Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the Fiscal Year 2006

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleagues from New York and Delaware.

Many believe Amtrak is a critical service for the northeastern corridor. Amtrak is an important passenger rail service for the Midwest. In my State of Illinois, we have three different Amtrak lines that are vitally important to my State. Each year, about 3 million passengers ride Amtrak in the State of Illinois. They are young and old, many college students.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Again, there are 3 million passengers a year in Illinois that include the young and old who ride Amtrak for a variety of reasons. I live in the State capital. State employees go back and forth on the trains from Springfield to Chicago. A lot of baseball fans heading up to see the Cubs and Sox and the Cardinals down in St. Louis ride on Amtrak. During a school year, you cannot board an Amtrak train without finding scores of students going to Southern Illinois University, University of Illinois, Illinois State University, or Quincy University. It is a critical service for our State. Two-thousand people in my State work on Amtrak.

If the administration has its way and closes down Amtrak, as Secretary Mineta and the President have suggested, or threatened, it is going to have a devastating impact on Illinois. What happens when the Amtrak trains go away? If they do--and I hope it never happens--if they do, the answer is obvious: more cars on the highway.

Who in the world thinks that is the answer to America's transportation future? Right now, communities across Illinois are begging me for more money to widen and build highways because already the congestion is out of control. Now comes the discussion of eliminating national passenger service, so 3 million train passengers in Illinois will be in a car--or maybe 1 1/2 million if 2 people ride together--adding to the congestion, adding to the pollution, adding to more dependence on foreign oil.

What is this White House thinking? Instead of walking away from Amtrak, this administration and other administrations should walk toward Amtrak, realizing that it is one of the key elements of transportation in America.

We don't think twice about subsidizing highway transportation--trucks and cars. We do it all the time by building these highways and bridges that we are going to need. We don't think twice about subsidizing airlines in this country. We do it, and I voted for it because airline travel is critically important to our economy. Why in the world do we draw the line when it comes to this rail service and say this is an anachronism that would not work and should not have a penny of subsidy, that if it takes a subsidy, we should do away with it? That is shortsighted.

It is not surprising to me that a President from the State of Texas, with limited Amtrak service, doesn't appreciate what Amtrak means to many States. In Illinois, our State contributes $12 million a year to Amtrak. That is the State subsidy to Amtrak, which I think is a demonstration of their good will to keep Amtrak running--about 90 percent of the operating costs for the three routes I mentioned earlier, and more than $70 million over the last decade, in addition to a quarter of the cost of the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor. Illinois, despite a big deficit, is willing to pay its fair share. Should the Federal Government not be willing to do the same?

Secretary Mineta is a friend of mine; we served in the House together. He came to Chicago recently and said: I want to make it clear, we don't want to close down Amtrak. If we wanted to do that, we would do nothing. That means no subsidy. Amtrak would go away with no subsidy. We should work to improve Amtrak. They have made great progress over the last several years. But capital investments in Amtrak today mean better, more reliable service, faster trains, more people using the trains, and fewer people on the highways. Walking away from Amtrak will not achieve that goal.

I hope we can put together a bipartisan coalition to support Senator Byrd and the amendment he is offering on behalf of Amtrak. I think the Senator from West Virginia and the bipartisan group that supports Amtrak are going to keep this service in place so we can make certain that the millions of people in Illinois and across the U.S. will continue to find Amtrak a reliable train service.

Mr. President, at this point, if I am not mistaken, unanimous consent suggests that we are moving to a discussion or debate on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; is that correct?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to make clear, since the chairman of the committee came to the floor, that there were 8 minutes remaining on the Amtrak debate on the majority side, and I protected that 8 minutes so it would not be surrendered. Under the unanimous consent agreement, we now move to the debate on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I hope that meets with his approval. If it does not, I will be happy to work with the majority on that question.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was created in the administration of President Eisenhower. This Republican President decided in the 1950s that there were parts of the United States so important for future generations that they should be protected. One of those parts was the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

There has been a lot of debate about the future of that refuge. It is a place in our Nation that has a special significance to many people. There are Native Americans who live there and count on this refuge for their sustenance, maintaining their tradition, really protecting their lifestyle. There are others who see this Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from a much different perspective, and that is why we continue to debate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The reason we are considering it on the budget resolution is because a decision has been made, and that decision, made by those who wish to see drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas, is that they no longer want to follow the regular rules of the Senate because the regular rules of the Senate allow us to debate for a period of time.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DURBIN. I will yield for a question.

Mr. STEVENS. Are regular rules of the Senate to filibuster a bill? I do not understand what the Senator is saying. The only reason this is in the budget resolution is because he and others have threatened to filibuster it.

Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator have a question?

Mr. STEVENS. That is my question. Would the Senator guarantee us an up-or-down vote if we do not keep it in this resolution?

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Alaska. He has certainly been here a lot longer than I have. He understands the rules of the Senate far better than I do, and under the regular order of the Senate, we allow debate to protect the rights of the minority. I think the Senator is well aware of that fact. It is really what makes the Senate unique. And the fact that now the Senator from Alaska wants to raise this issue on the budget resolution is because he wants to in some way go around the regular order of the Senate and to win with 51 votes an issue which may require 60 votes if it was debated in the regular order. I think the Senator would concede the fact that what he is doing is extraordinary, that he is asking for this Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield there?

Mr. DURBIN. Not at this point because I think we have divided time for debate.

Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to charge it against my time.

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator will have ample opportunity to use his own time. I will not yield at this time. I would like to not be interrupted for a few minutes, and then we can have a conversation.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator state his party never tried to put an item in the budget resolution--

Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator asking a question? If not, I do not yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. I am asking the Senator a question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor, and he may yield for a question if he so desires.

Mr. DURBIN. I will yield for a question, a brief question, but I have a certain amount of time to use here and I would like to use it.

Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator saying his party has never used the same procedure to put in a budget resolution an item so it would avoid a filibuster?

Mr. DURBIN. In my response to the question, I am not saying in the history of the Senate this never occurred. But I will say to the Senator from Alaska, he knows as well as anyone who has been in this Chamber for a period of time that this is not the usual order of Senate. This is an extraordinary procedural move being made by the Senator from Alaska because he has had a difficulty passing this important bill that he would like to see passed. I think that is a fact of life.

What I would like to address for a moment, though, is the merit of the issue. Think about it for a minute. When we ask the Bush administration, What is your energy policy for America, they tell us the centerpiece for their energy policy for America is drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Surely you must believe, if you think that is truly the centerpiece, there must be an extraordinary trove of oil and gas there that will sustain America for a lengthy period of time.

Let's look at the facts. The facts tell us quite the opposite. In fact, what we now find is when we look at the oil production that we can anticipate from the coastal plain that is being debated here, it would peak at 0.26 billion barrels a year in the year 2027, when the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that Americans will consume about 10.2 billion barrels of oil annually. The Arctic Refuge oil would provide about 2.5 percent of America's annual need in that 1 year--2.5 percent; and that is the peak year for oil production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

If we are talking about a source of oil which in its best and peak year is producing 2.5 percent of our oil needs in America, how in the world can this be the centerpiece of our energy policy for America? Frankly, it is not and should not be. It has become a separate issue.

For those from the State of Alaska, the two Senators here who are passionately committed to this, I can understand the nature of their commitment. Oil and gas exploration in Alaska has been very profitable, not only for the companies involved but for many people in Alaska. But for those of us who are trying to look at a balanced energy picture, there are some serious questions here as to why we would decide to go forward in a wildlife refuge established almost 50 years ago and say we have reached such a desperate point in America when it comes to energy that we have no choice but to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

For years I have come to the floor questioning this decision by the Bush administration. I have been told from time to time by those on the other side that I don't know what I am talking about because I have never been there; I have never seen the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

After having been told that for a number of years, I decided to do something about it. I went there. I went there 2 years ago and camped out 2 nights in the refuge with my son and some friends, to take a look at what the refuge was. We went there in August. It was an amazing experience, one of the most beautiful pieces of real estate on this Earth. Although there are some who come and disparage it and say it doesn't offer that much, I think it is extraordinary. I think President Eisenhower was right in setting it aside as a wildlife refuge.

When you take a look at the area where oil exploration and drilling have been allowed, you can see as you fly over the dramatic difference. The landscape is scarred with roads and activities in those areas not protected as a wildlife refuge. On the side of the river where the wildlife refuge exists, it is quite different. It is as God made it and it still stands today. It is significantly different.

The administration and its supporters for drilling in the Arctic Refuge have claimed the drilling can be done in an environmentally sound manner. I recently heard one of the Secretaries say we would use ice roads which would disappear when the spring thaw came around; you would never even know they had been used. They noted that the United States has the highest environmental standards and the most advanced technology in the world.

That may be true. But toxic spills and air pollution from permanent year-round operations are currently wreaking havoc on many areas of Alaska's fragile North Slope. Once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States, Alaska's North Slope now hosts one of the world's largest industrial complexes, spanning a thousand square miles of once pristine arctic tundra.

Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oil fields include the following: 28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater treatment and powerplants; 38 gravel mines; 223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads; 500 miles of road; 1,800 miles of pipeline; 4,800 exploration and production wells. All of this activity is taking place in an exceptionally fragile region.

Any physical disturbance--bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration, spills of oil and other toxic substances--can scar the land for decades. The National Academy of Sciences concluded it is likely that the most disturbed habitat will never be restored and the damage to more than 9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries.

At risk in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the home for nearly 200 wildlife species including polar bears, musk oxen, and caribou. While I was there camping in the ANWR we saw one of these musk oxen. It was an amazing sight. During the summer, nearly 135 bird species, including millions of tundra swans, snowy owls, eider ducks and shore birds, are among those that rely on the area for sustenance before migrating south for the winter.

No matter how careful oil companies are, oil exploration and production are not environmentally sensitive practices.

