Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006

DEEP OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 29, 2006)

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, right now in America, 80 percent of all of the Outer Continental Shelf area where the oil and gas is already open to the oil and gas industry. The only thing that has stopped the oil and gas industry from going to much of the area in the Outer Continental Shelf where 80 percent of the oil and gas is, which we all agree they should be able to go to, today, under the law, with no changes, is that the price of oil was $30 a barrel. But at $70 a barrel, Shell and Exxon-Mobil are going there. So what is the debate about? Well, yeah, I don't want them drilling off of Massachusetts, in Georgia's bank, and the Floridians don't want them off their shore. But that is really not what it is all about.

Right now, according to the Minerals Management Service, we can expect $600 billion to go to the Federal Government for drilling right down here in Federal land on land which is already open to the oil companies. And that $600 billion is used and will be used to pay for our troops in Iraq, to pay for the education of poor children, to ensure that we can pay for Medicare benefits for senior citizens.

But what the majority is doing, what the Republican administration is doing is they are going to take that $600 billion that would have gone to the Federal Government, and they are moving it down here where only four States are going to get the benefit of it. Only those four States are going to be the beneficiaries.

Now, if you come from one of those four States, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama, you vote for this bill and put out a press release tonight. You tell everyone back in your districts in those four States, we were able to convince the United States Congress to give us $600 billion today.

And by the way, Huey Long used to say, ``every man a king.'' Well, every man and woman will be a king in Louisiana after this. And God bless them if they can pull it off today.

This is the king of all earmarks. It will take 200 amendments a day from Mr. FLAKE for the next 50 years to get back this $600 billion. And the Republicans, of course, will oppose the cuts that he will propose out here on the House floor as well. So that is what it is all about.

It is about this shifting of money from all of the red States, 46 States, down to four States. And that is the game that is going on, because the oil industry is already drilling in the Gulf on Federal lands that we all agree they should go to today. And that is why the Minerals Management Service, the Bush administration says that $600 billion will be lost to the Federal Treasury because over 80 percent of all of the revenues that are going to be generated from this proposal will go there.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, if you are out there listening, this is, without question, also, nothing that can happen in your State that will make up for the loss of this $600 billion. If this was any other bill, we would be having a huge fight over what the formula should be for who gets this money. But instead, in one fell swoop, the Republicans are moving $600 billion from 46 States into four States.

Do not vote for this bill. This is a fiscal disaster. This money should remain in the budget for the troops in Iraq. It should remain in the budget for Medicare recipients. It should remain in the budget for the poor children of our country.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So the Bush administration has now checked in, and the Bush administration is saying they are very unhappy about $600 billion being taken from the Federal Government and given to four States. They are unhappy with this rip-off of the Federal taxpayers of 46 States. This transfer of $600 billion, down here. Yes, drill down here. Yes, drill tomorrow. Yes, at $70 a barrel, drill, drill, drill. That is 80 percent. But do not ship $600 billion from the red States, the 46 States, down to only four States.

That is what the Bush administration just said to you all. It will force him to cut the budget in Iraq. It will force him to cut Medicare. Even this administration does not want this additional $600 billion loss.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, and I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia. He is amongst the most astute Members of Congress, and it is clear that there is a big gravy train moving through Congress this afternoon and he is one of the very smartest Members to figure out that he should attach his constituents' agenda to it. And rapid transit is a very important issue. Unfortunately, the majority decided that Mr. Boehlert's amendment on fuel economy standards for automobiles

was not important today. But I understand what the gentleman from Virginia is doing, and I congratulate him on his acute understanding of what this bill really is.

By the way, when I was a boy, my father was a milkman, and you looked at television to see what you can aspire to be and my favorite show was always ``Perry Mason,'' and I could never really figure out how Perry was going to get his client out of the mess. And then with about 5 minutes left to go in the show, every single week Della Street, his great assistant, would come into the back of the courtroom and say, I have new evidence.

