Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. BOXER. I want to make sure I have my 5 minutes to respond to the hour-long speech of the Senator from New Mexico.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico spoke with tremendous conviction about why he wants to drill in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. He said he had no hard feelings for those people who felt differently, but he said a number of things that deserve to be rebutted, and I am going to do that. I certainly believe that whether one has an area that looks like this--and my colleagues said this is not a photograph of the area that would be drilled, but they are completely incorrect. This has been mapped. We have exactly where this is on the back of the photograph. It is right in the heart of the refuge. We had this picture last year, which then-Senator Frank Murkowski said was not taken in the refuge area. We had the head of Fish and Wildlife in Alaska phone in, irate, and essentially say, yes, this is exactly where they want to drill, where the caribou are roaming. So let's get that right. I am not going to stand up in front of pictures that do not apply to make my case. That is ridiculous. I would not do that. That is wrong. It is not a fair way to debate. I want to debate on the merit. I also have never, ever said in this debate--and I spoke last night, as well as this morning--that people on the other side are doing this because they get campaign contributions from oil and gas companies and other economic interests. I will not do that. I have more respect than that. But, of course, my colleague from New Mexico says the only reason we are fighting for this is that we get contributions from a few environmental organizations. Hogwash. I would like to line up the campaign contributions of the environmental organizations versus the campaign contributions of big oil and gas companies. Let's just cut it out. The Senate should be above that. I speak from my heart when I say there is an inconsistency with setting aside this beautiful acreage and then saying, oh, well, now we need to drill. I received a call this morning from former Representative John Seiberling. Last night, his picture was held up by Senator Stevens. Senator Stevens said there was a deal cut in 1980 to allow oil drilling. Obviously, I was not in that meeting. The fact is I came to the Congress in 1982, so I missed that by 2 years. Representative Seiberling phoned us this morning. He was the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands. He was in that picture, and he said there was no deal to open the Alaska Wildlife Reserve to exploration. So I want to state that for the record, just as last night I talked about the letter from President Jimmy Carter who said he is totally opposed to this drilling, even though he, too, was referred to as being part of this so-called deal. I also want to show a footprint of the New Jersey Turnpike. Now, my colleagues are going to say: Well, Senator Boxer, what does that have to do with anything? The fact is, this is the same size footprint that the opposition is saying would be the footprint of the oil field that would be allowed in this refuge. I say to my friends, the way Senator Domenici posed it, he had a great big chart and a little dot. Well, what goes on when you drill for oil is not a little dot. That is so obvious; it is kind of silly. If we even take the footprint that they talk about, the 2,000 acres, that is the footprint the size of the New Jersey Turnpike, and I say to anyone who has some common sense, no one would say that what happens on the New Jersey Turnpike does not have an impact on the surrounding community. I also say to my friend, because he opposes me in a lot of areas-- this is my friend from New Mexico. I served on the Budget Committee for years. I have tremendous respect for him, but we disagree. I, with just as much fervor as he, will say to my colleagues today I want them to look at the footprint for offshore oil drilling off the coast of California. It will look really small if the whole coastline is taken into account, but my people in California know it is destructive. How do we know that? We have seen it. We have seen what happens when oil spills. We know that no matter what technology is promised, accidents occur. We have certainly experienced that in Alaska given what has happened in the past from spills, and I put that in the Record before. We know the USGS analysis says that oil in the refuge is scattered in many different areas. It would require multiple fields across the Coastal Plain, 250 miles of roads, 100 miles of pipeline.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask for 3 additional minutes off the resolution.

Mrs. BOXER. I would like 3 additional minutes, if I could, off the resolution, or I could take it off the amendment; it is immaterial.

Mrs. BOXER. I will take the time from the amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. That will leave 1 minute, and I will reserve that. I say to my friend from North Dakota, the Senator from New Mexico had an hour speech and I believe I need to rebut it. We know from USGS we are talking 250 miles of roads, 100 miles of pipeline, airfields, gravel pits, power lines, waste facilities, and other structures. We are talking about this, not coming from the side of those who believe this pristine area ought to be left alone, but from the USGS survey. John Seiberling says no deal was cut in 1980; Senator Stevens sees it a different way. People can take away different meanings. But I mention that in the Record. When we hear President Carter's name as being part of a deal, and he writes a letter and says he does not want to see drilling here, we ought to set the record straight. This is a fair debate. But it ought to be based on the facts as the people who were in the room saw it. Senator Stevens laid out how he felt. John Seiberling phoned and left his phone number. I am sure if Senator Stevens would like to chat with him, that would be fine with him.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to answer on your time. May I answer on your time?

Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry, I have 60 seconds left to rebut an hour-long tirade by someone on the other side who said the reason we are preserving the Arctic is because we received campaign contributions. I print in the Record the facts, a letter from Jimmy Carter who opposes drilling in this area. He talks about it very eloquently. John Seiberling, then-chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks, was in the picture that my friend from Alaska held up last night, and has said absolutely there was no deal cut to drill in this area. It is important we set that record straight. I correct that. He was not in the picture, but in the meetings that led to the picture. He was the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands. Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a very important document put together by the Alaska Wilderness League. In it there are comments of the National Research Counsel on the cumulative environmental effects of oil and gas activities on Alaska's North Slope. We keep hearing there is no problem, no problem at all, but there are newspaper reports that say the local people who live up there claim there is a problem with the caribou herds. They are going elsewhere, away from the drilling.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I ask the following cosponsors be included on this amendment: Mr. Chafee, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Bingaman.

Mrs. BOXER. I close the debate the way I started it and leave it to my good friend to wrap things up. This is what we are talking about. No one could make this up: The polar bear; the muskoxen. Look at this; this is called the chart bird, so we have it on a chart. Quite extraordinary, isn't it? I say to my friends, think about what you are about to do here. Don't have this on your conscience when you could just raise fuel economy and have 10 ANWRs, 20 ANWRs, because when you save this, you save it over and over again. I hope my amendment will pass. I am very proud that Senators Chafee and Snowe are on the amendment and other Republicans because this is not about politics, this is about saving a God-given gift. That is the way I see it. I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their patience.

Mrs. BOXER. To be followed by the Senator from Tennessee, if he wishes, 10 minutes after that.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in closing my remarks, I have shown the beauty of the wildlife refuge. Now I want to talk about the yield from the wildlife refuge when you compare it to what you could gain in energy with some very simple things we could do. For example, better tires: We are talking about a 4.3 percent reduction in dependence on foreign oil if we could just get that out of tires. And this chart shows, in the billions of barrels, what could be saved in the same period of time. Also, if you close the SUV loophole, look at how many billions of barrels you save by 2030. These are all by the year 2030. If we just said that cars would average 35 miles per gallon, look at the fuel economy we would save if that occurred by the year 2013. So by the year 2030, look at this: We could do so much more for our country without giving up one bit of our quality of life, just getting the SUVs to have the same fuel economy as our autos. Every 6 years, you would actually have another ANWR field. So for people to say we have to drill, we have to drill, we have to drill, I just would tell them, these are just a few ideas that some of us have on how we can avoid drilling in a place that looks like this chart shows, a place that President Eisenhower chose to save. So I really think, if you look at the several arguments I have laid out--first, the fact is, this is not the way to go about debating the Arctic Wildlife Refuge: a little bit of a sentence in the big budget. That is not right. It deserves a lot more discussion. This is a God-given, this God-given land. This is precious, and it deserves more debate than we are going to be able to give it tonight and a little bit in the morning. So it makes no sense. It is a magnificent area. Second, we can get the equivalent way more--way more--than what you could get in the Arctic, by doing some very simple conservation. Just to take this SUV loophole: saying that they get the same mileage as cars, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 16 percent. This reduces it by 2 percent. Let's do it by 16 percent. If we increase the CAFE, the corporate average fuel economy, to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2013, by the year 2030--listen to this; this will really get you excited if you are listening to this debate-- we could cut back on the importation of foreign oil by 43 percent. So when anyone tells you, we have to drill in a place that looks like--you know what I want to show you, those beautiful pink flowers; here it is--that looks like this, yes, not every month of the year-- Washington does not look so great right now, but in a couple of months it is going to look good. I don't think we want to bring the oil cranes on to the Capitol Grounds, although it kind of looks something like that right now. I will close by showing some of the wildlife to my friend from Washington. These are so magnificent. I ask unanimous consent that she be given 10 minutes upon completion of my remarks.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would also like to have printed in the Record an editorial that was published just yesterday in the Los Angeles Times. I think it said it very well. I would like to read part of it, and then I will have it printed in the Record. The first thing they do is call attention to the Fish and Wildlife Service. They have a Web site. And the Web site says: The Arctic refuge is among the most complete, pristine and undisturbed ecosystems on Earth . . . a combination of habitats, climate and geography unmatched by any other northern conservation area. . . . And they say: The refuge will no longer be complete, pristine or undisturbed if President Bush and [Secretary Gale] Norton have their way. And they point out that Secretary Norton showed a slide and said: This image of flat, white nothingness is what you would see the majority of the year. The LA Times makes the point that it is really an interesting situation. As a matter of fact, the headline is: ``A Curious Commemoration.'' It says: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proudly celebrating the 100th anniversary of the national wildlife refuge system, which it manages. Then it just points out how ironic it is that Secretary Norton calls it an ``image of flat, white nothingness.'' I want to put that in Record. I think it is a good editorial. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I will not be speaking long at all. I just want to put a few things in the Record and wrap up my comments for tonight. It will probably take me 10 minutes--maybe a little longer--and that will be it for me. I know Senator Murkowski and Senator Alexander would like to speak. I see Senator Cantwell is in the Chamber. Let me put a few things in the Record. The first thing I want to have printed in the Record is a letter from the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 187 Alaskan tribes. They oppose drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to my friend, if he does not mind yielding to me for an answer, we were very brief on this side. I spoke about 7 minutes. Several speakers spoke for 10 minutes. All I am trying to do is get Senator Durbin into the debate. Senator Stevens may well want to go on for an hour or so. We just do not know. We are just trying to work Senator Durbin in at some point.

Mrs. BOXER. Is it on this measure? Senator Durbin has been here, and he would like 10 minutes, too. If you can work him in following Senator Thomas, then the Senator from Alaska can talk the night away if he wants.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am just confused. Senator Thomas is going to speak for how many minutes?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I certainly will continue to ask. I believe under the previous order Senator Kerry gets the floor; is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. I just want to thank my colleague once again for continuing to speak out from his heart on an issue that is on everyone's mind. I remember so well standing with my friend on this issue and coming to the floor in October and laying out a number of questions. How much would this war cost, I was asking in October. How long do we plan to stay in Iraq? Who would bear the combat risk with us? Who was going to pick up the bill? Are there any other countries, and what would they pay? And what is the impact of this war on terrorism here at home? Are we prepared? It seems to me amazing--the question I have for my friend is--that here we are debating the budget for this year and everyone knows exactly what is going to happen because the President has been very open about it. We are going in there. I say to my friend, does he have one more answer today than he had those 5 months ago, in October? Does he have one more answer to those economic questions or those very important questions that were raised at that time than he had 5 months ago?

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question before Senator Kerry takes us back to this very important environmental amendment?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I might add, if we could make clear that when Senator Byrd concludes, Senator Kerry be recognized for 10 to 15 minutes to speak on the amendment that is pending.

