David Vitter: “I follow up on some of the previous comments regarding this coastal amendment and quickly underscore two very important…”

“I follow up on some of the previous comments regarding this coastal amendment and quickly underscore two very important points. As my colleague from Louisiana has explained, this is merely treating those coastal producing States that have produced so much of the Nation's energy needs, taken care of so much of those needs, simply treating those coastal producing States fairly. If only more States were like us in producing far more energy than we consume, of course, this energy crisis we are facing would be less and less onerous, but that is not the case. In particular, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee was in the Senate and said his State produced more energy than it consumed. I would love to hear the distinguished chairman's sources for that. I checked with the U.S. Department of Energy and they flatly disagreed. The most recent figures I could obtain, September 5, 2003, certainly include the nuclear energy plant the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire was referring to. That produces far less than the State of New Hampshire consumes. In fact, the total energy production from New Hampshire comes from that nuclear facility, .036 quadrillion Btus. The total energy consumption of New Hampshire is .329 quadrillion Btus. So, according to my source from the U.S. Department of Energy, the best information I have, dated September 5, 2003, New Hampshire consumes about nine times what it produces from that nuclear plant or any other source.…”