American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016 -- Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues who have already spoken on this issue, but maybe to give a little bit more of a historical context.

I know my colleagues from a variety of States throughout the United States have presented a different viewpoint and have a viewpoint because of their own economic interests in their State, but the larger question here is what is in the economic interests of the United States? All of the land submerged between the territory and seas beyond our shores and the oil and gas resources they contain belong to the Nation as a whole and to the people of the United States. More than 60 years ago, a few of these coastal States tried to claim the submerged lands and their resources, but the Supreme Court rejected that, rejected the coastal States' claims, and held that submerged lands and their resources did belong to the Nation--the whole Nation. Their response was: ``National interests, national responsibilities, national concerns are involved.''

In spite of the Supreme Court's decision, Congress voted to give away the submerged lands beneath our territories and seas to the adjacent States in 1953. That Submerged Lands Act was dubbed the ``Oil Give-Away Law'' by its opponents. The law gave the coastal States the submerged lands to a distance of 3 nautical miles from the coast land.

For these historical reasons, Florida, Texas, and others were included. But in the ``Oil Give-Away Law,'' they also gave coastal States the right to develop oil and natural gas resources beneath the submerged lands and retain all of the royalties for themselves; thus, this big discussion about whether we are going to give Federal resources away to these States and put a hole in our Federal deficit to the tune of $7 billion. In giving away to the coastal States the first 3 nautical miles of the Continental Shelf, Congress made it clear at that time that it was retaining for the Nation as a whole the Outer Continental Shelf, the rest of the Continental Shelf. So the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, enacted just 3 months after the lease giveaway, gave the Federal Government exclusive ownership and control over the minerals and wealth of the Outer Continental Shelf.

We are here because States not satisfied with the generous gifts-- Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas--persuaded Congress to give them even more revenue in 2006--37.5 percent of the Federal Government royalties. Again, some of my colleagues may have supported this--but also added to our Federal deficit and blew a big hole into what were Federal revenues at that time.

Senator Cassidy's bill would compound this huge loss to the Federal Treasury. It begins by raising the $500 million annual cap on the payment of Federal royalties to the Gulf States from $500 million to $835 million from 2027 through 2036 and then, in addition, $705 million from 2037 to 2055.

But this bill doesn't stop just there, it extends the payment of royalties to five more coastal States--Alaska, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia--and gives 37.5 percent of the Federal revenues from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf to the coast of Alaska, and it gives 37.5 percent of Federal revenue from the Outer Continental Shelf to the Atlantic coast: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

I get that my colleagues would like this money grab out of the Federal Treasury. I am sure many of our colleagues would write Federal legislation that would also give their States revenue. But all of these amounts, in addition to the State royalties by the coastal States for oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, are in contrast, I believe, to our national interest.

This may be a great deal for the nine States and the Senators who represent them, but it is a terrible deal for the Nation as a whole and the other 41 States that will not have the revenue. What will they do about the raid to the Federal budget of over $7 billion that will be absent from the Federal Treasury? Are my colleagues going to raise taxes on the other side to supplant that revenue, that $7 billion loss? Again, those revenues belong to the Nation as a whole, to our citizens, not just the nine coastal States.

President Truman said when he voted on an earlier version of the oil giveaway bill:

The vast quantities of oil and gas in the submerged ocean lands belong to the people of all States. They represent a priceless national heritage. This national wealth, like other lands owned by the United States, is held in trust for every citizen of the United States. It should be used for the welfare and security of the Nation as a whole.

I ask my colleagues, please do not blow a $7 billion hole in the Federal Treasury and give it to a few States, when these lands and resources belong to all of us. If we want to help our coastal States in some other economic way or some way, let's discuss that, but blowing a hole of $7 billion in the Federal budget and then trying to make it up later on the backs of the rest of our constituents is an unfair deal for the American taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this proposition.
I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source