Mrs. BOXER. They make this point I think quite eloquently. They say: Because the opening of the Arctic refuge to drilling raises a host of policy concerns including serious environmental ramifications, we do not believe the issue should be injected into the budget process. I have to applaud my Republican friends who wrote this letter. Such an important issue about such a place involving such beauty should not be the subject of a little amendment here dealing with reconciliation. We need to have much more serious debate. I will close this part of my statement in this way. In 1960, when President Eisenhower set aside 8.9 million acres to form the original Arctic Range, his Secretary of the Interior noted that the area was: one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in North America, a wilderness experience not duplicated elsewhere. As you can see, nothing has changed about that description. It remains a special place, richer in wildlife than perhaps any other part of the country. I say to my Republican friends, it was a Republican President who said let's preserve this place forever. It seems sad that the Republican President now is saying let's simply turn our back on this legacy. I hope Republicans and Democrats will join together. I think we have a good chance to do it and stand up tonight during debate and tomorrow when we have this vote, and make the case that this is a special place that deserves protection. There is not enough oil in it to make a whit of difference, which I will get into later. Let's do the right thing here. I am very pleased Senator Lieberman is here. He has taken a tremendous leadership role on this issue. It is my delight to yield him 10 minutes, or if he needs more time, I am happy to yield that as well.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Health Insurance Tax Relief Act to help our Nation's working families deal with the recent dramatic increases in health care costs. The legislation would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $2000 in out-of- pocket health insurance costs per year. While this small Federal contribution to assist families with the health care costs they bear will not solve all of the problems in our health care system, it will provide immediate help for working families who have seen health care costs explode. In 2001, the last year for which we have data, the cost of health care for employer sponsored insurance rose 11 percent. To deal with this increase, 75 percent of large employers and 42 percent of small business employers said they were likely to increase employee premium costs. In addition, according to the Center for Health System Change, employers will likely be raising deductibles and co-payments and perhaps using more coinsurance, where patients pay a percentage of the cost of their care rather than a fixed dollar amount. And, some businesses are dropping health insurance benefits entirely. This is an issue of fairness. We already provide a tax break for small business owners who provide health insurance, and we also provide one for individuals who are self-employed. But currently there is no provision that allows for employees, who are faced with additional financial responsibility for their premium costs, to take a tax deduction on their out-of-pocket expenses. This legislation rectifies that unfairness and will help families meet rising health care costs. The need for this legislation is particularly important for employees in small businesses, many of which sought to minimize premium increases by adding or increasing deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance. But this shifting of health insurance costs from employers to employees is not limited to small firms. The California Public Employees' Retirement System, CalPERS, the second-largest purchaser of health care after the Federal Government, approved a 25 percent increase in health insurance premiums for 2003. CalPERS provides retirement and health benefit services to more than 1.3 million members and nearly 2,500 employers. These are hard working Americans struggling to make ends meet in a weak economy. That is why, we should provide some targeted assistance to help families pay for health care. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Health Insurance Tax Relief Act to help our Nation's working families deal with the recent dramatic increases in health care costs. The legislation would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $2000 in out-of- pocket health insurance costs per year. While this small Federal contribution to assist families with the health care costs they bear will not solve all of the problems in our health care system, it will provide immediate help for working families who have seen health care costs explode. In 2001, the last year for which we have data, the cost of health care for employer sponsored insurance rose 11 percent. To deal with this increase, 75 percent of large employers and 42 percent of small business employers said they were likely to increase employee premium costs. In addition, according to the Center for Health System Change, employers will likely be raising deductibles and co-payments and perhaps using more coinsurance, where patients pay a percentage of the cost of their care rather than a fixed dollar amount. And, some businesses are dropping health insurance benefits entirely. This is an issue of fairness. We already provide a tax break for small business owners who provide health insurance, and we also provide one for individuals who are self-employed. But currently there is no provision that allows for employees, who are faced with additional financial responsibility for their premium costs, to take a tax deduction on their out-of-pocket expenses. This legislation rectifies that unfairness and will help families meet rising health care costs. The need for this legislation is particularly important for employees in small businesses, many of which sought to minimize premium increases by adding or increasing deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance. But this shifting of health insurance costs from employers to employees is not limited to small firms. The California Public Employees' Retirement System, CalPERS, the second-largest purchaser of health care after the Federal Government, approved a 25 percent increase in health insurance premiums for 2003. CalPERS provides retirement and health benefit services to more than 1.3 million members and nearly 2,500 employers. These are hard working Americans struggling to make ends meet in a weak economy. That is why, we should provide some targeted assistance to help families pay for health care. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation.