Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006

GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006 -- (Senate - July 27, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Senate is now taking up a very important piece of legislation that would open a huge area in the Gulf of Mexico for deepwater exploration for oil and natural gas. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation and believe it is long overdue.

At the same time, I am amazed when I hear our friends on the other side of the aisle. The Democratic whip this morning said this was an interesting proposal and he hoped we would have a good debate. I agree with both of those things. What he said I disagree with is that this is not about a national energy policy. He criticized the Federal Government not having a national energy policy.

This is about a national energy policy. This is about eliminating the moratoria we have created ourselves that have prevented the United States from relying more on domestic production of oil and gas and relying less on imported energy from places in trouble, regions of the world such as the Middle East.

As the current occupant of the chair knows, she and the senior Senator from Alaska have been fighting for years to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for exploration and development. This is something that not only do Alaskans support but that would provide a tremendous boom to the United States in terms of our ability to develop domestic energy resources.

However, time and time again, for countless years, our friends on the other side of the aisle have said no, we cannot do that because it will damage the environment, it will disturb the flora and the fauna in that region of the world.

The fact is, it is possible for us to explore and develop domestic energy supplies in an environmentally sound way. Modern drilling techniques and production techniques are entirely compatible with preserving the environment and avoiding the kind of calamities that some want to scare the American people into believing would be routine.

I suggest this bill is all about developing a national energy policy. It is important to reducing our dependence on imported energy. In fact, it is estimated when lease 181 is developed, it will produce 1.26 billion barrels of oil, oil that is now selling for $75 a barrel on the open market.

We all know Congress can pass a lot of laws. We can repeal a lot of laws. But the one law we cannot repeal is the law of supply and demand. In a booming economy in the United States, and countries such as China growing at a rate of 10 percent, we know the demand for oil and gas has increased. The problem is, the supply has not. This would pinpoint the solution at the only way we know we can deal with this in terms of supply, and that is increase it by 1.26 billion barrels of oil and--this is significant, too--5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Natural gas is not only important because it is relatively clean burning, but it also is feedstock in a number of critical manufacturing industries in the United States. It is critical for our farmers and ranchers, but the price of natural gas has gone through the roof--again, because of huge demand and limited supply.

So it is absolutely critical to our ability to reduce our dependence on imported energy to both improve our national security and improve the prospects for our economy that we pass this legislation.

My colleague from Illinois, the distinguished Democratic whip, also said the answer is not to open places such as ANWR, it is to pass mandates from Washington on more fuel-efficient vehicles. I am all for people having the choice to buy vehicles that give them extended gas mileage, but I am against Washington, DC, mandating through some directive that says to my constituents in Texas, you can only drive a certain kind of car. I believe we ought to have the freedom of choice and that Congress should not be in the business of mandating what kind of cars we drive in my State or any State.

Finally, he mentioned that big bugaboo we hear and read so much about, global warming, another scare tactic that is used often to convince people that, no, we can't develop our domestic energy supply, we can't contribute more to the production of CO2 in the atmosphere because it will exacerbate global warming. We are all worried about global warming. The fact is, there is some debate in science about what the causes of the current warming of the atmosphere are, whether they are periodic and we are seeing a spike now, a small spike now, but it will work out.

The main problem with the solutions that have been offered to address global warming is that most of the proponents penalize the United States and damage the American economy by subjecting us to onerous regulations that would not apply to some of our major competitors in the world, countries such as China and India that would not be subject, for example, to the Kyoto Treaty that was overwhelmingly rejected by the Senate the last time we considered that issue.

Rather than saying no, rather than blocking and blaming, what S. 3711 does is enormously positive. It has done a great job. I have to give a lot of credit to the Senator from Louisiana who has helped shepherd this bill to this point so far. This is a bipartisan bill which is the way we should do things more often, but this provides a very real solution to a very real problem. It is true we cannot rely on developing more oil and gas supply, but that is certainly what we have to do in the near term to midterm. We cannot rely solely on conservation.

I am all for conserving our energy supply, avoiding waste that can be avoided. I also think we ought to look for alternative fuels such as ethanol. They make a lot of sense as part of an overall energy diversity program. I think energy diversity should be our national policy because if we rely on one type of fuel or if we rely on one policy, such as conservation, we cannot hope to get ahead of the curve when it comes to the growing demand not just in the United States of America but countries such as China that are growing at the rate of 10 percent a year, and other competitors in the world economy.

So we have to look at conservation. We have to look at additional supply. We have to look at alternative forms of fuels, renewables. Texas just moved ahead of California in terms of production of wind energy. That certainly has a lot of promise. It is not the only solution, but it is a part of the overall solution. Then, of course, we have to look at developing nuclear energy in this country. France, hardly a model that I would hold up in some areas, is a model when it comes to dealing with nuclear energy. America produces about 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear power. France, on the other hand, produces 80 percent of their electricity using nuclear power. They have figured out that one way to address the environmental concerns but also produce the kind of energy that a growing economy needs is nuclear power.

Thank goodness in the Energy bill we passed last year, we have now the prospect of nuclear energy taking over more and more of the demand for our energy supply in the United States.

So I believe this is an enormously important piece of legislation. It does provide a part of the solution to our overall challenge. It will have a very direct impact on the prices that consumers pay at the gas pump because most of the cost of gasoline is related to the price of oil. We know that is not the only cause of high gas prices. Another problem is we have seen some block the development of refinery capacity, and we have had no new refineries which are what transmute the oil into gasoline. We have not had any new refineries built in this country since the early 1970s, although we have seen a recent expansion of existing refining capacity which has helped.

But, here again, America is no longer the principal consumer of energy in the world. We are just one of a number of large competitors for the same scarce supply. So it is absolutely critical we undertake measures such as this as part of our national energy policy. So I would disagree respectfully with my colleague from Illinois, the distinguished Democratic whip. This is all about a national energy policy, and it is a part of what we must do if we are going to keep our commitments to the American people to try to help them keep more of the money they earn and let them spend it as they see fit and not have to spend it on rapidly escalating gasoline prices and other energy prices that not only hurt consumers but also make America less competitive in the global economy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov