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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have submitted to the desk the amendment to strike the language out of the budget that would recognize revenue from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We started this discussion last night with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about why America should not be focusing on drilling in a wildlife refuge, turn down the recognition of this revenue, and focus instead on an energy policy that will put America in better stead, get us off our dependency on foreign oil, reduce pollution, and focus on the technology that will truly make us energy independent.

Many have discussed or seen the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To remind my colleagues, we established this refuge because we believed in protecting the wildlife that existed there--the porcupine caribou herd, the polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, sheep, falcons, migratory birds as shown in this picture. We wanted to fulfill our international fish and wildlife treaty obligations. Also, we wanted to provide an opportunity for continued subsistence for local residents and we wanted to ensure water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.

These pictures from the refuge show a delicate coastline area in the northern parts of our country. The purpose of designating and protecting the wildlife refuge was because of its unique nature. One of the Episcopalian bishops from Alaska who was here yesterday spoke about the refuge as actual sacred ground and the fact that the preservation of it means so much to many Alaskans as it does to many people throughout America.

But we are here today on what I call a budget end run to recognize revenue in the budget as a way to try and open drilling in ANWR, to open drilling in this pristine wildlife area.

Now, why, if you want to support drilling in Alaska in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, do you want to try to do it on the budget? My point is, it starts a precedent for opening other areas by simply putting money in the budget. Why not expedite timber sales by simply recognizing revenues in the budget? Why not open drilling on the coastal regions of the country by recognizing revenues in the budget? Why not open drilling in Yellowstone National Park by recognizing revenues in the budget? It is a bad precedent.

It is a bad precedent for America because if you look at the President's potential U.S. oil and gas plan for America, you can see that the administration has oil plans for all over the country: up in the Northwest in the State of Washington, which I represent; and neighboring States, Oregon and California; along the eastern seaboard; in Florida, significant areas; up in the Great Lakes region. These are all the potential areas that the administration has designated as opportunities for oil drilling.

Do we want to stick in the budget revenue recognizing oil production in these areas and simply subvert the normal process that would allow us to debate and consider whether we should have these oil sources recognized?

This particular Senator agrees with some of the editorials around the country when it says this sets a bad precedent. In fact, there are many newspapers, particularly from coastal regions such as mine that are concerned. Let's go to the St. Petersburg newspaper. It said: So why should Floridians be concerned about the caribou? Obviously, there are no caribou in Florida. But the caribou being driven out of their icy habitat by oil rigs, because of this, for Florida, ``means there, by the grace of Congress, go we.''

That is what the St. Petersburg newspaper is trying to say. If you decide to drill in Alaska and recognize in the budget this revenue, what will stop them from doing this in other parts of the country?

Another Florida newspaper said:

The costs and risks of drilling in the Alaskan refuge outweigh the benefits. [And] opposition to the drilling off Florida's coast would be compromised.

So this is not only this Senator saying this, these are people from across the country who are concerned about this process of sticking money in the budget as a way to achieve the goals of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Well, I can tell you, I think opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling is the wrong direction for America. It is the wrong direction for America for many reasons. As I said, we have a pristine wildlife area we want to protect. If someone thinks it can coexist, if somehow drilling for oil in this region and the wildlife refuge can coexist, I would like them to think about this.

In the Prudhoe Bay area, we have averaged 500 oil spills a year. From 1972 to 1986, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation reported 23,000 spills of oil and hazardous materials on the Northern Slope. Annual emissions from air pollutants on the Northern Slope include at least 4,000 tons of hydrocarbons, more than 6,000 tons of methane gas, 6,000 to 27,000 tons of nitrogen oxide.

If that is not enough, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife studies have reported that the snowfields around Prudhoe Bay have high concentrations of heavy metals such as zinc, lead, and copper. For some of those chemicals, the nitrogen oxide level is as much as in Washington, DC. And we are talking about just an area in Alaska.

If you think drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge can coexist with the refuge, I would also like to suggest we take a look at the even newer Alaskan oilfields which have significant problems with environmental management.

In February 2000, one oil company was sentenced to pay $15.5 million in criminal fines and to implement new environmental management programs, and to serve 5 years probation for failure to report illegal dumping of hazardous materials in certain oil wells. They also paid an additional $6.5 million in civil penalties, while its contractor pled guilty to 15 counts of violating the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and paid a $3 million fine.

A 2003 study of by National Academy of Sciences, which studied the cumulative effects of current drilling on the Northern Slope of Alaska, documented significant environmental and cultural effects that have accumulated after three decades of oil development on Alaska's Northern Slope.

So I think it is very foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist, not when we are talking about clean water, not when we are talking about preserving a wildlife habitat, not when we are talking about continuing to preserve what has been called a very unique area of our country.

But there is something I think the Senate needs to understand as we take this vote. This is a good proposal for Alaska, and I don't fault my colleagues for trying to propose this particular proposal. I would much rather, as I said last night, work with my colleagues on a natural gas proposal and provide the resources necessary to build a pipeline and access a significant source of natural gas supply that would help us in America getting off our dependence of oil in general and develop a much cleaner supply for Americans. But there is nothing in this language that guarantees the oil produced in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would even stay in the United States. The oil companies are free to export that oil. So for those who say somehow this is going to affect gas prices--and, believe me, we will not see this oil for 10 years, and it is only a 6-month supply, and it will have a minimal impact on markets--it certainly has no guarantee to have an impact on price or supply in the rest of the U.S. market because the oil drilled in the refuge can be exported.

I also question whether the estimates of money in the budget resolution are even valid, whether the numbers are even correct. That is because current law requires that there be a 90-10 split between revenues that go to Alaska and the Federal Government. This budget resolution supposedly recognizes a 50-50 split, which I do not understand how one gets to that conclusion, because it is not current law. In any case, that split means Alaska residents would get $717 per person per year. So I get why it is a great deal for Alaskans. But it is not a great deal for Americans.

Americans need to move ahead and produce a variety of sources of energy supply. I am going to talk about that in a few minutes, but I want to recognize some of my colleagues who also want to speak.

What we need to recognize is that drilling in the refuge only increases America's reliance on fossil fuel, and that, according to another newspaper editorial in our country, is being recognized by Americans all over. They know that would increase America's reliance on fossil fuels and do little to limit our dependence on imported oil.

That is what the other side would like to say the debate is about, improving our independence. What we should do instead is invest in new technologies and change our strategy. We do not need to open a wildlife refuge and continue to depend on something that we know has a very high chance of polluting the environment and harming the wildlife, but get on to investing in the technology that will diversify our energy supply and give us a secure future.

http://thomas.loc.gov/