KBDI's Harber allowed Schaffer to misrepresent Udall bill on oil development in Cuban waters

Summary: Host Aaron Harber of public television KBDI Channel 12 failed to challenge Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer's inaccurate suggestion that a bill proposed by his opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, would allow American oil companies drilling or exploring for energy off Cuba to engage in "irresponsible, reckless, environmentally dangerous drilling habits that are identified with the Cubans." In fact, the legislation explicitly requires that such companies abide by the same environmental standards that regulate exploration and drilling in U.S. areas.

On June 10, KBDI Channel 12's Aaron Harber uncritically allowed his guest -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer -- to suggest that 2007 legislation introduced by his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, would allow U.S. energy companies exploring in Cuban waters to abide by environmental standards no higher than those set by "the Cuban Environmental Protection Agency, if there is such a thing." In fact, H.R. 3182 -- the U.S. Participation in Cuban Energy Exploration Act of 2007 -- specifies that exploration and extraction activities of companies operating under the legislation "shall be subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations for the protection of fish, wildlife, and the environment that are applicable to such activities within the exclusive economic zone of the United States."

The June 10 broadcast of The Aaron Harber Show presented the third of a three-part taped interview with Schaffer and was part of Harber's "Senate In Balance" series.

From the June 10 broadcast of public television KBDI Channel 12's The Aaron Harber Show:

HARBER: What about the concept that -- and I think you hear more of, where people in the industry -- and I'm talking about experts, government officials -- are now trying to educate the American people about when we buy energy products from other countries and we're buying them from countries that support terrorism, in essence, when Americans fill up their gas tanks, we're actually contributing to terrorists. Do you think that's an accurate statement?

SCHAFFER: Oh, yes. And it's by design. Listen, the people in Washington who have been against expanding production here in the United States have essentially opted in favor of terrorist oil. And it's the most, you know, ridiculous kind of policy on America's energy independence to tie Americans -- the hands of American producers.

[...]

SCHAFFER: It's interesting -- the one and only effort made by Mark Udall to try to generate additional energy supplies for the United States involved allowing us to purchase these supplies from the Cuban government. You know, Mark has been against energy exploration in Colorado, throughout the country, as I mentioned, even around the coast of Florida in American territory. But he introduced his legislation last year to encourage American producers to drill offshore of Florida, but in Cuban waters, to enhance the Cuban economy and help Fidel and Raul Castro benefit from production. Now, they don't have a lot of production there now, primarily because there are not Americans leading the way to irresponsible, reckless, environmentally dangerous drilling habits that are identified with the Cubans. But while the rest of the country has been trying to figure out how to help Americans produce more energy under American terms with clean technologies, with improving technology that allows us to harvest energy in an environmentally responsible and sensitive way, the only place Mark Udall has found confidence in production is off the coast of Florida in Cuban waters, under the leadership of Fidel Castro and the Cuban Environmental Protection Agency, if there is such a thing. It's just bizarre.

Harber did not challenge Schaffer's suggestion that under Udall's proposal American oil companies would be able to engage in "irresponsible, reckless, environmentally dangerous drilling habits that are identified with the Cubans." In fact, the legislation specifically would require that companies exploring or developing energy reserves in Cuban waters abide by the same standards that regulate exploration and drilling in U.S. areas:

(c) Applicability of Environmental Laws -- Any exploration for or extraction of hydrocarbon resources by a United States person within an area described in subsection (a)(1) shall be subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations for the protection of fish, wildlife, and the environment that are applicable to such activities within the exclusive economic zone of the United States.

As Udall stated in his July 2007 U.S. House remarks introducing the bill, it would impose upon American companies drilling or developing offshore from Cuba the same restrictions "as would be the case if the activities were carried out in the parts of the outer continental shelf under the control of the United States":

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to permit Americans and American companies to take part in exploring for and development of energy resources offshore of Cuba and other nearby countries.

The bill would make an exception to all laws, Executive Orders, and regulations that now prohibit exports to or imports from Cuba or transactions in property in which a Cuban national has an interest. This exception would apply to transactions necessary for the exploration for and development of hydrocarbon resources--such as petroleum or natural gas--from offshore areas under the control of Cuba or another foreign government that are contiguous to the exclusive economic zone of the United States. The bill would also permit Americans to travel to, from, and within Cuba in connection with such exploration and development activities.

Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress I have supported efforts to relax some of the unduly restrictive laws and policies that prevent American companies from doing business in Cuba. The legislation I am introducing today would continue those efforts.

It responds to a U.S. Geological Survey report published last year that estimates some 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could lie offshore from Cuba, in the North Cuba Basin.

Cuba's share of the Gulf of Mexico was established in 1977 through treaties with the United States and Mexico. So there is no dispute about the status of the area, and it is my understanding that Cuba has divided its offshore territory into 59 exploration blocs and opened them up to foreign companies in 1999. Already, several foreign companies have indicated interest in some of these blocs, including a Canadian firm as well as companies from China and Venezuela.

However, our trade embargo continues to prevent American companies from seeking similar opportunities. I think this makes no sense, and the bill I am introducing today would change that. Under the bill, the only restriction would be that any exploration or development by an American company offshore from Cuba would be subject to the same conditions for protection of fish, wildlife, and the environment as would be the case if the activities were carried out in the parts of the outer continental shelf under the control of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I am not in favor of unlimited development of oil and gas wherever those resources may be found. In our country, I think some areas should remain off-limits to such activities, and that in some other areas it should be subject to restrictions to protect other resources and values. And if Congress were called to make similar decisions about resources in areas controlled by Cuba I well might support similar restrictions for the offshore areas the government of Cuba has decided to make available for exploration and development.

But I think that once the government of Cuba has made that decision, our Government should not insist on preventing American companies from seeking the opportunity to take part in those activities -- especially since the American energy industry is unrivalled for its technical expertise and its ability to meet the technical challenges involved. My legislation would allow them to seek that opportunity. [emphasis added]

—E.B.