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
Contents Display
After extensive deliberation, I have decided to vote for cloture, to cut off debate, for a composite of reasons: 1. The United States needs to become independent of OPEC oil; 2. this modified legislation greatly reduces the environmental impact; 3. Federal funds
[Page: S2885] GPO's PDF
Many steps must be taken to free the U.S. from dependence on OPEC oil. To rely on the Saudis, let alone Iraq and Iran, is to court disaster. Our reliance on Arab oil has broad-ranging implications on our policy in the Mid-East including our support for Israel.
In this bill, I have voted for a significant increase in renewables to generate more energy from wind, the sun, biomass, hydropower and geothermal sources. I have supported expanded tax credits for clean coal and conservation measures including increasing mileage requirements for motor vehicles.
While I would prefer not to open ANWR to drilling if we could become independent of OPEC oil without it, I have visited ANWR and believe that significant steps have been taken to reduce the incursion, such as a reduced footprint through multi-directional drilling, ice roads and winter season drilling.
This legislation also allows for the use of funds from ANWR to cover so-called legacy costs for retired steel workers which would enable re-structuring of the domestic industry which is vital for national security. More than thirty steel companies have filed for bankruptcy in the past few years and tens of thousands of steel workers have lost their jobs. The recently imposed tariffs on imported steel gives the industry a three-year period for re-structuring with consolidation of many potentially failing companies into a company which could compete with foreign steel producers. That consolidation could not take place if the acquiring company has to assume the legacy costs. Federal funds derived from ANWR would be used to cover such legacy costs and permit consolidation.
Another consideration in my vote to invoke cloture is my view that the Senate should not require 60 votes for passage, a super majority, unless there is a great principle at issue, such as civil rights or civil liberties. Regrettably, a practice has evolved in the Senate to require cloture or 60 votes to pass legislation which is contrary to the fundamental principle, that in a democracy, decisions should be made by a majority.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I express my opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge because it is both poor energy policy and poor environmental policy.
A sound energy policy is critical to our Nation's security. The United States is currently 56 percent dependent on foreign oil. By 2020, this number could rise to 70 percent. At that time, over 64 percent of the world's oil exports will come from Persian Gulf nations, a prospect that causes me great concern.
In light of our increasing dependence on a profoundly undependable source of oil, we must ask ourselves what course do we now chart for our Nation's energy policy? Should we rush to deplete our last major reserve of oil, or should we increase conservation and develop alternative technologies that will allow our children to enjoy a better quality of life?
President Teddy Roosevelt once said: ``I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use our natural resources, but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.''
Americans have a right to develop our energy resources, but not to waste them. We could do far more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by increasing the efficiency of our automobiles than by drilling in the Arctic. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today would be akin to wasting resources that should rightfully be there for future generations. We must embrace an ethic of stewardship of our most treasured national resources.
Instead of rushing to deplete what is likely the last major oil reserve in the United States, we should instead promote energy efficiency and develop alternative technologies. Doing so will not only make more of an immediate difference than drilling in the Arctic, but it will also ensure that we leave our children with ample energy supplies and a broader array of energy options.
We can achieve greater and more immediate energy security by increasing our energy efficiency . According to testimony heard before the Senate Government Affairs Committee, the United States could cut our dangerous reliance on foreign oil by more than 50 percent by increasing energy efficiency by 2.2 percent per year. This would do far more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil than would drilling in ANWR, and the benefits could start almost immediately, not in 10 years. I note that the United States has a tremendous record of increasing energy efficiency when we put our minds to it: following the 1979 OPEC energy shock, the United States increased its energy efficiency by 3.2 percent per year for several years. With today's improvements in technology, 2.2 percent is attainable.
I am disappointed that the Senate last month failed to adopt higher automobile fuel economy standards . The Senate had the chance to save more than twice as much oil as is in the Arctic Refuge by simply increasing fuel economy standards . That proposal, which I cosponsored, would have saved consumers billions of dollars in annual gasoline bills while doing more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil than any other single measure.
It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who first set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In his parting words from the Oval Office, President Eisenhower told the Nation: ``As we peer into society's future, . . . [we] must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.'' Although the Arctic Refuge may seem to some to be the easiest and most convenient source of oil available, drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not solve our energy problems. I urge my colleagues to increase our energy efficiency , develop alternative energy sources, and preserve our precious Arctic resources so that our children will have the freedom to make their own choice concerning this vast wilderness reserve.
