Gulf of Mexico Security Act of 2006 - Continued
GULF OF MEXICO SECURITY ACT OF 2006--Continued -- (Senate - August 01, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.
Before I begin, let me say this: I want to try to put this in a general setting. We have an energy problem in this country. We all know about that. Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars flow out of the pocketbooks of hard-working men and women and end up in the pockets of people we don't like particularly, people in Iran and people in Venezuela, countries like them, leaders who don't really play ball with us in the Middle East or in the Soviet Union on so many issues. It is imperative that we get a grip on this. In the long run, there is only one solution, and that is independence from fossil fuels. We are doing so little on that, it is almost pathetic. We should have a crash program to free us of imports within 10 or 15 years. We should be putting every nickel in. We don't.
The Energy bills in the past have too often listened to the big oil companies which are happy with the status quo. Mr. Tillerson, head of ExxonMobil, came before our Judiciary Committee and said he didn't believe in alternative fuels. But that is down the road. Because even if we started today--and we should have started 5 or 10 years ago--that will take a while. So what do we do in the short run? It seems to me there has been a little bit too much deadlock here: one side, mainly our side, saying conserve--and we are right, there should be conservation--the other side saying produce more, not just alternative fuels, which I think are very important, alternative energy, which I think is very important, whether it be wind or solar or biofuels but those just nibble at the edges. The other side says we need to supply more fossil fuels. There is a deadlock. It is about time we broke the deadlock. An ideal bill would be one that breaks the deadlock on both sides, that increases supply of fossil fuels in a way that doesn't do grave damage to the environment and yet at the same time conserves. Such a bill is not yet here.
The majority in its wisdom does not allow such a bill to come forward. The majority doesn't allow amendments on conservation to be added to this bill. But this bill does move to increase supply in a certain portion of the gulf, 1.2 million barrels of oil, 5.8 trillion cubic feet of gas, in about 8 million acres. That is 1.2 billion barrels of oil we won't have to purchase from a Middle East that is, unfortunately, looking more volatile and less friendly day by day.
For the sake of consumers, it is clear we have to get gas prices under control. And while drilling in these 8 million acres isn't going to send the price plummeting--that takes a much larger endeavor and a larger picture--it will affect things at the margin. Gas prices are the highest they have been since the aftermath of Katrina. In my State, a family with two cars, two cars they need to get to work, drive the kids to the doctor and dentist, to get the groceries, can expect to pay $1,000 more in gas this year as compared to just 1 year ago. That is a tragedy for that family--not a tragedy, I guess, but an economic tragedy. If your income isn't that large, $1,000 is just too much. It is a huge burden--is a better way to put it--on working families as prices keep going up.
So I have thought a lot about this. I am going to vote for this bill. I have advocated in our caucus for this bill as a way of showing faith on this side of the aisle that when dramatic damage is not done to the environment, as it would be in Alaska where we are 10 years away, we are willing to look at increasing the supply of fossil fuels in the United States.
I am going to support this bill. I hope the other side will join us in allowing CAFE standards to come to the floor. A bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators LUGAR and OBAMA would be a great place to start. Then we would increase supply some and decrease demand some. It would make a huge difference. The fact that our CAFE standards are lower than that of China, a country with virtually no environmental conscience but, rather, a country interested in economics--and they understand the economics are very important.
Make no mistake about it, if this bill is tampered with in the House, if we go beyond these two areas and talk about drilling in the oceans, as the Congressman from California, Mr. Pombo, is, most of us on this side of the aisle will do everything we can to block that, and we will get no bill at all. Let that be a warning to the people in the House not to take advantage of our good faith here. By opening significant tracts for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, I also believe this bill should give us less reason to drill in areas that are more environmentally sensitive like ANWR.
I am supporting this bill. I have urged my colleagues on this side of the aisle to support the bill. I appreciate the hard work the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has done in persuading us to be for this bill. But this bill will be an empty promise if we don't go further, if we don't do more to conserve, if we don't do more to come up with a bipartisan approach that in the long run removes us from the stranglehold of fossil fuels and in the short run both increases supply and decreases demand for energy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov