Gulf of Mexico Security Act of 2006 - Continued
GULF OF MEXICO SECURITY ACT OF 2006--Continued -- (Senate - August 01, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on final passage of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I will be voting against passage because I believe this bill is poor energy policy, irresponsible fiscal policy, and faulty environmental policy.
The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act is a misnomer. The bill will not offer energy security to the United States. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's energy and yet we have less than 3 percent of the world's oil supplies. While I agree that we must increase the domestic supply of oil and natural gas, this cannot be our Nation's only approach. Yet it is the only approach offered in S. 3711, and it is the only approach that the administration and Republican leadership continue to propose as our Nation's energy solution. Our Nation's energy security depends on reducing our dependency on fossil fuels through increased energy efficiency, greater investment in renewable energy, and development of alternative fuels to replace oil. But this bill does nothing to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, create a national renewable energy standard for electricity, or promote energy efficiency or renewable energy. In fact, Federal investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy continues to decline. It is imperative for our Nation's energy and economic security that an energy policy that increases supply must be married to meaningful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy. This is the energy policy that our Nation deserves, but it is not the one before us today.
S. 3711 is also not sound fiscal policy. This legislation would mandate that almost 38 percent of revenue from Federal resources generated by new leases in the Gulf of Mexico be given to four States--Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. These are revenues that currently would be provided to the U.S. Treasury for the benefit of the Nation as a whole. Reducing revenue to the Treasury means that we, as a nation, will have fewer resources available in the future to respond to a call for help should there be another devastating natural disaster or terrorism attack. Our Nation faces a deficit of $8.4 trillion due to this administration's poor fiscal management and irresponsible tax policies. Large Federal budget deficits going forward are bad for the economy. They reduce national saving, which depresses future standards of living. Reducing Federal receipts and increasing the budget deficit at the same time as the baby boom generation retires will put increased strains on the Federal budget and makes no sense. This bill, if passed, will cost the Federal Treasury billions of dollars. I am not alone in my opposition to this legislation; taxpayer advocates share my concerns over its fiscal impact.
In the early 1950s, Congress considered the allocation of revenues between the Federal Government and States resulting from drilling in our Nation's waters. During the debate last week on S. 3711, I quoted from a speech that Senator Truman gave at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action on May 17, 1952. President Truman stated in this speech, ``The minerals that lie under the sea off the coasts of this country belong to the Federal Government''----that is, to all the people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States. Those rights may be worth as much as somewhere between $40 billion and $100 billion.
If we back down on our determination to hold these rights for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States, where the powerful private oil interests hope to exploit it to suit themselves.
Twice President Truman vetoed quitclaim legislation passed by Congress to turn these resources over to the coastal States. In his May 29, 1952, veto statement, President Truman said
``[T]he Congress should provide for the disposition of the revenues obtained from oil and gas leases on the undersea lands. S.J. Res. 20, as introduced by Senators O'Mahoney and Anderson, would have granted the adjacent coastal States 37 1/2 percent of the revenues from submerged lands of the marginal sea. I would have not object to such a provision, which is similar to existing provisions under which the State receive 37 1/2 percent of the revenues from the Federal Government's oil-producing public lands within their borders.'' In his veto statement, it is clear that President Truman did not support giving coastal States revenue from the Outer Continental Shelf.
In the end, the coastal States received much more generous compensation than the provision offered by Senators O'Mahoney and Anderson and President Truman. When President Eisenhower signed the Submerged Lands Act, the coastal States were given title to and ownership of the lands beneath the territorial seas and the right to manage the natural resources within the States' boundaries. This law gave the States 100 percent of the revenue from coastal drilling in State waters. Importantly, the law affirmed the Federal Government's ownership in lands seaward of the State boundaries. Revenues from Outer Continental Shelf drilling belong to the American people in all 50 States. The legislation that the Senate is considering today violates this pact with the American people, and denies the Federal Treasury and American people of essential revenue to address the needs of our Nation it violates. It also is contrary to our national motto, E pluribus unum, from many one. Revenues from Federal resources should, and must, benefit all Americans.
Lastly, I believe this bill is not responsible environmental policy. The bill threatens our coastal ecosystems with the risk of pollution and oilspills which will harm the economies and families that rely on these resources. Unfortunately, the Senate is likely to pass this bill. This will pave the way for the Senate bill to be conferenced with H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. This legislation would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling for all of our coastlines the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska--and, it would allow drilling for oil and gas in coastal national parks and marine sanctuaries. This would put our coastal communities at risk to oilspills, onshore damage of sensitive coastal habitat, and air and water pollution.
Oil is extremely toxic and our current cleanup methods are incapable of removing more than a small fraction of the oil spilled into our marine waters. Offshore drilling platforms and pipelines spilled 1.8 million gallons of oil in U.S. waters from 1990 to 1999, for an average of 500 gallons a day, which causes irreversible harm.
Narragansett Bay and our coast support vital commercial fisheries, tourism important to our economy, and an abundance of wildlife. Our economy and environment are vulnerable to oilspills. My State remembers the devastating effects that the North Cape oil-spill had in southern Rhode Island. Oil spread throughout a large area of Block Island Sound, including Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge, resulting in the closure of a 250-square mile area of the sound for fishing. There were hundreds of oiled birds in the weeks following the spill and large numbers of dead lobsters, surf clams, and sea stars were found on area beaches. There was also the World Prodigy oilspill off Newport, RI, which spread over 123 square miles, killing marine life and closing beaches and fishing grounds throughout Narragansett Bay. The spill hit during a peak spawning period. Eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish lobsters, quahogs, tautog, and others--were exposed to the oil as they floated at the surface.
Before opening new lands to development and denying the American people of a great asset and Federal revenues, we need to take meaningful action to reduce our consumption and increase renewable energy supplies. The only way to achieve greater energy independence is to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels overall. This is the energy policy that our Nation deserves, and this is the policy I will continue to fight for. I urge the Senate to reject S. 3711, and instead, pursue the vehicles and rule choices and the clean EDGE legislation that will set America on a true road to energy independence.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov