Energy Policy Act of 2003

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida and commend him on his leadership on this issue. The amendment that is before us tonight will prevent exploration in offshore areas that are currently protected under law. The truth is, we should not need a special amendment to protect sensitive offshore areas that are currently off limits to energy drilling and exploration, but today we find this amendment is needed because the underlying Energy Bill would essentially roll back a longstanding ban on exploration that protects our coastal areas.

This Energy Bill calls for the Department of Interior to inventory oil and gas resources. It does not rule out exploration or drilling in any part of the Outer Continental Shelf and it does not prevent exploration or drilling in areas that are currently protected.

Some may say they just want to allow an inventory of oil and gas off our coasts, but taking an inventory of what lies beneath the sea floor is not like taking an inventory of what is in the kitchen pantry. Looking for oil and gas off our coasts is an invasive process. It carries risks. It harms marine life and it can create serious environmental damage.

If it was just taking an inventory, it would be one set of environmental concerns, but I think we all know what is really going on and it is much more than inventory. This is not just about seeing what is out there. It is really about preparing to drill for oil and gas in areas that have been protected for years, for decades actually, by law.

Let's be clear. Oil companies are not going to spend millions of dollars to inventory our coasts just for the fun of it. They want to begin drilling in areas that are protected, and this Energy Bill would give them the start they want.

I am reminded of that analogy about how if a camel gets its nose under the tent, pretty soon the whole camel will follow. Well, if we do not want the camel in our tent, stop it when it tries to poke its nose in.

Once those oil companies get their equipment down there, they will be steps away from setting up oil rigs and creating a host of dangers on our shores. If we do not want oil companies drilling off our shores, then we cannot let them get started with these so-called inventory projects.

There are good reasons why over the years Congress and past Presidents have agreed to protect parts of our Outer Continental Shelf. In fact, that moratorium that today protects the coast of my State of Washington was passed by Congress in 1990 and protected by an executive order by the first President Bush. Today, the current Bush administration wants to repeal that protection and pave the way for drilling off our coasts.

Those who want to explore for energy off our coasts would like us to believe it is harmless, but it is not. When we consider offshore oil and gas development, we have to be concerned about oil spills and the release of other toxic materials. There are other environmental effects that pose dangers to marine mammal populations, fish populations, and air quality. Seismic testing techniques used by the offshore oil and gas industry can kill marine animals. This is not harmless.

If this administration had a better record on the environment, I might be inclined to give them more leeway, but this administration has shown an eagerness to roll back environmental protections on so many issues that they do not have much credibility when they say they want to just look for oil off our coasts.

Last month, the Bush administration took another disturbing step to undermine our environmental protection related to oil and gas drilling. In fact, on May 26, 2003, the New York Times reported that the administration proposed to defer for 2 years requirements for permits under the Clean Water Act for certain activities of oil and gas producers to prevent contaminated runoff. This is a bad precedent and a step in the wrong direction for protecting our environment. There is no good reason for oil and gas developers to be exempt from requirements that are imposed on other developers to prevent contaminated runoff.

So not only do they want to let the big oil and gas companies start looking for oil in areas that have been protected for decades, this Bush administration is going to free those oil and gas companies from the rules everyone else has to follow to protect contaminated runoff. Not on my watch. We know there is a better way. Congress should be seeking long-term solutions that make sense for energy development and that balance environmental protection and economic growth. The proposal to drill in areas of the OCS that are currently under moratoria falls far short of the balanced approach we need. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to stop an attack on decades of protection for our sensitive coastal areas.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to support the Graham amendment. I am a cosponsor. BOB GRAHAM and I have been battling on the question of oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida, and it is very clear to us, as we have waged this battle over the course of the last 25 years in public office, that the people of Florida do not want it for environmental reasons but also for business reasons; that Florida's $50 billion tourism industry in large part is because we have beautiful, unspoiled beaches.

I know what the people in my State of Florida want. They do not want oil drilling off their shore. I ask the Senator from Washington what is the thinking of her people in her State of Washington?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Florida, I have listened to his battles for many years as he has fought to protect the beautiful shores of Florida. I have seen the shores of Florida, and they are gorgeous. He is right, tourism is a critical part of the economy of his State of Florida, as it is to mine. People come to Washington State to see our beautiful mountains, our beautiful forests, and to fish. The last thing they want to see is oil drilling off our coasts.

This underlying bill that allows an inventory is simply a step for the oil companies to then get in and drill. My State would be absolutely appalled to see that happen.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. What do you think about the rest of the Pacific coast States, Oregon and California? What would the people think?

Mrs. MURRAY. As the Senator from Florida knows well, for all who live on coastal States, our economies are struggling today; the high-tech industry is struggling; Boeing has lost thousands of jobs.

There is still the beautiful environment that people come to visit. The last thing anyone wants in our rain forests, whether in Oregon or Washington, or the beaches of California, the last thing they want to see is an oil rig or, worse, an oilspill in the areas we care so much about.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I talked at length with the senior Senator from North Carolina earlier today. Senator Edwards is quite concerned about the oil drilling off of the Outer Banks.

The people directly affected are crying out. There are States that do not mind drilling off the coast—the State of Louisiana, the State of Texas. There are about 2,000 wells in the Gulf of Mexico and they are primarily off of Texas and Louisiana, some off of Alabama, some off of Mississippi, all of those States whose Senators do not seem to mind because it must reflect their people's feeling that there be oil drilling. In the Gulf of Mexico, the geology shows that is where the oil and gas is, in the western gulf, in the central gulf, but not in the eastern gulf.

The people of Florida simply do not think it is worth the tradeoff of spoiling the environment and spoiling a $50 billion tourism industry to take the risk where the geology shows there is very little likelihood of oil, to take the risk that a well will be hit, that an oilspill will occur.

There is another reason. We have tremendous military facilities in the State of Washington. What we are finding is with so many of the military facilities on the gulf coast now that the naval facility on Vieques Island in Puerto Rico is being closed down, some of that training for the U.S. Navy is being shifted to the gulf coast of Florida, not necessarily on the land.

Because of computers and virtual training, they can now image what would be the target zone, and it can be out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. That helps in preparation of our Navy for its proper training, but will that Navy be able to train if there are oil rigs in the eastern Gulf of Mexico? The answer is no.

I ask the Senator from Washington, is there any similar military activity in the Senator's State? I certainly know there is in California where they are launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Is there such a facility?

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Florida makes an excellent point. Our military needs to be ready for whatever conflicts come to them on the war on terror. They need to be out there training. Certainly at Makah Air Force Base and the other bases we have, they need to know they have a place they can train and not be interfered with.

I add, as the Senator from Florida knows, there are other economies that we count on as well. Fishing is a tremendous economy and part of our economy base in the State of Washington. They would not be excited about having oil rigs out there where people are fishing, as well as tourism, but certainly the military is an important part of my State. We want to make sure they have the space they need for training. The Senator makes an excellent point.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I have to tell a little story to the Senator from Washington before she leaves. In the middle of the 1980s I was the junior Congressman from the east coast of the State of Florida. There was a Secretary of the Interior named James Watt who was absolutely intent on drilling. They offered for lease off the east coast of the United States leases for sale all the way from North Carolina south to Fort Pierce, FL.

Perhaps I was green enough—I didn't know any better—to take him on. I took him on, as a junior Congressman. I was getting absolutely nowhere. We beat it back one year. They left it alone the next year and came back with a new Secretary of the Interior the third year and they were intent they were going to ram through those leases. The only way I was able to beat it was I finally got the Department of Defense and NASA to own up to the fact and to press that on the administration back in the mid-1980s that you cannot be dropping the solid rocket boosters off of the space shuttle with oil rigs down there and you cannot be dropping off the first stage, after it is spent, on the expendable launch vehicles coming out of Cape Canaveral with oil rigs out there. That is the only way we beat it back in the mid-1980s.

I thought they were going to leave us alone. Two years ago, when an important appointment was up in the Department of the Interior, I went to the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Norton, and she assured me that in the eastern Gulf of Mexico there would be no attempt at oil drilling for the next 5 years. That was a commitment made to me with regard to an appointment and the Senate's consideration. What is in this bill does not break her commitment, but it clearly starts to imply that what is being done is the intention of drilling.

I hope we are going to be able to muster the votes with Senators who do not have coasts, with help from Senators such as the distinguished Senator in the chair, listening to this debate. With their help, we may just have the votes.

When Senator Graham and I tried 2 years ago just with regard to the Gulf of Mexico off the State of Florida to keep the moratorium there, we did not get but 35 votes for our amendment, so the amendment did not pass. It was later that I got that commitment from Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton.

But this is portending something else. We are going to fight. I hope we have the votes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Florida, thank you on behalf of all who care about this issue for your longtime battle and diligence. Every time you are right, they keep coming back at you, but you keep winning.

I agree, there are a number of Senators on this floor who are not from coastal States but they should be joining because certainly they all come to our States to see the beautiful coastlines, whether it is Florida, Washington State, California, or Maine. They want to preserve that, too. They want to take their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, some day, to your State. I certainly hope they want to come to ours, too. If we devastate the environment, the tourism will not be there.

I thank my colleague for working on this issue.