Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005

DEFICIT REDUCTION OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cantwell amendment and in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 1960, under the leadership of President Eisenhower, we created this nearly 20-million-acre Refuge. President Eisenhower and Congress said to the American people: We are going to hold this piece of America in trust. It will be held for future generations because it is a special place. It is one of the few places in America where we are going to restrict development. We are going to protect it because we want generations to come to know that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a special place, a place deserving of our honor, our respect, and our protection.

With the provision in this bill before us today, we will turn our back on that promise made by President Eisenhower and by our Nation 45 years ago. We will authorize, in this reconciliation bill, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is a sad day. It troubles me that some have come to the Chamber and argued that this really is not that big a deal. They are going to gingerly step into this Refuge, drill, and gingerly step out, and you will never know they were there. You might buy that argument if you hadn't been there.

Several years ago, during the course of debating the same issue, which has been debated here a long time, one of the Senators from Alaska said to me: What do you know about it? You have never been there. You have never seen it. How would you know what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge looks like?

It was a worthy challenge. I accepted it. I took off and spent 2 1/2 days camping out in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge so I could see it. We left Arctic Village, a remote village in Alaska, flew in a Canadian Beaver aircraft that was almost 50 years old over the Brooks Range, down the North Slope, along the Canning River.

As we looked to the west, we could see the State lands that had been drilled for oil and gas, and then, to the east, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that had not been drilled. It was easy to tell the two apart because the scars that were left on that State land that had been drilled were still there years and years later. They didn't gingerly step in and drill and leave; they cut scars across that land that will be there forever. On the east side of the river, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was pristine. One might see the tracks of a little wildlife, and that was it. So to say that these oil and gas companies are going to go in there and discretely and innocently take out the oil and gas defies human experience.

How much is this worth to us? Why is it that we would turn our back on a 45-year-old promise by America to future generations? Why would we say now, for the first time, we are going to drill for oil and gas in this wildlife refuge that we promised would never be explored in this way?

Some argue we just need the gas. Come on, don't you know what is going on at gasoline stations in Illinois and across the country? Gasoline prices are going through the roof. We need more oil. If we don't have more oil, it is going to mean calling for greater sacrifice. Families and businesses will continue to be dependent on foreign oil.

There are two things to consider. The Arctic Coastal Plain will yield less than 1 year's worth of oil for America, and it won't be available for 10 years. This debate is about 1 year's worth of oil, not available for 10 years, and it may take 20 years to extract it. So what impact will that have, Mr. And Mrs. American Consumer? About 1 penny a gallon. That is why we are going into ANWR.

There is a bigger issue. We have heard it said over and over on the other side. This is about America's energy security. You can argue it is a small amount of oil, but even accepting the fact that even a small amount of oil will lessen our dependence on foreign oil somewhat, there is another interesting issue. Do you know there was an amendment before the committee when the ANWR issue came up, and that amendment said: Whatever oil we take out of ANWR, we are going to use in America? That oil will come down to be used in America, so it will benefit American consumers and motorists. But that amendment by Senator Wyden from Oregon was defeated. In fact, the Senator from Alaska voted against the amendment which said the ANWR oil has to be used in America.

What are we really debating here? We are debating drilling in ANWR so that oil can be exported from a wildlife refuge to China and Japan and other parts of the world. This isn't about the energy security of America; it is about the energy security of China and Japan. We are going to defile this wildlife refuge to drill for oil that can be exported, that won't even benefit the United States. Why would we do that? There is only one reason--because the oil companies will make a huge profit off of it. Those struggling oil companies need our help today with this amendment. They have had a tough 6 months.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DURBIN. No, I won't.

They have had a tough 6 months. They have had recordbreaking profits of $40 billion over the last 6 months, and now they want the option to go drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge we promised to protect 45 years ago so they can drill and export oil to other countries for their economy. Is that what this debate is all about? Sadly, I am afraid it is.

The argument that this is just going to affect 2,000 acres--I am sorry--having flown over this area, having seen what happens, I know and the Department of Interior knows it isn't just about the pad where you drill. It is about roads and airstrips and pipelines and water and gravel sources and base camps and construction camps, storage pads, power lines, powerplants, support facilities, coastal marine facilities--it is a huge undertaking. You may see that postage stamp of drilling, but there is a lot more in support of it that is going to have an impact on this environment.

This is an abdication of leadership. To say that we have no other place to turn in America other than to drill in a wildlife refuge is an abdication of leadership and a concession to greed by the oil companies. How have we reached this moment where the leadership in America cannot turn to the American people and say: We can't go this far. We can't cross this line and drill in a wildlife refuge that we promised for 45 years to protect. We have to find other ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil to make the cost of gasoline more affordable.

And there are other ways. If we improve the miles per gallon on the cars and trucks we are driving today by 2 miles a gallon, it would make up for all of the oil we are talking about drilling out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This Senate, given a chance to vote for more fuel efficiency, refused so we can continue the habit of buying fuel-inefficient cars and trucks, driving gas guzzlers, saying we are going to drill our way out of our problems, that we will continue to be dependent on foreign oil. There has been no leadership from this administration to talk about efficiency and conservation and making our cars and trucks more fuel efficient which would make this debate absolutely unnecessary. America can do better when it comes to energy.

This White House argues that all we can do to get out of a problem is to drill our way out. Except the obvious, America has only 3 percent of the known oil reserves in the world, and we consume 25 percent. We cannot drill our way out of this problem. Today, we will sacrifice a wildlife refuge. Tomorrow, the oil companies want to drill off our coastlines. What comes next, the Great Lakes? Where will this end? It will end with leadership and vision for an energy policy for America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil with responsible environmental production, with conservation techniques, with energy efficiency, with renewable and sustainable fuels instead of drilling away in wildlife refuges we promised our children we would protect.

America can do better with leadership and with vision.

I urge my colleagues, support the Cantwell amendment. Understand that this is not the answer. Drilling for oil in Alaska to export it to China is no answer to America's energy security challenge.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/