Energy & Environment

The Long Island Sound Stewardship Act, which passed last night in the House, will help ensure that future generations of New Yorkers and all Americans, will enjoy a clean, well-preserved Long Island Sound. The legislation supplements conservation and preservation efforts along the shoreline of Long Island and Connecticut, and authorizes $25 million in federal appropriations over the next four fiscal years.

The Long Island Sound is critically important to our nation and vital to the health and well being of the communities I represent. As an Estuary of National Significance, the Sound provides habitat for a wide array of plant and animal life, and contributes an estimated $5.5 billion to the regional economy from boating, fishing and tourism-related commerce. Boating and fishing are deeply enmeshed in the culture and traditions of Long Island, and the Sound has long been our region's gateway to the seas.

Unfortunately, the effects of millions of people living adjacent to the Sound's shore have been profound. At the turn of the millennium, lobster catch rates plummeted by 90%, costing our local economy between $30 and $50 million. Dangerous levels of toxins continue to threaten the well-being of the Sound's diverse habitats and wildlife breeding areas, as well as the livelihoods of those who depend on these resources for their livelihood.

This bill is not perfect. I strongly support and will continue to advocate for funding at the original proposed level of $40 million annually. Properly conceived, the legislation should include wetlands and underwater lands within the authority of the Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative, which will be established by this legislation. Additionally, I strongly support fully funding conservation and preservation offshore via the Long Island Sound Restoration Act, which has fallen victim to the Republican's budget cuts. The Long Island Sound, however, is a national treasure and I believe that any preservation efforts to conserve any part of the Sound should be embraced.

This week a powerful voice joined the call for increased oversight of our nation’s energy markets.

On Monday, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) voiced its support of increased government oversight of the energy market as provided in the Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act of 2006.

This legislation, which I introduced in April with Senators Snowe, Levin, Cantwell, Mikulski, and Boxer, seeks to increase transparency and accountability so the federal government can determine if speculation or manipulation is occurring in the oil, gas, and electricity markets.

Without increased federal oversight, consumers across the country continue to be left vulnerable to fraud.  And consumers risk being unknowingly forced to pay more, while the energy companies reap larger profits. Read more...

A recent article in The New York Times revealed that four Interior Department auditors have filed a lawsuit against the agency after senior agency officials suppressed their efforts to collect more than $30 million in fraudulent royalty underpayments by oil and gas companies that are operating on public property in the Gulf of Mexico.

Upon finding this out, several of my colleagues and I called for immediate congressional hearings and investigations into these reported efforts by senior Interior Department officials to allow oil and gas companies to cheat American taxpayers out of royalty payments.  We sent letters to House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) and House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior Chairman Charles Taylor (R-NC), asking that oversight hearings be held on the matter before Congress adjourns for October.

It's bad enough that oil and gas companies are cheating the American people out of tens of millions of dollars in royalty payments, but for all of this to be happening with the blessing of senior Interior Department officials is outrageous.  The Interior Department should be in the business of fighting for the best interests of the American people, not in the business of finding ways for oil and gas companies to cheat and lie in order to make even greater profits.  We need an investigation and hearings to determine who at the Interior Department prevented auditors from going after oil and gas companies that were cheating so that appropriate disciplinary and legal actions can be taken against those senior officials. Read more...

Our vulnerable borders have threatened our security for too long and the Republican Congress won’t kick the can down the road any longer.  To address this pressing national security priority, I filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

The overwhelming majority of people who violate our borders do so in search of jobs, but not all. Some come across to deal drugs and commit crimes. Intelligence reports show that even al Qaeda considers our borders a key vulnerability. Without effective border surveillance, we can’t identify those looking for honest work from those bent on mayhem. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this bill is what is best for the American people.

Under the secure fence bill we will erect 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along the southwest border with prioritized placement at critical, highly populated areas. Furthermore, the measure mandates that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) achieve and maintain operational control over the entire border through a “virtual fence

Today, I wrote to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez about some internal emails I have obtained.  The emails are interesting because they show that a press officer working for Secretary Gutierrez appeared to be making decisions about what scientific views were appropriate to share with the public and what scientific views weren't.

The email exchange took place just after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita when there was great public interest in the connections between global warming and hurricanes.  The emails suggest that Commerce press secretary Chuck Fuqua, who also happened to be the Director of Media Operations of the 2004 Republican National Convention, ensured that only those scientists that were skeptical of the connection would be provided to the media.  Salon.com has obtained additional emails that suggest the Executive Office of the President was involved in approving and disapproving media requests for government scientists.

I can't help but connect this to testimony that the Government Reform Committee received in July that NOAA's official position on hurricanes and global warming is not consistent with the published, peer-reviewed science which suggests that as the planet warms hurricanes will become more dangerous.  Dr. Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, testified as follows: Read more...