Mr. McCAIN. 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 have 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.
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 20 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 2013, we could have potentially saved 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2020
[Page: S2886] GPO's PDF
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?''
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.
I am 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''?
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.
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.''
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 10 minutes. The Senator from New Mexico has 14 1/2 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed Senator Daschle wishes to speak and is going to be coming to the floor in a few minutes to do that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, is time running off the side of the majority at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is running off the time of the majority.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We are playing games here, Mr. President, so I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes at this time, and I would appreciate the Chair reminding me when half my time is up. My understanding is that is in 5 minutes.
I want to show a chart. We had the Senator from California talk a little bit about refuges. This happens to be a producing well in a refuge in California. It is near San Francisco. The point is, there are refuges in many States, as additional charts will show.
Be that as it may, I am not going to belabor that point because there are a few other issues on which we need to reflect.
Today we are seeing headlines: ``Summer Gasoline Prices Again Headed Higher.''
We also see information coming at us from the Mideast relative to the crisis, and Saddam Hussein advises that oil is going to be used as a weapon.
Oil as a weapon. We remember the last time we saw a weapon in this country, it was an aircraft being used as a weapon--two aircraft, three aircraft. There was the Pentagon, there was the New York Twin Towers, and there was the terrible crash in Pennsylvania.
This is as a consequence, to some degree, of our continued reliance on imported oil. We have heard a lot on the other side relative to ANWR and what it would contribute. Let me identify for the record--and this is from the Energy Institute--crude oil imports relative to the annual report for the year 2002. Opening ANWR would reduce oil dependence from 66 percent in 2020 to 62 percent by 2024; 58 percent by 2020 in a high case. So we have a low case, a mean, and a high.
The significance is what it does relative to domestic production. Assuming the USGS mean case for oil in ANWR, there would be an increase of domestic production by 13.9 percent; assuming a higher case for oil--and this is USGS figures--25 percent of total domestic production, an increase--well, the increase is clearly substantial.
I think what a lot of people have forgotten in this debate is what we are debating. This second degree amendment, of course, provides funding for the rejuvenation of the American steel industry, with the proceeds from ANWR. But for a moment, let us reflect on the fact that passing the underlying amendment does not automatically open ANWR. In this amendment, we have given the President the authority to open ANWR. The President has to certify to Congress that the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources in the ANWR Coastal Plain are in the U.S. national, economic, and security interests. I think we should trust our President to make that decision. Clearly, at a time when the Mideast is in an inferno and we are 58 percent dependent, we should trust our President to make this decision.
Further, there is a 2,000-acre limitation on surface disturbance. That is in the House bill. There is an export ban, with the exception of exports to Israel. Under the Israeli oil supply agreement, we are extending it through the year 2014. There are 1.5 million acres of wilderness in ANWR, in exchange for opening approximately the 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain. We believe that is a responsible exchange.
We talk about a process. This is what I find totally unacceptable. One might say we were defeated before we even started on this project. Why? Well, because the majority leader basically pulled away from the committee of jurisdiction the process of developing out of that committee an orderly transition and development of a bill that could be brought to the floor and voted on by 50 votes.
We had 50 votes. We were victorious, and the Democratic leader knew it, but
[Page: S2887] GPO's PDF
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I guess one could say when we had control of the Senate the last time, 55 to 45 in 1995, we passed ANWR. President Clinton vetoed it. Now it is a different story in the Senate. We have 50/49/1. That is the reality associated with this issue.
The final point I want to make relative to the majority leader and his handling of this bill is one that I think bears consideration by all Members of this body. He said, even if we
get 60 votes, we are not going to get ANWR because he will pull the energy bill.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller was scheduled to speak. Of his time, which is 10 minutes, we yield 3 minutes to the manager of the bill, Senator Bingaman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will summarize some points we have made several times before. I think this debate has been useful in that all the arguments have been heard extensively. I do think it is an important issue.
I commend the Senators from Alaska for their efforts to move ahead. I do not favor going ahead with opening ANWR to drilling, and I think this is a debate which has continued, frankly, for decades in this Senate and in this country.
| <<< | >>> |
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
Contents Display