 |
.gif) |
 |
|
| |
| STATEMENT OF
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN ON THE AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE
DEVELOPMENT IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
|
| For Immediate Release |
| Thursday, Apr 18, 2002 |
| |
Mr. President, I would like to speak about
today's vote to end debate on the two pending amendments
to authorize oil and gas development in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
In past years, I've
voted in support of exploring development options in
ANWR as part of budget reconciliation measures. I
believed that was the right vote. I was not an expert on
the issue and I believed that further deliberation was
warranted.
Unfortunately, the information
presented to us consistently reveals widely varying
predictions of actual oil potential and economic
benefits, as well as various scenarios of possible
impacts on wildlife and the environment. Even government
studies are not conclusive and raise more questions than
they answer. The various interpretations have already
been debated by each side, and I need not rehash them
now.
However, several factors are clear to me:
Oil and gas could be recovered from ANWR many
years from now, but not without considerable costs to
taxpayers.
Most scientific analyses conclude
that both the land and wildlife would adversely be
impacted by development.
The two Alaska Native
communities most impacted by this debate are split in
their positions on this issue.
Even if ANWR were
authorized for development, we would still rely on
imported oil supplies and require other sources of
energy development and generation.
Mr.
President, I too am concerned about our nation's
dependence on foreign oil supplies. Unless we act in
some comprehensive manner on several fronts, including
conservation measures and greater use of nuclear and
other forms of alternative energy generation, our
current dependence on foreign oil could increase from 56
percent to 70 percent in less than twenty years.
With respect to taking truly effective action to
reduce our oil dependence, regrettably the Senate
rejected a more effective measure to modestly increase
fuel efficiency standards, a proposal that would
substantially decrease our nation's dependence on
foreign oil and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Had we adopted an increase of fuel efficiency standards
to 36 mpg average by 2015, we could have potentially
saved 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2020 which
is about equal to present imports from the Persian Gulf.
This prudent conservation measure would also save twice
as much, if not more, oil than what is in ANWR.
Opening the refuge could only meet about 2 to 5
percent of the nation's oil needs, at best. Even some
oil company executives have expressed doubts about
drilling in ANWR, as stated by one: "Big oil companies
go where there are substantial fields and where they can
produce oil economically...does ANWR have that? Who
knows?"
And, let me also say that the answer to
threats posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein is not to
drill in ANWR but to end his regime sooner rather than
later. Drilling in ANWR will not remove the clear and
present danger posed by Hussein and will not stop in any
way whatsoever his weapons of mass destruction program
or for that matter his "inspiring and financing a
culture of political murder and suicide bombing,"as
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld so aptly described his
lawless and murderous behavior.
I also wish to
comment briefly about the second degree amendment
offered to the underlying ANWR amendment to divert a
majority of revenues derived from oil and gas
development to retirement and other benefits for the
steel industry.
Mr. President, I'm not against
our steel workers. They helped build our nation and are
among the hardest working people in America. But to
underwrite their retirement in a transparent effort to
attract more votes is very bad policy. What do we say to
all the other workers who are also suffering during
economic hard times? Are we going to say, "sorry, but
giving royalties to folks in your industry won't get us
the votes we need to pass our bill"?
Mr.
President, miners, teachers, construction laborers, and
many other hard-working Americans have seen their jobs,
benefits, and pensions endangered by the recent hard
economic times. Yet, they would not benefit from this
proposal. Nor would our veterans, who undoubtably could
use more help paying for their medical bills. These
last-minute tactics are not a credit to this
deliberative body and only serve to increase the
public's skepticism of government.
Mr.
President, America will need oil for the foreseeable
future. What gives this generation the right to deplete
this vital resource when we have the opportunity to
preserve it for the benefit of future generations? At
the end of our day, we still have prudent alternatives
to ANWR to meet our energy demands and we should
aggressively pursue them. A more acute energy need than
our own in the future may require development, where
assurances of improved technology may better protect the
environment. With other viable energy options available
to us today, to approve ANWR drilling would be a
dereliction of our duty to posterity.
Teddy
Roosevelt, the champion of conservation, once said:
"Conservation means development as much as it does
protection. I recognize the right and duty of this
generation to develop and use the natural resources of
our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste
them, or rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come
after us."
Mr. President, I have thought long
and hard about this debate and the vote that I will
cast. I still hope we can achieve a more balanced
national energy strategy, but I am not convinced that a
key component of that policy should be to drill in ANWR.
I will vote against the motions to invoke cloture on
these amendments. |
| [ back
to press releases
] | | |
|
| |
|