Now, the case would always get solved and Perry would always win. So I have been charged all afternoon with making up numbers, that there will not be, as I say there is, a $600 billion transfer from 46 States down to 4 States. But now we have a Della Street-like letter from the President of the United States to the Republican leadership of the committee. Here is what the President says, ``The administration strongly opposes the revenue-sharing provisions that do not incentivize production and that would reduce Federal receipts relative to current law and have a long-term impact on the Federal deficit. The administration's preliminary estimate is that the revenue sharing provisions would reduce Federal receipts by several hundred billion dollars.''

So it turns out that the numbers I was quoting from the Bush administration, from its own Department of Interior, that this would lead to a $600 billion loss of revenues from 46 States going down to four States is now confirmed by President Bush's letter to us this afternoon.

So if you want to vote this way, Members of Congress, you can do it. And by the way, again I say this to Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, delegations: if you win this vote this afternoon, put out a press release. It is the greatest achievement of your career. It will be the greatest achievement you ever, ever have here in the House floor, moving $600 billion in one vote from 46 States to your States, a great victory.

And President Bush today is asking the Members of Congress not to do it. Now, Mr. Pombo will say to you, do not fix it now, we will fix it later. But the President is saying this is a big mess. We oppose it. Clean it up. And still we have a chance to clean it up.

Thank God we got the letter before we voted to create the mess. Now Mr. Pombo is saying, let's create the mess and we will clean it up when it gets to the Senate, which is, I think, an unnaturally great deference to a body that ordinarily does not receive that kind of respect from us.

Why should we wait for them to have the responsibility to deal with what we all now understand to be a complete mess? Again, I congratulate Mr. Davis, because if this is going to happen, I give you credit for understanding that getting $150 million for his district makes a lot of sense.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, what my amendment will do is to correct the problem that the President has identified, amongst other things that also need correcting in the bill, while leaving intact a wonderful provision that will ensure that we correct the problem that occurred in the 1990s during the Clinton administration, which allows for oil companies to escape paying the royalties which the American people should be receiving on leases which were given out during that period of time, 1998 and 1999.

I agree with the intent of the language which is in the bill that the majority has crafted. They did a good job on that section, although with the rest of the bill I have a problem. And my amendment will help to correct that problem.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining minute.

What the Markey amendment will do is to remove the provision which takes $600 billion from 46 States and gives it to four States, where oil and gas companies can already drill. If my amendment is adopted, according to CBO, my amendment will then generate $13 billion in new revenues over the next 10 years.

So your choice on the Markey amendment is lose $600 billion or gain $13 billion. Ladies and gentlemen, that is what this thing is all about. It is all about the money. Because 80 percent of the oil and gas that can be drilled for off our coast is already available. They might have a lot of additional coastline in America, but the geological service and the oil companies have said 80 percent of it is right here. By the way, it is already legal to go there.

And we, Ed Markey, liberal from Massachusetts, we want you to go there. I want you to drill there. Get the oil that is down there in the gulf. But the revenues should go to the Federal Government or else, as George Bush has just said to us in a letter this afternoon, we will lose hundreds of billions of dollars to the Federal Government and give it to only four States without any real understanding or debate here on the House floor.

Vote for the Markey amendment. Let's generate $13 billion worth of revenue for our country rather than lose $600 billion.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from West Virginia for his leadership on this issue and on the bill this afternoon, and I want to congratulate the Florida delegation for their success in improving a bad bill but not changing the fundamental nature of the bill. It is a bad bill, but it is an improvement, and I give them credit for that, but it should not be in any way interpreted as a reason to vote for the bill.

Again, jobs come from energy. The energy comes from leases that have already been given over to oil companies, 80 percent of which have never been drilled on, but it has already happened. The Bush administration says that the area already open is where 80 percent of the oil and gas off our shores is.

The big issue that we are all going to have to vote on final passage is whether or not we are going to allow a transfer of $600 billion from 46 States that now receive that $600 billion as a promise over the next several decades, or we are going to allow the oil companies to give that money to four States, even though the drilling is on Federal land, even though those leases have already been obtained by the oil companies but they have been waiting for the price of oil to go to $70 a barrel, which is where it is now. We do not have to give them any additional incentives.

This bill makes no sense whatsoever. It runs totally contrary to the economics of energy, and President Bush has now sent us a letter and asked us to not allow this $600 billion to go down here but to keep it up here in the Federal budget that can be used to keep our budget balanced.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/