American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about the American Energy and Conservation Act, which we will be voting on today. I thank once more my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016.

Yesterday, the senior Senator from Florida made some statements, and I would like to address some of those.
The senior Senator from Florida suggested that developing America's energy resources off our coast is incompatible or somehow conflicts with Department of Defense activities.

Let's be honest. Let's just be honest. There have been oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico for almost 80 years. Through all of this activity, industry and the United States military have been able to coexist. As for future production off the Atlantic, I personally sat with representatives from the Department of Defense to discuss this issue. Their analysis showed that in President Obama's original Atlantic Draft Proposed Program, less than 2 percent of the acreage was recommended to not have oil and gas development because of operation conflicts.

Now, here sometimes it is ``he said, she said'' or ``she said, he said.'' This is objective. This is the DOD Mission Compatibility Planning Assessment regarding the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program from October 30, 2015. That is where that 2 percent number comes from. The American people deserve honesty. We should not mislead them. The senior Senator from Florida can vote as he wishes, but, again, Department of Defense operations are not an excuse.

Secondly, the senior Senator from Florida suggested that he is looking forward to working with the new administration. Although he did not support President Trump, he is looking forward to working with the new administration on behalf of the American people. Again, let's be honest. If there is one thing that came out of this last election, it is that Americans want better jobs with better benefits. The last 8 years have been hard on working families.

That is why they are desperate for these better paying jobs. It is fitting in that regard that we are voting on the American Energy and Conservation Act. This has been studied and is said to incentivize the creation of 280,000 new jobs by 2035. This legislation is expected to trigger $194 billion in new capital investment in our economy, creating $51 billion in cumulative government revenue for our Federal Government and for States.

Now, let's be honest. If you are going to work with the new President, let's work on programs that will create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs for Americans who need those jobs, as well as revenue to address debt, deficit, and other issues in our State and Federal Government.

Now, let's also be honest. If America does not develop our natural resources, the vacuum will be filled with the likes of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and Cuba--Cuba, which would like to drill off their coastline.

Now, the choice is either to create good-paying jobs in the United States--off States like Virginia and North Carolina--or to forfeit these jobs abroad.

By the way, the senior Senator from Florida gave the reason why Senators from mid-Atlantic States should vote for this. He spoke specifically about the billions of dollars in revenue that would come to States. He complains about it. If I were from Virginia and North Carolina or a Middle Atlantic State, I would say: My gosh, I get hundreds of thousands of new high-paying jobs and billions of dollars to address our States' needs? I would be all about this.

Now, there are different ideas about the future of energy in the United States, and this legislation does not discriminate. It includes language introduced by two Democrats and two Republicans--Senators Heller, Heinrich, Risch, and Tester--that streamlines the process for developing renewable energy on public lands and establishes the first- ever revenue-sharing paradigm for renewables.

For those who say we need to do something for carbon-free energy as well, this bill does so. The change would incentivize the production of 27,000 megawatts of carbon-free energy that the Bureau of Land Management estimates could be provided for these projects.

Additionally, we bring offshore wind into the mix, by creating the first-ever revenue sharing for offshore wind, incentivizing the development of 4,233 gigawatts of carbon-free generation that, again, the Bureau of Land Management estimates will be available for development off our coast. Now, some say they don't want to look at development off their coastline. This would be 50 miles out--at least in the case of the oil rigs, 50 miles out. Your sight line stops somewhere around 25 miles, at most. So this would not be seen by anyone who is otherwise enjoying the beach.

This legislation makes investment and conservation projects across the country. We included another bipartisan provision that provides an estimated $807 million for projects that increase access to public lands for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities.

This provision was included in Senator Murkowski's Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015, which 24 Senators have cosponsored. The legislation makes investments in a variety of important programs-- important to Western States--including the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program.

The bill also restores the traditional 50-percent onshore oil and gas State and Federal share for production on public lands, which the Obama administration had reduced since 2010 to pay for spending elsewhere.
Again, all of this is of particular importance to Western States.

The American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016 is supported by over 50 important stakeholder groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Energy Alliance, and the Consumer Energy Alliance.
There is one more thing. It has been suggested by implication by the senior Senator from Florida that we are trying to open up acreage off the coast of Florida--that we are trying to open up acreage in general.

We don't open up any acreage at all offshore in this bill. All this does is say that if a new President--President Trump--decides to have Outer Continental Shelf drilling, there would be a certain model of revenue sharing. But we absolutely do not open up new acreage. Again, that sometimes seems to be implied. We need to be honest with the American people.

All energy-producing States deserve to share the revenue derived from energy developed both onshore and offshore. Responsible revenue sharing allows States hosting energy production to mitigate for the historic and prospective infrastructure demands of energy production. It just makes sense. They need more roads. It helps those States build the roads and allows States to make the strategic investment needed to ensure for future generations the resiliency of the infrastructure and for vital natural resources.

I urge my colleagues to support proceeding to the legislation so the Senate's voice can be heard on this important topic.

Let's be honest with the American people. This is about creating great jobs. It is about sharing revenue with States. It is not about opening up new acreage. It is thoroughly compatible with the Department of Defense's mission to protect our country.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source