisiana, we understand they are in dire straits. We understand this
is a unique time in history, and we need to get the resources to the
gulf coast to help right now rebuild the gulf coast but also help with
future storms.
The other point I like about S. 3711 is that it recognizes that the
cost of energy ripples throughout all of our economy. A few moments
ago, we heard someone mention that with regard to farmers and
fertilizer, about 90 percent of the cost of fertilizer is the cost of
natural gas. If we look at the plastic that is in this pen, some of
that cost is in the petroleum and natural gas that is required to make
this product. All that eventually, ultimately, gets passed on through
the economy. So when we see very high natural gas prices and very high
oil prices, we know it is inflationary and we know the damage those
high prices can do to our Nation's economy.
Arkansans--and I think all Americans--feel squeezed right now. If a
family used heat in the wintertime, if they cooked with natural gas,
they paid an average of $920 in natural gas last year. That is a lot of
money. That is an increase of $178 just over the winter months I am
talking about. That is a lot of money. Those are real dollars to people
in my State and I know people around the country.
The price of natural gas, which supplies a quarter of the energy used
by Americans, has more than doubled in the past year, and demand is
going to continue to rise. Demand will rise about 40 percent over the
next 20 years. This is significant. This dynamic is something which we
as policymakers need to be aware of and we need to work with that
reality.
About a quarter of all natural gas is used to produce electricity.
The rest is to manufacture plastics, cars, computers, medical
equipment, and all sorts of products, even bottled water. Those bottles
are made with natural gas.
This week, the price of natural gas was $6.15 per million Btu. We
think about that and we may not have anything to compare it to, but let
me tell you, Mr. President, in countries that we compete with for jobs,
that we compete with for manufacturing, places such as Russia, natural
gas is $1.25 per million Btu's. It is $6.15 here to $1.25 there. Look
at the comparisons around the world. For whatever reason, we are paying
more for natural gas, and it is putting the U.S. economy at a
disadvantage.

We see transportation costs have doubled. We know how important
trucking and other transportation is in this country. That is overall
in the economy. But when we look at transportation costs for a family,
the average household with children will spend about $3,815 on fuel
this year. That is a lot of money. There again, that is going to
increase by about 100 percent as compared to 5 or 6 years ago. The
people in my State and the people around the country certainly are
feeling the squeeze. If you book an airline ticket today, it is
probably going to be 11 percent higher, and a big piece of that is the
cost of jet fuel.
One of the last couple of points I wish to mention about this
legislation is that it is a compromise. It is a compromise in maybe the
best sense of the word. We have a lot of competing interests, a lot of
good ideas that have come into this discussion. Many of those ideas
were included either in whole or in part in this legislation.
This bill will open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico, and it
lifts production bans in lease area 181. Again, I think that is the
right policy at the right time. At the same time, it bans drilling
within 125 miles, and that is good until 2022. Again, I think that
makes sense. Congress is trying to be very sensitive to various States'
needs, trying to respect those needs and those desires. We are
attempting to do that, and I think we are accomplishing that in this
bill.
Back to natural gas, lease area 181 in this bill will add about 5.83
trillion cubic feet, and that is a lot of natural gas. Right now, we
use about 23 trillion cubic feet a year. So this is a significant help
over time. It will take a couple, 3 years before that actually hits the
market, but it will help. Also, it will produce about 1.26 billion
barrels of oil.
The last point I would make is that this is a narrowly tailored bill.
But there is one person who I think has shown complete tenacity in
trying to get us to where we are today, where we will be Monday, and
that is Senator Landrieu of Louisiana. She has been amazing. Of course,
her State has been forever altered by Hurricane Katrina. Certainly, we
join her in saying we

[[Page S8360]]

want Louisiana to come back stronger than ever. New Orleans is one of
the great American cities, it is one of the cultural centers of this
country, and we want it to come back stronger than ever.
Sometimes we forget how important that New Orleans area is to the
entire country. It is one of the largest ports in the United States,
and the fact that it is sitting right at the mouth of the Mississippi
is critically important to the entire midsection of the country. If you
live west of the Appalachians or east of the Rockies, you are impacted
by what happens in New Orleans because that whole system, that entire
Mississippi River basin or watershed, all the rainwater, all the
floods--everything--eventually goes down the Mississippi. If the
Mississippi is not functioning correctly down near New Orleans, it has
a very adverse impact on flood control, on agriculture, on industry, on
hydroelectric power, and on any number of things up and down this
entire watershed, which is the largest watershed in North America.
I thank Senator Landrieu for her tenacity, for the example she set
for all of us in fighting for her State and fighting for her country in
a time when we need her leadership. She has shown that time and time
again. I bet every Member of this body at some point or another has
spoken with Senator Mary Landrieu about how important it is to rebuild
the gulf coast area and Louisiana specifically. She has done a
fantastic job. Even if I disagreed with this policy, which I don't, out
of respect for her and the great work she has done, I would support her
legislation because I know how important it is to her.
The bottom line is, Louisiana is one of the 50 States. It is a sister
State. We came to the aid of New York after 9/11, and we should have.
We have come to the aid of many States in specific regions after
disasters and catastrophe, and we should. That is part of being one
Nation, one people, E pluribus unum. It is time for us to come to the
aid of Louisiana. It is a long-term proposition. Louisiana does not
have an easy solution where we throw a few dollars at it and it is
done. There are major infrastructure investments we have to make there.
We also have to make them along the rest of the coastline in
Mississippi and Alabama.
So I think this is an important first step. As I said, I hope that S.
3711 is part of a larger and smarter U.S. energy policy. I hope next
year we will come back and revisit some of these very good ideas the
Senators have talked about this week and in the previous months when we
have been looking at this lease area 181 bill, because there are a lot
of good ideas out there. I know Senator Warner and I have one that
would open the entire OCS, and it is something we would love to have
included here, but we understand we may have to wait until another
time. But there are a lot of good ideas out there, and I think it is
time for us to think long term and think about energy policy that makes
sense for everybody.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3711, the
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act.
S. 3711 takes a much needed and long overdue step forward in our
Nation's energy policy. For too long we have looked to others to supply
our growing demand for energy. Too many of our energy resources are
imported from unfriendly and unstable places in the world like Nigeria
and Venezuela. We can no longer afford to rely upon the Hugo Chavezes
of the world to fill up our gas tanks, heat our homes, or provide
fertilizer to grow our crops.
Today we have the opportunity to look in our own back yard for the
resources necessary to sustain our economy's growth.
S. 3711 opens roughly 8.3 million acres to oil and gas exploration.
An area with roughly 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26
billion barrels of oil. One sector of our economy in desperate need of
increased oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico is agriculture.
Mr. President, farm country is struggling to find our next generation
of farmers. Agriculture's future depends on motivating young people to
enter into a business with increasing input costs and stagnant product
prices. Without a revitalized wave of young producers, our Nation's
food suppliers will continue to face an uphill battle. Alleviating high
natural gas prices is one way to help current producers and entice
young farmers to return to the fields.
Agriculture depends on significant amounts of natural gas for
irrigation, food processing, crop drying, heating homes and farm
buildings, and producing fertilizers which are necessary for plant
growth.
For agriculture, natural gas is not just an energy source, but it is
also a feedstock in the production of nitrogen fertilizer. Natural gas
accounts for roughly 90 percent of the cost to produce one ton of
nitrogen fertilizer.
In 2005, natural gas prices rose to $15.00 per million BTU's. In the
past 6 years, the U.S. has gone from spending $50 billion per year on
natural gas to $200 billion per year. These high prices have hit the
nitrogen fertilizer industry hard. Since 1999, 17 ammonia plants
permanently closed due to the high cost of natural gas. The result is a
fertilizer industry that recently received 85 percent of its feedstock
from domestic sources to one that now relies on foreign imports to
supply 50 percent of their natural gas needs.
Much attention in Congress has turned to alternative sources of
energy to meet our demand. Ethanol used to be a word spoken only in
farm country. Now ethanol is part of the daily jargon on the streets of
New York and Los Angeles.
What some folks may not understand about ethanol produced primarily
from corn is that farmers in many parts of the country use nitrogen
fertilizer and irrigation systems to grow corn--two inputs heavily
influenced by the price of natural gas.
You see, Mr. President, if we do not increase the amount of
domestically produced natural gas, our renewable fuels industry will
grow more and more dependant on imports from volatile parts of the
world.
Now is the time to change our attitude about our energy supply.
Domestic, environmentally safe production can and should take place on
American soil and off our shores. S. 3711 moves our Nation's energy
policy in the right direction. One that leads to greater energy
independence and price stability. I encourage my colleagues to support
our agricultural industry and vote for S. 3711.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the energy
production bill that is on the floor. Is that appropriate at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am a resident of Mobile, AL, on the
gulf coast. We drive down to the beaches periodically. What I would
like to convey to my colleagues is that Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana have always allowed production of oil and gas offshore. We
even allow production very close inshore. The beautiful Mobile Bay, a
fragile estuary, has a number of very large oil rigs in those estuaries
that have produced very large amounts of oil and gas. We have never had
a problem of any serious nature of an environmental negative impact.
As we begin to discuss this subject, we need to ask ourselves, what
is the opposition to drilling in an expanded area of the deep Gulf of
Mexico, 125 miles or so south of Alabama and Florida, and 200 miles
west of Florida's western beaches of Tampa? What is the opposition to
it? I ask that question.
Is it a sincere environmental objection or is it just a persistent
opposition to the utilization of oil and gas that many people have in
America today? Is it some sort of hostility to oil companies? Is that
what is making people have a hesitation?
I would like to discuss those areas a little bit.
Let's talk about the environment. We have at this time 4,000
producing wells in the Gulf of Mexico--4,000. We have had one of the
most devastating hurricanes ever to hit in Katrina last year. We had
several other hurricanes that had very high winds--not quite as big,
but their winds at times were nearly as