A few weeks ago I took my pickup around Eastern Montana to talk with Montana families and businesses about my ‘Real Energy, Real Change’ plan.  At a time when energy prices are through the roof and folks have to dig deeper in their pockets to fill their tanks, heat their homes, run their farms and keep their businesses afloat, we need vision and a plan for energy independence in our country.  By taking concrete steps to invest in bio-diesel, ethanol and wind power, along with developing our state’s abundant natural resources cleanly and efficiently, Montana has the potential to play a key role in leading our country to energy security.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that the U.S. Senate’s Interior Spending Bill is only a fraction of the funding needed to implement renewable-fuels standards.  My opponent, Sen. Burns, crafted that bill and calls it a success.  I call that lack of vision and poor leadership, and it’s this kind of poor leadership in Washington that has allowed our country to become more dependent on foreign oil than we were in the 1970s. It’s that lack of leadership that is allowing multinational oil and gas companies to write our energy policy.

We can achieve energy independence, with government that will facilitate and encourage development of alternative and renewable energy.

I filed an amendment today to the port security bill before the Senate to provide $6.5 billion in emergency agricultural disaster assistance to help agricultural producers struggling from the ongoing drought. Our drought-stricken communities need this immediate relief. Last month I toured the drought stricken regions of Nebraska including Lake McConaughy and the Northwest Nebraska communities that recently had to fight wildfires and now must recover from the devastation.

We need to address this issue this week and I want to attach the emergency disaster assistance amendment to the port security bill (H.R. 4954) being discussed this week. Recent maps provided by the U.S. Drought Monitor at the University of Nebraska’s National Drought Mitigation Center show the entire central United States suffering from drought conditions categorized as severe, extreme or exceptional. The western two-thirds of Nebraska are currently suffering from severe to extreme drought.

These ongoing drought conditions have severely impacted agriculture in Nebraska—costing nearly $342 million this year alone, according to a recent report from the NDMC. Irrigation costs are up and grazing losses in Western Nebraska range from 50 to 70 percent. Agriculture producers in Nebraska and other states are struggling with a multi-year drought and Congress has failed to respond adequately. The problem is getting worse and Washington needs to get something done to help the farmers and ranchers struggling from this natural disaster.

In February of 2005, as Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), I opened an inquiry into radical environmental and animal rights groups who use criminally-based activism in an effort to influence public policy. Groups such as the Earth Liberation Front ("ELF"), the Animal Liberation Front ("ALF"), and Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty ("SHAC"), to name a few, use crimes of violence like arson, bombings, and property destruction to frighten individuals, companies, and governments into abandoning work affecting the environment or animals. This is the textbook definition of terrorism and is crime punishable by current law.

However, after taking testimony through two EPW Committee hearings from multiple victims, officials from the FBI, DOJ and the educational and scientific communities, it became painfully obvious that many of these extremists' tactics were, in fact, not addressed by current law. I am referring to a sophisticated form of fear-based activism using threats, stalking, harassment, and intimidation to frighten those away from their work on animals. These fear generating tactics are directed not only at a person or company working with animals but also at those that simply do business with or have some connection to those working with animals. This is also terrorism and, unfortunately, is not adequately covered by today's laws.

Animal rights extremists dawning fatigues and hoods, equipped with bullhorns regularly appear in the darkness of night threatening the lives of families. Cutting power and phone lines, bashing in front doors, and throwing bricks through windows are just some of the preliminary things regularly done in an effort to force an unsuspecting CEO to decide to drop a client simply because they want the harassment to end. This is how it starts. Hold out, due to your principles, and quickly you will find a website calling for a "direct action" to be committed upon you with your home address and your children's names, schools, and soccer schedules posted on it. Read more...

The Prudhoe Bay oil spill has grown more alarming with each new revelation.  However, what we heard today was the most shocking yet.  In today's Energy and Commerce Committee hearing we learned that had BP performed even basic periodic maintenance of its pipelines this whole mess could have been prevented.  Unfortunately, they did not, and the entire country has paid the price.  Our number one oilfield has been shut down, international financial markets have been turned upside down and consumers are paying more at the pump.

The potential damage to BP's infrastructure, bottom line and reputation should have been enough to compel it to take care of its pipes.  After all, this is the company that wants to move "beyond petroleum" to help foster a more sustainable energy future.  Judging by the Prudhoe Bay fiasco, maybe BP should focus more energy on rudimentary pipeline maintenance and less on green public relations.

As we search for lasting ways to meet our nation’s energy needs, we must make every possible effort to encourage the use of renewable biofuels, and the manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicles.

My tax credit proposal for flexible fuel hybrid vehicles (FFHVs) does both. On the road today, you have flexible fuel cars that can run on E85, regular gasoline, or any combination of the two; and you have hybrid vehicles that use electricity to cut down on gas use. In January, Ford Motor Company unveiled the world’s first vehicle combining the flex fuel and the hybrid technologies. The company is currently researching the marriage of these two systems, and the vehicle is expected to be market-ready soon. While Ford is currently the only car maker that is marketing flex fuel hybrid vehicles, others are expected to follow.

It is important we provide incentives for people to buy these cars. Ford estimates that if 5% of the vehicles on the road in the U.S. were flex fuel hybrids, we would eliminate the need for 140 million barrels of imported oil a year. If we make it easier for consumers to purchase FFHVs, we make it more attractive for companies like Ford (a U.S. company, I might add) to make them.

That’s what my tax credit proposal is all about. Its basic structure is like that of the hybrid credit in the EP Act of 2005: the more fuel efficient the car, the higher the credit, up to $3,500.

If we are serious about weaning this country off of imported oil, passing measures like this is a common sense start.