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    

But estimates of the amount of oil that might potentially be available if

[Page: S2889]  GPO's PDF

   Let me give you an important point of comparison: if we all put replacement tires on our cars that were as good as the ones that came with the cars when they were new, the resulting increase in efficiency would save 5.4 billion gallons of oil--70 percent more than the total amount of oil in the Arctic Refuge.

   Perhaps the most cynical attempt to justify drilling in the arctic refuge was the most recent. It was an attempt to link drilling in ANWR to an issue that many of my colleagues care about--the issue of health and retirement benefits for laid-off steelworkers.

   All I can say is that I hope those who proposed this addition to the ANWR amendment remember their newfound commitment to steelworkers when it comes time for us to debate trade adjustment assistance.

   The bottom line is this: anytime you see a policy so desperately in search of a justification, you can count on one of two things--either it's not that good a policy, or it doesn't have much support.

   Drilling in ANWR falls into both categories.

   And here's why: right now, more than 95 percent of the Alaskan North Slope is already open to oil and gas drilling.

   I find it ironic that by focusing this debate on ANWR, we are missing the other opportunities to produce oil and gas in Alaska that we should be encouraging.

   The first amendment that we passed to this bill authorizes the construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 States.

   There are 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves on the North Slope of Alaska.

   There is more we can do to encourage sensible production. We should explore ways to pump the heavy crude oil that remains in the ground in northern Alaska.

   And we should explore for oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska--the area where the 3 largest onshore oil reserves in the last 10 years were found.

   Faced with so little evidence that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would do anything significant to help our economic situation or increase our energy independence, some are now arguing that at the very least it can be done without harming the environment, or without exploiting too much land.

   But those arguments are flawed as well.

   For 12 years--over the course of a Democratic and a Republican administration--the U.S. Geological Survey studied the impact that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would have on the local wildlife.

   In March they came out with their final report--and it couldn't have been more straightforward: the wildlife in the region will be seriously hurt by oil development.

   Now, some Republicans are saying that they will limit the operation to a 2,000 acre ``footprint,'' and the environmental damage will be minimal.

   Well, ``footprint'' is a misleading term.

   In reality, oil production on the coastal plain area would require central production facilities, drilling pads, roads, airstrips, pipelines, water and gravel sources, base camps, construction camps, storage pads, powerlines, powerplants, and possibly a coastal marine facility.

   When you add those logistical necessities to the fact that those 2,000 acres doesn't include an additional 93,000 acres of Native American land--you begin to see how that 2,000 acre footprint could easily trample a substantial amount of the coastal plain.

   Finally, we need to recognize that this debate is about more than just drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

   It is about whether we are willing to recognize that decreasing our dependence on foreign oil means decreasing our dependence on oil, period.

   It is about whether we choose to pursue an energy future based upon the old philosophy of dig, drill, and burn--or whether we embrace innovative approaches to our energy future.

   We need to expand production of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, develop cars and trucks that do not run on gasoline, but on fuel cells or other energy technologies that we can produce here in the United States, and, in the meantime, build more innovative and efficient automobiles.

   Let me give you just one example of what the innovative new approach could achieve:

   If we had fully implemented the vehicle fuel -efficiency provisions that were originally in this bill--something that could have been done without affecting safety or performance--we would have saved American drivers billions of dollars--and saved our Nation the same amount of oil we are currently importing from the Persian Gulf.

   Bold steps like that are the path to energy independence--not backward steps like this.

   Most Americans will never have the opportunity to visit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and see the beauty and wonder of land that has been largely untouched by humans since the dawn of time.

   It is a tribute to the best of America that Americans still want to protect that ecologically rich expanse.

   It is a tribute to the best of America that so many people today want to give future generations the opportunity to see that land as it once was, and always should be.

   So I urge my colleagues to use these votes to show that we have the creativity to meet our energy needs, and the character to resist violating the few natural sanctuaries that we have set aside to protect in the process.

   Let's defeat these amendments. I urge all my colleagues to vote against cloture.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time.

   I want my colleagues to note there is not one single thing in here that increases domestic oil production in this energy bill. I find that unconscionable at a time when energy prices are increasing. We face continued crisis in the Middle East, and the intention of Saddam Hussein is, in his words, ``use oil as a weapon.'' We have seen that.

   I am very pleased to stand with Senator Stevens and recognize the support on this issue, from seafarers, teamsters, ironworkers, laborers, operating engineers, plumbers, pipefitters and many other unions in America that recognize this legislation as good for the American worker. A vote on the second degree which Senator Rockefeller just talked about is a vote for America's steel industry.

   He didn't talk about rejuvenating the industry. This is money that could come from opening ANWR, some $12 billion. It is unconscionable that they are not giving serious consideration to this because we are talking about passing a law; the conference is something else.

   Finally, a vote for this amendment is a vote for the Native people of my State of Alaska. They were promised they would have access to their lands. The underlying amendment would give them that.

   We talk about truth today. I am going to close with one reference from the New York Times.

   A Democrat from the northeast who considers himself a strong environmentalist also said he once tried quietly to see if he could broker a deal in which Democrats would back limited exploration in the wildlife reserve and Republicans would support much tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

   The Democrat said he quickly gave up when it became apparent that the environmental organizations would not budge in their opposition to new drilling.

   ``If you told the environmentalists we would end global warming once and for all in return for ANWR,'' he said, ``they'd still say no.''

   The truth is, what is going on here is simply the word ``greed.'' The so-called environmentalists are not interested in science; they are not interested in the health of this planet; they are not interested in the welfare of the people of my State; they are interested in only one thing--fundraising and keeping their high-paid jobs.

   They know that we can explore Alaska safely; and that the wildlife will not be hurt. But they know that if we win ANWR, and we will, their chief fundraising tool goes away. That's what this entire debate is about--it is about raising money and keeping jobs for people who call themselves environmentalists.

   That is the bottom line. We could pull this bill but the people of Alaska are entitled to a vote and Members are entitled to stand and be heard. They are going to be held accountable, and that is the way it should be.

   I urge my colleagues to do what is right, what is right for America, not

[Page: S2890]  GPO's PDF

   I yield the floor.

   CLOTURE MOTION

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

   The bill clerk read as follows:

   Cloture Motion

   We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Stevens amendment No. 3133, regarding drilling in ANWR:
Tom Daschle, Kent Conrad, Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Tim Johnson, Tom Carper, Jeff Bingaman, Byron Dorgan, Richard Durbin, Mark Dayton, Jay Rockefeller, Patrick Leahy, Jack Reed.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the Stevens amendment, No. 3133, to amendment No. 3132 to S. 517, a bill to authorize funding for the Department of Energy to enhance its mission areas through technology transfer and partnership for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 and for other purposes shall be brought to a close?

   The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk called the roll.

   The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:

   Akaka

   Allard

   Allen

   Bond

   Breaux

   Bunning

   Burns

   Byrd

   Campbell

   Cochran

   Craig

   Crapo

   Domenici

   Frist

   Grassley

   Hagel

   Hatch

   Helms

   Hutchinson

   Inhofe

   Inouye

   Landrieu

   Lott

   Lugar

   McConnell

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Santorum

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Specter

   Stevens

   Thompson

   Thurmond

   Voinovich

   Warner

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Bennett

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Brownback

   Cantwell

   Carnahan

   Carper

   Chafee

   Cleland

   Clinton

   Collins

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Daschle

   Dayton

   DeWine

   Dodd

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Edwards

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Graham

   Gramm

   Gregg

   Harkin

   Hollings

   Hutchison

   Jeffords

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kerry

   Kohl

   Kyl

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lieberman

   Lincoln

   McCain

   Mikulski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nelson (NE)

   Nickles

   Reed

   Reid

   Roberts

   Rockefeller

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Smith (NH)

   Smith (OR)

   Snowe

   Stabenow

   Thomas

   Torricelli

   Wellstone

   Wyden

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. CARNAHAN). On this vote, the yeas are 36, the nays are 64. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

   AMENDMENT NO. 3133, WITHDRAWN

   Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I withdraw amendment No. 3133.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is withdrawn.

   CLOTURE MOTION

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   Cloture Motion

   We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Murkowski ANWR amendment No. 3132 to S. 517, the Energy Bill:
Tim Johnson, Tom Carper, John Kerry, Jeff Bingaman, Patrick Leahy, Tom Harkin, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Max Cleland, Maria Cantwell, Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Max Baucus.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the Murkowski ANWR amendment No. 3132 to S. 517, a bill to authorize funding the Department of Energy to enhance its mission areas through technology transfer and partnerships for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?

   The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

   The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

   Akaka

   Allard

   Allen

   Bennett

   Bond

   Breaux

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Campbell

   Cochran

   Craig

   Crapo

   Domenici

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Frist

   Gramm

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Hatch

   Helms

   Hutchinson

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Inouye

   Kyl

   Landrieu

   Lott

   Lugar

   McConnell

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Nickles

   Roberts

   Santorum

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Specter

   Stevens

   Thomas

   Thompson

   Thurmond

   Voinovich

   Warner

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Byrd

   Cantwell

   Carnahan

   Carper

   Chafee

   Cleland

   Clinton

   Collins

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Daschle

   Dayton

   DeWine

   Dodd

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Edwards

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Graham

   Harkin

   Hollings

   Jeffords

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kerry

   Kohl

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lieberman

   Lincoln

   McCain

   Mikulski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nelson (NE)

   Reed

   Reid

   Rockefeller

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Smith (NH)

   Smith (OR)

   Snowe

   Stabenow

   Torricelli

   Wellstone

   Wyden

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 54. Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

   Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.

   The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

   Mr. LOTT. Madam 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. GRAMM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I call for regular order.

   AMENDMENT NO. 3144 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2999

   Mr. GRAMM. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

<<<

>>>

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