[[Page S8361]]

strong as Hurricane Katrina's--that came through the gulf.
Official reports have indicated that 3,000 of those 4,000 wells that
are existing now in the Gulf of Mexico were in the direct path of one
of those hurricanes last year, and we had not a single spill of any
sizable amount. Several of the platforms, large as they are, were
damaged. But they have, in ways that I am not able to fully explain,
shut-in valves down under the water, at the ground, and it shuts off
the oil from the well, and no matter what happens to the rig there is
no spill of oil.
In fact, only about 2 percent of the oil in our waters around the
U.S. come from oil production, or maybe less. But 63 percent comes from
natural seepage. Most of it comes from runoff from storm sewers and
things on the land. All that is really very small. It is not a huge
impact in any way.
I would just say to my colleagues, when you go fishing in the Gulf of
Mexico, as I like to do when I can, which isn't often, you tend to fish
around these rigs. Just over Memorial Day weekend I was out with my
brother-in-law and nephew. We went fishing around the oil rigs and had
a little luck. That is where people fish. It provides a structure that
allows growth of foods, sources that feed smaller fish, and larger fish
feed around them, and that is where people fish. Nobody worries about
that or expects any kind of problem with it. They have been there for
decades now.
So the environmental question is not a real one, in my view. It has,
to a degree, been settled more than we can imagine.
But I would say this: The same people who may be worried about
drilling in the gulf don't seem to be very worried about drilling in
the lake at Venezuela, or the Persian Gulf, or the Caspian Sea. These
are smaller bodies of water, self-contained, in which a spill would be
even more dangerous. That is where we are getting much of our oil and
gas today, from those areas of the globe. Many of those areas that we
produce oil and gas are far more subject to being damaged, perhaps,
than if we had a spill in the vast Gulf of Mexico.
Then there is this argument: We don't like the oil companies. You are
trying to help the big oil companies.
I want to dispute that and dispute that unequivocally. My goal is to
serve my constituents. How do I serve my constituents? I help them
receive the necessary, critical oil and gas that they need to carry on
with their lives at as low a price as possible.
I don't think it healthy or justifiable to say to my constituents in
Alabama: We are not going to let you produce oil and gas off the coast
of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Florida.
We are not going to let you get any gas and oil from there. We are
going to require you to buy it from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. We are
going to require you to buy it on the markets of the world where it may
have come from Iran, and certainly Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or other
countries. Some of those haven't been friendly to us. They charge
whatever they can charge. A couple of years ago, it was $35 a barrel
and now it is $70-plus a barrel.
What kind of sense is that? If some big oil company has a long-term
contract with one of those foreign countries to buy oil at $35 a barrel
that was signed 2 years ago, why would they want production in the
gulf? In fact, they may not.
I don't see the oil companies demanding increased drilling in the
gulf. This is coming from people who can add dollars and cents, people
such as this Senator who travels the State, talks to our constituents,
listens to what their concerns are, goes to church, and goes out on the
street shopping, and people come up to you and they talk about the high
cost of gasoline. That is what they are talking to me about. I look
them in the eye, and I say I am going to do what I can to make these
prices lower.
We tried putting in a law that sets prices, and that was a total
failure. You can't fix prices by statute. It is a marketplace out
there. And what do you do to make the marketplace work on your side?
You increase production. Frankly, it doesn't require a huge increase in
production to make a big price adjustment.
If the world demand is here but the supply is a little more than
demand, surpluses build up, and all of a sudden the prices start
falling. People have oil in their tanks. They cannot sell. So they cut
their price to sell more. Somebody else has to cut the price, and it
drops down. If you have a world supply here and demand is a little
above the supply, and the world is out here and can't meet it, people
have shortages, and they have to bid the price up to get more. Then you
have a problem. Even small amounts can make a big difference in prices.
That is all I am trying to say to my colleagues.
I emphasize again that the reason to produce within the Gulf of
Mexico, as I believe ANWR and several other areas of this country, is
because that money stays at home. It doesn't go to Hugo Chavez or
others. It helps generate our economy. It creates jobs in our economy.
People who make money pay taxes to our Government, not to some foreign
government. The pipes and that kind of thing work. And the
transportation costs are less because it is much closer.
These are factors which are relevant to any policymaker in our
Nation.
We have artificially denied our Nation the right to produce this oil
and gas that is right off our shore for far too long. It is time for
that to end and to go forward with this production which will help our
economy, help create jobs, help contain and actually reduce whatever
the price of oil and gas may be in the future. It will be less cost to
produce in the gulf than it would be otherwise. I have no doubt.
I see the distinguished majority leader. I will be pleased to yield
to him, and at this point I thank him for his understanding of this
critical issue. He has been steadfast and clear about it ever since I
have been in the Senate, 10 years. And now we are at a point where we
might get something done this time.
I thank him for his leadership, and I am pleased that both Senators
from Florida are supporting the bill, so we have some cause for
optimism.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, while my distinguished colleague from
Alabama is on the floor, I thank him for his leadership on this
particular issue because it gives us that opportunity to act with
meaningful solutions to problems everyone is feeling. So many things
that we do here are issues that seem so macro, so big. I am sure when
people are watching C-SPAN or television or they even read about what
we do, they wonder, are those people up in Washington doing anything to
address the issues that affect me, the squeeze that I feel, the cost of
living that we know has to be addressed?
Then you say, What are those things? Where is that squeeze coming
from, despite the record low unemployment rate of 4.6 or 4.7 percent
and the creation of 5 million jobs?
It comes back again and again--those energy costs, filling up that
gasoline tank, getting ready to go on vacation, or altering your
vacation, or paying that heating bill, or this time of year that air
conditioning bill. And it comes back to energy.
Now we are acting and we are acting in a way that in the past has
been stopped--and that is by looking right here at home at the good old
American homegrown supply.
Everybody knows that ultimately in the market-based system there is
supply and demand. Now we are addressing supply directly, as my
colleague mentioned, in a way that is very protective of our
environment, of our coastlines, that is environmentally sensitive but
in a way that we know will open as much as a million or more barrels.
I thank my colleague for his leadership and also for his explanation
so people fully understand the impact of that legislation which is now
on the floor.
There is a lot going on. I want to make a couple of comments because
there are some things going on right now. The House of Representatives
will probably be out tomorrow. We will be in session tomorrow. We are
working on a whole range of issues in conference and in our discussions
as we look ahead for the next week that we will be here, and then the 4
weeks in September when we come back. I am very hopeful that the House
will pass the pensions conference report and sometime here in the next
24 hours. I know our colleagues from the Senate

[[Page S8362]]

who are on the conference are working very hard to get the House
Members to move ahead on the issue that we know is very important to
the American people. Individual retirement security. Again, it goes
back to this cost of living and the squeeze that people feel. That is
what this pensions bill is all about.
Other issues that are being addressed are so-called tax extenders
because we have to act now every year. We would like to make these tax
cuts permanent, but we have to act every year and extend them for 1
year or 2 years.
What is also interesting in terms of message is the great impact that
tax cuts put forward by this body under the leadership of President
Bush have had--a huge impact on individuals and families.
One of interesting things that I find when you say we are going to
make the tax cuts permanent and extend them for 3 or 4 years, people do
not understand fully what that means and how it affects them as
individuals. But 3\1/2\ years from now for a family of four making a
median income of $62,000 or $63,000, what percentage of this Federal
tax will go up if we don't act to make these tax cuts permanent?
Usually, when I ask a crowd of people if the Bush tax cuts are not made
permanent, if the Senate doesn't act for whatever reason, or it is
obstructed from acting, they say, Maybe my taxes will go up 10 percent
or 20 percent, or 30 percent. Not many people say 30 percent. But the
fact is, if we don't act in this Senate to make those tax cuts
permanent, for a family of four, their Federal taxes will go up, 3\1/2\
years from now, 58 percent. And now people say: I see the importance of
what you are doing in Washington, DC, why you are following President
Bush in terms of his tremendous leadership in cutting taxes, keeping
taxes low, and working hard to make those tax cuts permanent. Then it
comes together.

We are looking at a tax extender package, and we are also looking at
what my colleagues feel strongly about--a permanent solution to the
death tax.
First of all, the death tax does not make sense. It is not fair. It
discourages savings and discourages thrift. Therefore, we need to have
a permanent solution. I say bury it forever, but the will of the Senate
is not to bury it forever and eliminate it totally. Therefore, we are
working with what is a very reasonable compromise position. So there is
a lot of discussion on that underway.
What we have is crazy. We have a death tax. It used to be high and is
coming down. In 2010 it disappears, and in 2011 it goes back up to 55
percent. Talk about things that do not make sense, that does not make
sense. We need to fix that. I hope we can do that in the next 6 to 8
weeks.
One last thing I comment on because there has been huge progress
today in the House of Representatives which allows us to move forward
on an issue that will affect just about everyone listening to me now,
an issue we have acted on with meaningful solutions to a real problem,
is health information technology. The House today passed a health
information technology bill. We have passed one in the past. Now we can
marry those two in conference. And we will save lives.
Medicines cure, but medicines can also kill. Last week, the National
Academy Institute of Medicine, which we all respect, we all look to,
which looks at things very objectively--the committees they put
together are experienced, have broad expertise, and take current issues
that are challenging and address them in an environment that is very
constructive. They released the most extensive report ever done on drug
or medication, medicine errors, mistakes that are made, whether they
are inadvertent or mistakes just made. The report is fascinating.
Why do I say it affects everyone? Right now, four out of five
American adults today--so in all likelihood, everyone listening to me--
take one medicine, at least one medicine over the counter or a
prescription. One out of three adults listening to me now take five
medicines. That is amazing. Being a physician, it wasn't true 10 years
ago, it wasn't true 20 years ago. When my dad began to practice
medicine 70 years ago, no one would believe the power we have in
medicines today--the power to cure but, if misused or mishandled, the
power to kill.
This report just came out last week, and it is fascinating. The
report addresses lots of things. I will come back and cite some of
them. I will look at findings. How these medicines are administered, if
not done correctly, with real care, can result in serious injury, hurt
the patient, can cause death--all related to how they are administered,
the dosage they are administered in.
Before coming to the Senate, I spent 18 years in hospitals, always 5
days a week and 95 percent of the time 6 days a week, working in
hospitals, taking care of people. There you see it all. You see doctors
inadvertently writing prescriptions for drugs that interact and are not
compatible with certain drugs. Maybe they didn't know the patient was
on that particular drug or they just didn't know there would be an
interaction of the two drugs, and it hurts the patients. Nurses or
health care providers mistakenly put the wrong medication in the IV
bag, the intravenous bag that runs into your hand, or administer the
wrong blood type. A pharmacist might dispense a 100-milligram pill
instead of a 50-milligram pill. These errors are wasteful, obviously,
but can also be harmful and can be deadly.
The Institutes of Medicine found that at least 1.5 million Americans
are sickened, injured, or killed each year by errors in either
processing, dispensing, or taking medications. These errors are
widespread. The IOM report found on average a hospital patient is
subjected to one medication error every day they are in the hospital.
That is pretty amazing. A hospital patient is subjected to one
medication error each day he or she occupies a hospital bed.
That is costly. Not only does it occur, and it occurs frequently, it
costs a lot. The IOM report estimates the extra expense of treating
drug-related injuries in hospitals alone is $3.5 billion a year.
The report--again, it just came out last week--is the most
comprehensive report today. It sends a very clear signal; that is, we
need to act.
The good news is that we have acted with a first step in this Senate,
and as I mentioned earlier the House acted today, which means together
we can produce a bill, and have the President sign it, which will make
a difference.
The IOM report offered several recommendations to prevent these
errors. In many ways, the recommendations they put forward reinforce my
vision or a vision I believe is very important as to where we need to
be in health care in the future. We have to start today in that
direction. That is what the recommendations do.

That vision is really pretty simple. It is a vision of a health care
system that is not centered on HMOs, bureaucrats, Washington, or
hospitals or clinics. It is centered on the patient. The patient is in
the middle of the system.
In this system also is the importance of having the driving force of
the consumer. You have the patient, and it is driven by decisions being
made by consumers all over the country.
The third component is that it needs to be provider friendly. You
need physicians participating, nurse practitioners participating,
nurses and other health care providers, technicians, the people who
draw the blood, and the lab technicians all participating in a way that
there is a comfortable exchange of both information services as well as
trust. So it is a patient-centered, consumer-driven, provider-friendly
system.
Now, the engine to that system has got to be value, has got to be
outcome, has got to be results. When I say ``value,'' I really mean
almost in simple terms of the product, the outcome, in terms of value,
divided by how many dollars you put in. So you want as much health
produced per dollar injected into the system. That has to be the engine
of this system, and it has to be fueled by three things.
That is where the exciting part comes in. That is where this health
information technology plays such an important role. It has to be
driven by information, 21st-century information that simply was not
around the last century. It really was not around when I was doing
heart transplants every week 10 years ago, 12 years ago. You just
didn't have that sort of information generated. It was the knowledge
revolution, the explosion of information, computers, the Internet. That
knowledge is out there today.

[[Page S8363]]

The second fuel has to be choice. You have to have people out there
making prudent decisions for themselves each and every day. Obviously,
that is very consistent with my principles as a Republican in terms of
maximizing choice. The 21st-century information, with empowerment of
the consumer by choice, and third, some element of control.
The control really comes in if people have to have resources to make
those decisions or, if not, need to be assisted. You have to have a
strong safety net for a patient-centered, consumer-driven, provider-
friendly system based on values, driven by information and choice and
technology. You have to have a seamless flow of information which is
privacy-protected and which is secure.
No single piece of legislation incorporates all of that, and no
single piece of legislation incorporates all the IOM recommendations.
But there are things we can do to move in the direction toward that
vision.
I have sponsored bills in this Senate and urged industry-wide changes
that made considerable progress that caused us to move toward achieving
that.
Last summer, on this floor, I publicly called on the pharmaceutical
companies to implement a voluntary 2-year restriction on direct-to-
consumer advertising for newly released drugs. What is direct-to-
consumer advertising? It is what you see on television each night or
over the course of today in terms of the drug ads, in magazines. It is
the full-blown pictures you see every day--newspaper ads--where the
advertising is directly to the consumer, to the individual, to the
patient.
What I called upon the pharmaceutical companies to do is to review
their procedures and on a voluntary basis give a 2-year restriction on
direct-to-consumer advertising for lots of reasons. I will come back do
that.
I also publicly asked the GAO, the Government Accountability Office,
to analyze the Food and Drug Administration oversight of such
advertising. Are we doing enough to make sure that information which
comes out to the consumer is filtered appropriately, to make sure it is
accurate, that it is honest, that it shows the pluses but also shows
the dangers and the weaknesses as well?
Spending on direct-to-consumer advertising and prescription drugs was
steady over the years. In recent years, it has skyrocketed. Why?
Because you put advertisements out there and people buy the drugs. The
problem is, and the reason I brought it up in the Senate and made this
public call, this advertising can lead to inappropriate use of
drugs using too many of these drugs, using them for the wrong
indications, overuse and underuse of the drugs. It could be an
underselling of the risks that are actually in a drug. You see all the
good things and the beautiful pictures and people running through
fields, but at the same time you really do not see the dangers, the
side effects that could be harmful, that could compromise your safety,
the patient's safety and care.