Exploration and production would not be confined to a limited area; it would range across many separate fields, affecting wildlife habitat on hundreds of thousands acres interspersed between sprawling oil facilities and pipelines.

Habitat would be further disrupted by industrial activity associated with airports, permanent production and support facilities, housing, and the gravel roads needed to connect drilling sites.

All this industrial activity would fragment the coastal plain, disrupting critical birthing, denning and breeding areas.

Each year, the oil industry spills ten of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope.

From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials.

In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance--the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope--is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills.

Then there is the issue of air pollution. Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain. North Slope oil facilities also release greenhouse gases emitting anywhere from 7 to 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane. Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow, Alaska, nearly 200 miles away.

The City of Nuiqsut Council in 2001 noted, ``the impact of oil and gas development on our village has been far reaching. This has affected our day-to-day lives in several ways. Our ability to hunt and gather traditional food has been severely impacted by development.''

Increased cases of asthma have also developed in villages subject to the air pollution posed by development.

Hazardous waste contaminates water and wetlands despite advances in waste disposal methods where drilling wastes are ground up and re-injected.

In 2000 British Petroleum was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and criminal fines and establish a new environmental management program because its contractors had illegally disposed of hazardous wastes containing benzene and other toxic chemicals. These crimes only came to light because a whistle-blower reported them to the EPA.

If the United States were in a situation, a desperate situation where our economy was teetering near collapse, where we worried if businesses and jobs would continue because of energy shortages, where there was a serious question about the national security of America, I suppose the case could be made that even drilling in a wildlife refuge, even drilling in part of this world that we promised would never be touched, is warranted. That is not the case when it comes to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The amount of oil and energy that could be gleaned from this area is minuscule in terms of America's security demands.

The damage that could be done to this area would be permanent. It would change it forever.

You have to ask yourself, if we have not reached such a desperate moment in our history where we have to go to a wildlife refuge and drill for oil, why are we doing it?

Some argue that many oil companies with their leases would make money. Some argue it would be good for the economy in some parts of Alaska. But I look at it from a different perspective, perhaps from a national perspective.

It is interesting to me that this energy bill which makes the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge the centerpiece of the administration's energy policy--a region which at its peak year could only produce 2.5 percent of the oil we needed--is the same Energy bill that refuses to even consider fuel efficiency and fuel economy of the cars and trucks that we drive in America. If we are worried about our dependence on foreign fuel--and we should be--aren't we doing the obvious? Why are we not saying that we are going to create incentives and standards so that we produce trucks and cars for America which will be more fuel-efficient vehicles? We have done this before.

In 1975, we faced an energy crisis. Congress ignored the big three automakers, and many who opposed them, and said we are going to pass a standard to double the fuel efficiency of vehicles on the road in America. We went from 14 miles a gallon average fuel efficiency over 10 years to almost 28 miles a gallon. Some said it couldn't be done technologically. Some said we had no right to do it legally. We did it. More fuel-efficient vehicles were on the road, with less dependence on foreign oil.

What has happened since 1985 when those new standards were implemented? Exactly nothing. We have failed to rise to the challenge of fuel efficiency and fuel economy on cars and trucks in America. In fact, we created a gaping loophole for trucks saying they wouldn't be bound by the same fleet fuel average, and SUVs drove right into that loophole. Now there are SUVs all over the highway, with limited gas mileage burning fuel, adding to the air pollution, increasing our dependence on foreign oil. If we improved slightly the efficiency of cars and trucks, fuel efficiency over the next few years, this debate would be totally unnecessary. We wouldn't have to be talking about drilling in a wildlife refuge. We wouldn't have to be talking about drilling offshore in California or Florida or other States. We would be doing the right thing for our environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

But this administration will not even entertain the possibility of asking them to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. ``Let the marketplace work its will,'' is what we hear over and over again. We have seen ample demonstration of the marketplace at work as we find larger, heavier vehicles on the road consuming more fuel and getting fewer miles per gallon. That is the trend for our future.

In our desperation, we import more oil to feed gas-guzzling vehicles, and we turn our back on the obvious needs to conserve energy--not just in the vehicles we drive but in our everyday lives and in our business concerns as well.

I come to this debate wondering if we have reached such a desperate point that we have to drill in a wildlife refuge set aside for my children, my grandchildren, and generations beyond. Have we reached the point when it comes to America's energy security where we have no choice but to go into these areas that are so important and so pristine and engage in drilling and production techniques that will leave scars on the landscape forever?

From my point of view, we have not. There is a lot more that we can do--simple, honest approaches to this problem which will meet our Nation's energy needs without sacrificing some of the valuable resources and treasures such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I don't know how this vote will come out on this issue. It is likely to be very close. But having been there and seen what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge represents, this Senator is going to oppose this effort to drill in ANWR.

I think we should show real leadership, leadership that calls for conservation, renewable fuels, and better fuel efficiency. And with that fuel efficiency there will be no need to compromise the integrity of such important areas in America as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/