That’s right, drilling for oil was promoted as a way to make the US safer from hurricanes and to protect the coast. Very ironic, no? And now here is Boxer’s explanation on how short-sighted and unbalanced the bill is:
Mr. President, thank you so much for your courtesy–and my colleagues. I wanted to be heard on this bill. I haven’t spoken on it. It is a bill that I call a drilling bill; I don’t call it an energy bill. I rise to speak against it, and I am against it for three very simple reasons.
First, I have no assurances–nor does Senator Feinstein–that the California coast will continue to be protected from new offshore oil and gas drilling. That protection is crucial to my State, to my State’s economy, and, of course, it is crucial to the promise that we made to our children and our grandchildren–that this coast will be forever protected. It is one of God’s greatest gifts to our State. Every history book that writes about California talks about the beauty of our State–and it starts with the ocean. We know if we lose that beauty it is irreplaceable.
I also wanted to make a point to my friends that in our State, offshore oil drilling is an issue that unites the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats. They do not want to see it happen, whether it is our Governor or our Democratic candidate for Governor. They are in full agreement. This is an issue that unites California.
Clearly, we know that our economy is heavily reliant on tourism. It is reliant on fisheries. And offshore oil drilling threatens both of those economic engines.
Second, this bill will drain billions of dollars from the Federal Treasury. That is indisputable. And it does nothing to help us meet the critical goal of reducing America’s dependence on oil. As a matter of fact, this bill deepens our dependence on oil.
Achieving real energy independence must be more than just a slogan. In this unbalanced bill, we admit our addiction to oil. As a matter of fact, I heard many colleagues say we need more oil, that we need this oil. But with this bill, we continue to feed this habit.
I personally believe there are places in this country where you can drill off the coast. I respect Senator Landrieu very much, and I don’t have a problem if there is unanimity that there ought to be drilling off her state’s coast. And I support her efforts to have some conservation fund to restore the area. But what are we getting on the other side? We are getting drilling, we are feeding the addiction to oil. It seems to me we are getting nothing because we are not allowed to amend this bill with some forward-thinking amendments. We are getting, for sure, a greater and greater deficit and a greater and greater debt.
How would we better balance this bill? We should promote vehicle technologies that get better gas mileage. We can develop and incentivize the use of alternative fuels. We can encourage energy conservation.
We have seen countries such as Brazil just within a 10-year timeframe become independent of foreign oil–become energy independent. But guess what. Because the Republican leadership won’t allow it, we cannot offer any amendments to alter this bill. It is either drilling and giving four States a ton of money to reward them for that, causing the Federal deficit to swell, or it is nothing.
It is sad because this is a great country. It is a country of great ideas. Yet the ideas on both sides of the aisle take a back seat to the same old, same old, drill, drill, drill.
We can’t drill our way out of this problem. As tempting as the mirage of a quick fix might be, we must not endanger the California coast with new drilling. And that is what will happen if this bill is merged with the House drilling bill.
If the House would take the Senate bill, then I would breathe a sigh of relief for my State–and the west coast and the east coast can also breathe a sigh of relief. But we don’t have any assurances that the Pombo bill, which will open up the door to drilling in the most beautiful areas, will not become part of this bill.
Let me tell you that Californians–again, across party lines–rejected coastal drilling long ago. Even in the days when our State was a red State, we rejected offshore oil drilling across party lines.
It was because we had a devastating Santa Barbara rig blowout that contaminated our ocean waters and beaches almost 40 years ago. The memories of that are still ever present. The memories of that also became a warning sign that we want to preserve our precious coast.
The people of California decided that the potential benefits of future offshore oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal treasures and our most important tourist industry that draws millions and millions to our coast.
I ask anyone listening to this debate: Is there a time when you visit California that you don’t go to the coast? Everyone comes to our coast. What you do there is observe the wonder of an unspoiled coastline. There are certain areas where we do have drilling. But for many years we have kept the moratorium in place. When you go to our coastline, from the very far north of the State, down to the south, what you see is God’s beauty. When you come to our State and you stay in our beautiful hotels and our bed and breakfasts and go to our restaurants, often having a view of our ocean, you can’t help but come away in awe that this is a gift that has been given to us, and a gift that we must preserve. It brings dollars to our State.
This is one of those times when it is the right thing to do economically to keep that coast beautiful. It is the right thing to do spiritually. And, it is the right thing to do environmentally.
The California State legislature understands it. In 1994 they passed a law that permanently prohibits oil and gas exploration in our State’s waters. I thank them for that. We learned the lesson that drilling is dangerous. We learned it the hard way.
The Senate bill, if it is merged with the House bill, could be disastrous for the California environment and economy. We know it is disastrous for the Federal Treasury. By the year 2017, four States in our Nation would be entitled to $590 million per year; by 2022, $1.2 billion per year. These States will get part of the Federal Treasury. We cannot afford this kind of imbalanced fiscal policy at a time when the Federal deficit is expected to be $300 billion this year and the national debt is over $8.4 trillion and growing.
I think back to the year that President Clinton left office. The budget projections were that we were going to be debt free. Since my friends on the other side have taken control, deficits are back in full bloom. The debt is back and this bill adds to the debt and the deficit. How could we possibly do that today? Sadly, we are not only doing it with the energy bill, we are doing it in another bill I will talk about in a minute.
How about this? No amendments allowed to this bill. What is the other side afraid of? We might have an amendment that will pass? We might have an amendment that increases fuel economy for our automobiles? We might have an amendment that makes sure we have flex-fuel vehicles? We might have an amendment pass that invests in cellulosic ethanol so we can have more farmers get into this act and produce ethanol from products other than corn? That would not use up as much energy to produce.
Americans are paying $3 per gallon at the pump. By the way, in my State, in San Diego, I saw gas at over $4 for full serve. Talk about sticker shock, picture that one. There is not one thing in this bill about going after the gougers. What are they afraid of on the other side of the aisle? That we will go after the people who are essentially holding us up at the pump every single day?
They say the gas prices are going through the roof because of unrest in the Middle East and Nigeria and companies are simply passing along higher costs. If that were true, it would be one thing. It isn’t true. How do we know?
While the American people are suffering, the oil companies are raking in record profits. If this were simply about passing along higher costs, the oil companies’ profits would be flat.
I used to be an economics major. It is pretty basic. If you are passing along costs, your profits are flat. But if you are passing along costs plus a huge increase in profit, your profits are up.
Yes, Senator Cantwell, who had a great provision to go after the gougers, was not allowed to offer it as an amendment.
Oil executives prosper. We have seen them, by the way, come before our committee. Senator Cantwell and I tried to swear them in. The Republican chairman would not allow us to swear in the oil company executives. I found that to be a bit disgraceful. So they were not under oath. By the way, they did not tell the truth, either. The fact is, transportation fuel costs for families have doubled since the Bush administration has taken office. Yet we cannot offer an amendment to go after the oil companies because the Republicans, who run the House, who run the Senate, and run the White House, do not want the oil companies to face the music. Pretty simple.
I thought we were a country of, “by and for the people.” It turns out we are a country of, “by and for the oil companies.” You do not learn that in your textbooks.
We have to do better. Democrats have written a bill called the Clean EDGE Act that would require increases in flex-fuel vehicle production, that would make price gouging a Federal crime, would provide incentives for manufacturing hybrid cars, and would set minimum fuel economy standards for tires.
Why do you need standards for tires? Efficient tires on cars and keeping them inflated to the proper pressure improve mileage and would cut oil consumption by 160 million barrels per year. But we cannot offer an amendment. No, we cannot offer an amendment. They are protecting the oil companies. Why are we surprised? The President is an oil man. The Vice President is an oil man.
My Democratic colleagues and I have worked with Republicans to raise CAFE standards. That is the corporate average fuel economy. That is what CAFE is. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act would raise CAFE standards for all vehicles, including SUVs, from 25 miles per gallon to 35 by 2017. This is a bill written by my colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe, but they cannot offer their amendment. Why? Because the Republicans want to protect the oil companies as the price for gas goes up.
By closing the SUV loophole, we could save the equivalent of one Alaska National Wildlife Refuge every 7 years. We do not have to drill our way out of this crisis in the God-given wild places. We just need to be a little smarter. We can do it.
I had amendments I would have offered that would have said the Federal Government has to purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicles available. It is kind of a no-brainer, but I cannot offer it. The President could issue an Executive Order today requiring that. He won’t do that because he supports the oil companies, folks. Follow it, all of it; it leads back to that one point.
The average fuel economy of the Federal fleet was an abysmal 21.4 miles per gallon. I have had, for many years, a hybrid car. The new model, if it is driven properly, gets over 50 miles per gallon. Surely, we can do better than 21.4 miles a gallon.
I would have offered an amendment to promote research for cellulosic ethanol, a type of fuel produced by agricultural waste. Promoting this innovative fuel will reduce our dependence on oil and provide our Nation’s farmers with new income sources. No, I could not offer it because they are protecting the oil companies. It all comes back to that.
With no amendments, we have a narrow drilling bill that busts the budget. We had an opportunity to work together across the aisle and come up with a comprehensive energy bill. But instead, we are going to protect the oil companies.
So we have more of the same failed policies that, in the end, could, in fact, endanger all of our coasts.
Once again, we call on the Republican leadership to start standing up for an energy policy for this country; not a narrow drilling bill that busts the Federal budget but an energy policy that will save the budget of the American people and help our economy by being on the cutting edge of these technologies.
If a country such as Brazil can do it, aren’t we a little embarrassed that we can’t? We are so far behind, it is extraordinary. I guess when you run the Senate for the oil companies, that is what you get at the end of the day.