The good news, based on that call, at least in part, is the
pharmaceutical industry responded and I would say responded fairly
aggressively. They soon after issued a set of guidelines for
prescription drug advertising on newly released drugs. They got
together and talked about the importance of their responsibility in
this direct-to-consumer advertising, the fact that it is not just to
improve their bottom line but it is health care, it is patient-
centered, that you have to have the strengths but you have to give
weaknesses of these drugs when you put them forward. So I applaud them.
And that response is making a difference. That is one example. That is
sort of a first step in guaranteeing patient safety and care.
I mentioned the GAO report. It has not come back yet. I look forward
to receiving their findings, their results on the FDA's oversight, to
come soon.
Other progress: Last summer, we passed the Patient Safety and Quality
Improvement Act. It became law July 29, exactly a year ago, 2005. It
also contributed to this patient-centered system which is consumer
driven. It helps improve the quality and gets rid of the waste. When I
say value, that is results, as I said, per dollar of input. You want to
maximize that. So you want to get rid of the waste. You want to get rid
of the abuse. You want to get rid of inefficiency. And we did a lot in
that regard.
What this Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act did was to help
both improve quality and weed out waste by minimizing the fear of
litigation. Now, why does that matter? It really comes down to--and I
oversimplified it a little bit, but if you are a physician or you are a
nurse and you are in a hospital and you make a mistake, and you feel
bad about it, you should be able to share that information with other
people so they can learn from your mistakes.
Quality improvement: We see it in airlines. We see it in general
aviation. But we do not see it in health care--or we didn't before
passing this particular bill. What we have been able to do in that
particular bill is basically ease--without fear of a lawsuit coming
after you. The reason it is not shared is because you know some greedy,
predatory trial lawyer is out there and saying: Oh, there is a mistake.
Let's go after them. What it does is put a barrier up there so no
longer does that individual practitioner, doctor, or nurse have to have
the fear of sharing information of an inadvertent mistake so others can
learn.
The IOM report's most striking finding was that many providers do
fail to report these medication errors that ultimately don't result in
an injury. They fear these lawsuits. But without reporting this
information, clearly, we cannot learn from our mistakes. That is what
the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act addressed.
That brings me, finally, to information technology. The Senate passed
a health information technology bill. It was bipartisan. I thank
Senators Kennedy and Enzi and Clinton, all of whom worked with me and
all of our colleagues in producing this bill--a bill called the Wired
for Health Care Quality Act. What it does is it promotes the use of
electronic medical records. It jump-starts America's transition to this
21st century system based on choice and based on value and based on
outcomes by having a seamless network that is fully interoperable in
terms of the transmission of health information, so doctor can
communicate with hospital, can communicate with pharmacy, can
communicate with patient in a seamless way, where records can be stored
electronically. They can be transmitted electronically. If you are in
Nashville, TN, and you live in Princeton, NJ, and you have an
automobile accident as you are on I-41 through Nashville and you are
taken to Vanderbilt Hospital, they can push a button, and in a secure,
privacy-protected way, your record instantaneously shows up at the
Vanderbilt emergency room and they can see what allergies you have,
what medicines you have, whether you had previous heart disease,
whether you can tolerate anesthesia--instantaneously; otherwise, they
would have to repeat all those tests. They might not even be able to
get that information.
That is the power. What it does is it builds a platform for the
interoperable transfer of information--interoperability standards--that
has the ability to transform the practice of medicine. That is how big
these bills potentially are.
Doctors write about 2 billion prescriptions each year. We still write
them, for the most part, by hand. And that spelling, what you look at,
unfortunately, is misinterpreted. And as the IOM report documents, a
lot of errors are still being made in that transmission of reading what
a doctor had written at the pharmacy or at wherever the hospital might
be distributing those drugs and then delivering it to the nurse and
having the nurse give it to the patient. You get rid of all that--not
all of it but most of it--by having that seamless flow of electronic
information.

I think back to transplantation. I would have a patient. I would
transplant the heart in Nashville and take care of them and have them
on a drug called cyclosporine. And they would go back home, maybe 2 or
3 hours away, where another doctor would take care of them. If they got
a cold, the local family doctor might put them on erythromycin, not
knowing--because transplants were so new at the time--that if you put
somebody on cyclosporine on erythromycin, their liver would fail. But
it happened. They

[[Page S8364]]

may not know that cyclosporine was there. Well, with the electronic
transfer of information, that physician would know that patient is on
cyclosporine, and it would be instantaneous and immediate. If he wanted
to put a patient on erythromycin and tried to prescribe it, a red flag
would come up and say: No, you can't do that because the patient is on
cyclosporine.
All this makes so much sense. Medical records today are stuck in the
stone age. But every other sector of our economy has information
presented in what is the information age. It is now time to bring
medicine--it is amazing that medicine is still stuck in the stone age--
into this information age.
I will close on all this, but, as you can see, I am very excited
about it. This particular bill which we passed and which will be
married with the House bill helps fix all of that. It is going to go a
long way to addressing the concerns that were in this IOM report last
week.
Electronic medical records will improve health care. They will
promote the secure exchange of privacy-protected information, and they
will seamlessly integrate quality standards with information
technology, all of which means to say better care, lower costs, greater
accessibility, the elimination of waste, elimination of inefficiency as
well as the medical errors themselves.
So the House has moved. We have moved. Now it is time to get to
conference as soon as we possibly can. And if we do that, we will move
our system toward that vision of the patient-centered system which is
driven by consumers and 21st century information. It will save lives.

____________________