THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

An industrial zone and wilderness cannot occupy the same space. The

[Page: S2207]  GPO's PDF

   In closing, I want to remind my colleagues that when the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was formally created under the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, it was to conserve fish and wildlife populations in their natural diversity. Oil development on the coastal plain of the refuge is prohibited without the enactment of legislation authorizing development.

   I urge my colleagues, to support my amendment and reject the budget resolution's assumptions on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Let us reconfirm to protect today what can never be regained tomorrow if we make the wrong decision now.

   I hope that we can forever protect the coastal plain from development. It is certainly premature at this time to assume revenue from oil development there.

   I reserve the remainder of my time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana.

   Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the Roth amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate that we should maintain the longstanding ban on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

   We have heard a lot of concern lately about the cost of gas at the pump.

   I share that concern. I represent Montana. The Big Sky State. Vast open spaces. We often drive long distances just to get to the grocery store.

   Prices at the pump in Billings have gone from $1.18 in April of 1999 to $1.59 today. We need to get the price down. The administration has made some progress, with the OPEC countries. We may need to do more. For example, we may need to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But we should not respond to high gas prices by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That would be shortsighted, ineffective, and environmentally harmful.

   Proponents of oil drilling make three main arguments. They imply it will lower the price at the pump. They argue that it will enhance our energy security. And they argue that it won't really pose a significant environmental risk to the refuge.

   I disagree. Let me take the arguments in turn.

   First, the cost at the pump. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will have absolutely no impact on gas prices, now or in the foreseeable future. Think about it. Assume that we pass a law authorizing drilling. Assume the President signs it. First, companies will need to conduct exploration to determine where to drill. Next they will have to build the infrastructure, the roads, drill pads, drill rigs, pipelines, gravel pits, waste pits, and living and working quarters. This could include hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines, production facilities, increased traffic at loading ports, and housing and services for thousands of people.

   This work will take years and years. Senator MURKOWSKI himself said, in 1998, that ``a future decision on ANWR is one which will take about 10 years to produce any results in the way of any increased production contribution to our current flow of domestic oil.''

   Ten years, before we see any impact on the price at the pump.

   Let me turn to the longer term issue. Energy security. Let's look at what the potential oil of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge means in the big picture. At best, the economically recoverable oil would represent 2 percent of our daily needs. As a result, oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge has little, if anything, to do with long-term energy security.

   Another point. It does not make good strategic sense to use our reserves, which account for only 12 percent of the crude oil available in the world, while we have access to other sources. After all, once our reserves are used up, we will be totally at the mercy of OPEC.

   Instead of continuing our unhealthy dependence on OPEC, we should develop a comprehensive energy strategy. We should improve energy efficiency. We should diversify our energy sources.

   What are we doing here in Congress? Virtually nothing.

   We continue to prevent an increase in corporate average f uel econ omy. We routi nely underfund the development of solar and renewable energy. And we fail to seriously consider tax legislation that rewards efficiency and increases our energy security.

   In the absence of a comprehensive national energy strategy, drilling the refuge is just a band-aid. A quick fix. It's no substitute for a real, comprehensive, strategy.

   Putting this all together, drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not reduce prices at the pump anytime soon, if at all. And it will not significantly enhance our energy security.

   Now consider the environmental impact. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is truly unique. It is the only refuge of its type in the world. I've been there. It has been referred to, for good reason, as ``America's Serengeti.'' It's the nation's largest and most northerly wildlife refuge. It includes a full range of arctic and subarctic habitats. Vast herds of caribou migrate to the refuge, bearing their young on the coastal plain. Muskox use the area year-round. The refuge is the most important polar bear land denning area in Alaska. One hundred eighty bird species migrate there, from throughout the hemisphere.

   Eighteen major rivers contain 36 species of fish.

   Let's look at what development might do. What happens when the construction of, say, a pipeline and road forces wildlife away? Take the caribou hers. Female caribou seek out the best foraging areas as calving areas. These areas change each year. If, in any given year, the best foraging and calving area is a site for development, the caribou won't use it and fewer calves will survive. Development can also force females into areas where there are more predators, or block them from climbing onto ridge tops to avoid swarms of insects. Again, fewer calves will survive.

   The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that the cumulative impacts of these effects could significantly reduce the size of the caribou hers. The Service has expressed similar concerns about muskoxen.

   What about disturbances from road building? There is not enough water to build only ice roads. You'd have to build gravel roads, even for exploration. Gravel roads will alter the natural flow of water during spring breakup, will melt permafrost, and will otherwise damage the environment. Taken together, this could harm the habitat for more than 100 species of birds. This, in turn, will have effects way beyond the refuge itself. All of these birds are migratory. They nest and rear their young in the Refuge in the summer, then migrate throughout the entire hemisphere, including virtually every state.

   Now, the proponents of drilling say that the environmental impacts have been exaggerated. They say that the ``footprint'' of development is no larger than Dulles Airport. In fact, the development will not be concentrated in a small area.

   This map, based on projections by the Fish and Wildlife Service, shows potential pipelines, drilling pads, roads, and other facilities. As you can see, the roads and pipelines stretch across the entire coastal plain, bisecting migration paths and stream channels. What's more, recent reports by the U.S. Geological Service show that the oil reserves in the Refuge are smaller and more widely dispersed than previously thought. As a result, oil development will require more, and more widely dispersed, roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure. Finally, accidents.

   If the Exxon Valdez taught us anything, it is that humans working in a cold, harsh environment can make mistakes, and that the environmental costs in a fragile ecosystem can be extraordinarily high. Our experience elsewhere on the North Slope confirms this. There has been a general increase in the number of spills. At least two well-blowouts have occurred. At least 76 areas have been contaminated by oil development from the Prudhoe Field. Things usually don't go as smoothly as we plan.

   That brings me to my final point. It may be that, someday, the need will be so great, and the technology so sophisticated, that we decide that the benefits of exploration and development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are worth it. But we should only make that decision after careful deliberation,

[Page: S2208]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. President, pulling all of this together, the benefits of drilling simply are not worth it. They are not worth the environmental risks.

   Therefore, I urge Members to vote to maintain the longstanding ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, by voting for the Roth amendment.

   Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

   Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator ROTH's amendment to the budget resolution, and I thank the Senator for his leadership on matters relating to the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. The purpose and rationale behind the Roth amendment is simple: We should not include revenue assumptions in the budget based on oil development that will not, and should not, occur. Such faulty assumptions make poor fiscal policy and poor environmental policy. The Arctic Refuge is a national treasure. I support Senator ROTH's efforts to designate the area as wilderness, and I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor to the Roth wilderness bill.

   The crux of this debate is on our values, our legacy, and what we want to pass on to future generations. Senator BAUCUS mentioned the Serengeti National Park in Africa, an area immortalized in the human imagination for its beauty and majesty. This amazing park exists because previous generations had the foresight to preserve and protect this area from development. As Senator BAUCUS said, the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is referred to as the ``American Serengeti.'' And like its counterpart in Africa, this area deserves to be protected for us, our children, and our grandchildren.

   In 1980, in recognition of the area's immense environmental value, as Senator ROTH said, Congress formally established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At that time, and after much debate and deliberation, Congress made the wise decision to prohibit drilling in the Coastal Plain pending further review.

   Now, only a short 20 years later, efforts are underway to open this area to development.

   I urge my colleagues to resist these efforts, to look past our short term needs, and designate the area as wilderness for future generations. The very definition of a ``refuge'' means an area of sanctuary, shelter and protection. In the case of our wildlife refuges, this means protecting nature from drilling, road construction, combustion engines and all of the other harmful effects of human beings and their machines. A large portion of the Alaskan North Slope is already open to oil exploration or drilling; we should not subject ANWR to the same fate.

   Some have voiced concern at our increasing dependence on foreign oil, and our lack of a coherent national energy policy. I share these concerns, and agree completely that our country must take steps to improve our energy security. But the solution to our energy problems does not lie underneath the coastal plain of ANWR, and drilling there cannot become our energy policy. Remember, by definition, a refuge is a place providing protection or shelter--it is a haven, a sanctuary--we must make sure that ANWR remains a haven, a sanctuary.

   I thank my colleagues for their consideration, and I respectfully urge them to support the Roth amendment.

   Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

   Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator for yielding. I stand in complete support of his amendment, an amendment very similar to the one offered by my colleague, the Senator from California, in the Budget Committee.

   It should be kept in context that this budget resolution, without the Roth amendment, assumes $1.2 billion in royalties from the sale of oil from drilling in the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge.

   I want to say to Members of the Senate that the reason we are debating this is because the price of gasoline is increasing in the United States. People are more sensitized to the cost of fuel and energ y and the impact it has on businesses, families, and individuals.

   Those who have been salivating for decades for an opportunity to drill in this wildlife refuge in Alaska have jumped at the chance to assume that we are so consumed by the increase in energy prices that we will cast aside any concern for the environment and the legacy which we should leave to future generations.

   Senator ROTH is right. We should not be drilling in ANWR. We have to consider the fact that on the North Slope, 95 percent is already open to exploration. The 5 percent on the Coastal Plain that we have set aside is to protect what we have identified as a legitimate, important wildlife refuge.

   Oil companies and their supporters can't wait to drill in that wildlife refuge. I think it is wrong. I think Senator ROTH is right, as Senator BOXER was in committee.

   We should say unequivocally in a bipartisan fashion on the floor of the Senate that we need an energy policy, but we do not need to walk in and desecrate a wildlife refuge designed to be preserved for future generations.

   This last Saturday in Belleville, IL, I paid $1.39 a gallon for regular gasoline. I then drove 100 miles to Springfield, IL, and paid $1.49. Yes, prices have increased. Yes, I am sure for families of limited means and some businesses there is sacrifice attached to it. But we shouldn't use this as a catalyst or a reason to run headlong into this effort to desecrate this important environmental refuge.

   We need to face the reality that America needs an energy policy, and we shouldn't wait for a gasoline price crisis to drive us to the point to develop one. Such an energy policy is going to include a lot of things, such as looking for responsible areas for oil exploration and development; also, of course, energy efficiency not only in our automobiles but in virtually everything that we use involving energy. Of course, it will lessen our dependence on foreign oil sources. We need to look for alternative fuels.

   This is an important, complicated but a necessary national debate.

   This quick fix of drilling in ANWR in the belief that it is going to bring down gasoline prices is wrong on two counts.

   First, it is not likely to bring them down, if at all, until years from now.

   Second, it really avoids the obvious responsibility we have to preserve this important refuge.

   Senator ROTH is offering an amendment which is consistent

   with a member of his party who served in the United States as President many years ago by the name of Theodore Roosevelt, who said in his efforts to preserve the environment:

   We must ask ourselves if we are leaving for future generations an environment that is as good or better than what we found.

   Senator ROTH's amendment says this Senate will go on record leaving a legacy for future generations in the name and in the memory of Theodore Roosevelt, ``as good or better than what we found,'' that we will not allow this exploitation and exploration of this valuable and fragile natural resource.

   I stand in complete support of this amendment.

   I yield the remainder of my time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator ROTH for offering this amendment. I offered almost an identical amendment in the Budget Committee, and it failed on a tie vote. I am very hopeful that we will do better on the floor of the Senate. We were able to pick up one Republican in the committee. We had all the Democrats. I think we have a good chance of picking up, with the help of Senator ROTH and Senator CHAFEE, some more on their side of the aisle.

   This amendment would strike from the budget $1.2 billion in receipts that

[Page: S2209]  GPO's PDF

   I stand with those who have spoken very eloquently tonight, and say that we cannot allow that beautiful, pristine sanctuary--one of the most remarkable wildlife habitats in the world--to be spoiled.

   We have a beautiful picture, with which I am sure Senator MURKOWSKI is familiar.

   The wildlife refuge was established in 1960 by a Republican President, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. And it was for the benefit of his generation and future generations; that is, all of us. I think we have an obligation to keep that going, just as he kept it going for us.

   From the very beginning, support for this refuge has been bipartisan. Thank goodness we see evidence of that on the Senate floor. Too few times, I am sad to say, do we see such bipartisanship. That is why I am delighted to work with Senator ROTH on this.

   This land that President Eisenhower set aside in the Arctic wilderness is ecologically unique. It is the last remaining region where the complete spectrum of Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems can be found. It includes the highest peaks and glaciers of the Brooks Range.

   President Eisenhower's Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, called the new Arctic Refuge ``one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in North America.......a wilderness experience not duplicated anywhere else.''

   Nothing has changed since then. It is still there. But we can destroy it here.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents