Energy Policy Act of 2003
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003
AMENDMENT NO. 884
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to support the Graham amendment. I thank my colleague from California for speaking so eloquently about how important it is for the entire west coast of the United States. I know Senator Graham is articulating those same concerns in Florida. I am sure we will hear from Members of other parts of the country. I find this debate almost amazingamazing in the sense that Congress has enacted moratoria on drilling since 1982. In every instance since 1982, Congress has responded and said we don't want to explore for natural gas or oil off of our pristine coasts. So we go over this time and time again. Yes. We are going to go over it again today. People have raised these economic arguments. I can tell you what the people in Washington State think.
We have a 7.4-percent unemployment rate. We want jobs. But I guarantee this is not where we think we are going to get jobs. In fact, we want protection from our high energy costs. My ratepayers have had a 50-percent rate increase. Why? Because we were gouged by Enron contracts.
To say to the people of the Northwest that somehow your economy and your future are going be taken care of because we are going to let you drill off the coast of Washington is ludicrous. We want economic relief. We want statutory relief from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do their job. We want them to basically say that the fat boys and these Enron schemes have been illegal and we are going to help you get out of your high energy prices.
The fact that we are out here talking about this isn't really going to lead to drilling. Then why spend the taxpayers' dollars trying to study something we don't want to do. I don't want to drill off the coast of Washington. I don't want to spend the taxpayers' money assessing that situation. I don't think we ought to spend the taxpayers' money looking in the Great Lakes for oil. I don't know that we want to go and say let us valuate putting a nuclear powerplant in North Dakota because it might be close to the Missouri River and a water source.
There are a lot of issues we can explore. The question is, do we want to follow through on those policies? I believe the answer is absolutely no, as to our pristine coastline. That coastline has already been a key part of our economy on the west coast. We have many fishing industries, shellfishing industries, and tourism dollars that all rely on that pristine coastline.
The Federal Government has entered into treaties with the tribes on shellfish and harvesting rights. Are we going to abrogate those Federal obligations that we have signed onto?
We also, as the Federal Government, implemented the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary which encompasses most of the waters off the Northwest coast. It is a sanctuary for hundreds of species, including marine mammals. These mammals include the majestic orca whale, whose 20 percent population decline over the past decade recently triggered a "depleted" listing under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Now are going to say to the country that we think we should look at putting oil rigs and transportation of oil in an area that we, as a country, have already designated as a pristine national monument?
If you want to know whether the people of my State are watching, they are watching. Guess what. They have a memory. They do remember. They remember thick carpets of oil, hundreds of dead birds and great shards of oil-blackened timber that followed the 1989 oil spill off of Grays Harbor. That disaster stained over 300 miles of coastline. An oil well blowout could be many times worse.
While some argue that simply studying this just gives us information, my response is that we should not spend millions of taxpayer dollars that could be put towards something else. My constituents won't accept drilling rigs off the vibrant coastline of Willapa Bay, Neah Bay, or the mouth of the Columbia River. Rigs are unsightly and the risk of an ecologically disastrous oil spill is just too high.
Instead of looking for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, my State is willing to do a variety of things.
We are still the home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars to clean up the nuclear waste. We are progressing on that in an aggressive fashion.
We have one of the largest wind farms in the West. We are trying to be a leader in new energy technology. We are even willing to look at wave energy technology off the coast of Washington and in other areas where it might be more appropriate.
I am a big advocate of moving forward on natural gas in Alaska to make sure we get a natural gas pipeline to give more natural gas resources to the lower 48 States. That is something which I think is critically important. The Pew Ocean Commission has recently highlighted the fragile nature of our oceans and coastal resources and recommended we look at our oceans in a holistic manner.
I think that report, which came out less than 10 days ago, basically says that we don't have our act together as it relates to our oceans and the health of our oceans.
I find it very frustrating being from a State that has high unemployment and a State that has high energy costs. Those energy costs have been costing us and no one is trying to help give us relief from those contracts.
Public documents say there has been market manipulation. Now somebody thinks they are proposing to us some panacea of studying drilling off the coast of Washington and you are going to have a great economy. It is a bunch of bunk.
What we need to do is what Congress has done since 1982, enact a moratorium on drilling. Stand up and say it is not appropriate. Follow the Bush administration, follow the Clinton administration, and follow the previous Bush administration. I am not sure where this Bush administration is, but basically say we don't want drilling off of our pristine coastline.
I yield the floor.