Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL. My amendment strikes the language allowing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The underlying bill is a sweetheart deal for oil companies that have made a record $30 billion in profits last quarter. The bill gives oil companies a free ride with back-door language that allows them to circumvent environmental laws, legal standards and Federal agency oversight that every other business in America has to comply with. This wildlife area has been protected since the Eisenhower days, and for good reason. There is an average of over 500 oil spills a year on the Alaska North Slope and over 4,000 spills in the last 10 years. Let's not pollute one of the great last refuges of America, and let's take the polluting language out of this bill. The Department of Energy says drilling in ANWR will do nothing in the near term and very little in the long term, reducing gas prices by only one penny. America wants a better energy plan than putting a sweetheart deal in the budget language. I urge my colleagues to strike this language.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I will make a couple of comments in closing as we sort out the last on the Wyden-Talent amendment. This budget reconciliation act, as it stands now, without the Cantwell amendment striking the ANWR language, is a false promise to the American people. It is a false promise that they are going to have cheaper gas prices now or significantly cheaper gas prices in the future. It is a false promise on the amount of revenue that is going to be raised in the budget. It is a false promise that somehow this can be done in an environmentally sensitive way and that the area we have called for so long the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge can be preserved as it is. It is a set of false promises, and the American people deserve better. They know this is a time in which our country should be making serious plans to diversify our overdependence on fossil fuel and change, and they certainly don't want environmental considerations that have been long the standard for oil drilling in America to be tossed aside by a budget resolution. They certainly don't want the fact that there have been, as one organization, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said, 405 spills annually in the North Slope since 1996. They don't want to continue the trend in Prudhoe Bay and other Trans-Alaska Pipeline areas of causing 4,532 spills since 1996. The American people want to have responsible production moving forward that meets the standards that production in America has lived by. That is, by the same standards of the National Environmental Protection Act, judicial review, fish and wildlife, transportation issues, compatibility issue, protection of indigenous rights. They don't want a backdoor gimmick into helping the oil companies, who have already been making record profits, continue to make record profits on something that is going to offer very little for the American people. I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment and to support the Wyden amendment when it comes up so we can be true to this issue and say we don't want to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge as a way to get out of our problems. We want to make an investment in the right process and have oil companies live by the environmental standards they are required to today. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I'll take a few moments as I wait for my colleagues to come to the Senate. I ask unanimous consent Senators Durbin and Salazar be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. On each side?

Ms. CANTWELL. How much time remains on each side?

Ms. CANTWELL. If I can finish for a second, and then I will yield to the Senator to make his request. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is a summation of what this debate is about. We have debated this for years, and the reason it has been contentious is because a lot of people have concerns about this direction and proposal. But now to do this on the budget where the environmental safeguards that are applied to other drilling, where the NEPA process and other safeguards are ignored, where we are not sure what oil revenue the United States is really going to get to recognize in this budget, when we don't know whether we are going to keep this oil for economic security reasons, I agree with the Sentinel which said: The reconciliation bill should be used to settle budget matters, not to abuse the public's trust. I will yield now to the Senator from North Dakota for his proposal.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think it is known that the environmental damage to the region has been done, that leaks and clean air issues are prevalent in the area, that oil companies are being fined for those violations, and that we cannot just go about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and think we are solving our problems. In fact, I would like to show my colleagues a copy of a map of what we are talking about. Here is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Here is the rest of northern Alaska. One can see the various designations of existing Federal and State leases. The active Federal leases are in yellow. This is the area under discussion. So all the rest of Alaska in this particular area--in yellow and red, and even in this beige, proposed Federal leasing plan--a lot of territory that is already involved in oil and gas production. Why not leave this last slice of Alaska's Northern coast alone and pristine? A Washington resident, just to give my colleagues an idea, actually took some pictures of this area of the wildlife refuge. One can see it is a very pristine area with wildlife and streams running through it. We can imagine why someone wanted to preserve this area and why it is so important to the United States. This happens to be, in my mind, a pretty infamous picture because when my colleague, Senator Boxer, and I were on the floor discussing this issue a few years ago, there was a copy of this picture that was at the Smithsonian, part of an exhibit done by a Washington photographer, a retired Boeing engineer who visited this area and took some pictures and had a public display at the Smithsonian. As soon as these pictures were used on the floor of the Senate, somehow his exhibit was sent to the basement of the Smithsonian and got a lot less attention because somehow, I guess, this picture portrays for the American people something some people didn't want to see or didn't want to have advertised so specifically. Here is another picture of the area that depicts what an unbelievable, pristine resource this is for the United States. We can see how delicate the ecosystem of this region is and how challenging oil drilling activity in this region can be. I say to my colleagues that I believe the American people, and certainly the news media around the country, have gotten the gist of what this debate is about because they have expressed their opinions about this as well. I think they have been right on track about this issue. I would like to talk about some of those opinions. The Milwaukee Journal Newspaper said: . . . This effort may succeed, not because it's good public policy but because supporters are trying to sneak it into a budget reconciliation bill . . . supporters of good government should not allow that to happen. That is one newspaper in the Midwest. Another from the South, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: . . . As always, drilling advocates are using distortions and half-truths, claiming that awarding extractive leases on protected lands will significantly reduce the Nation's dependence on imported oil while having minimal impact on the region's fragile ecology. That from a newspaper in the South. From the Philadelphia Inquirer, another newspaper that has followed this issue. I thought they hit it right on the head in today's debate because they say: Congress has wasted years trying to enact this single proposal when, by now, ingenuity and investment in technology could have developed better answers. Whether the United States drills in the Arctic Refuge or not, this country has no comprehensive plan to wean itself from oil. That's what's really needed.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, lastly, on these reasons why we should not move forward, is the notion that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a symbol of this country's desire to protect and preserve wildlife areas and that somehow people would like to assume that long- term damage has not already been done to other parts that have been opened up for drilling. In fact, a Environmental News Service article that summarizes a 2003 National Academy of Sciences report that says for three decades of oil drilling on the Alaskan North Slope, while it has brought economic benefits, for sure, it has also caused lasting environmental damage ``and a mixture of positive and negative changes to that area.'' The report found that some environmental damages will last for centuries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Connecticut 3 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am going to yield to my colleague, Senator Feingold. Before I do, I point out there is a misrepresentation that somehow drilling in ANWR only covers a small area. Drilling in the refuge will really create a spider web of industrial activities over the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain, so it is much larger than just a small footprint. This legislation might also open up nearly 100,000 acres of native land on the Arctic coastal plain. So it is a much bigger impact than my colleague might have commented on. I want to make sure that point is clear. The other issue is, I don't think there is anybody in America who still believes our future and the future security of America depends on fossil fuel. I have seen the television commercials from the oil industry. Even they are always talking about the future, and alternative fuels, and what they are doing to diversify our nation's energy supplies. I certainly hope they hurry up and do that because the high price we are paying at the pump and their exorbitant profits are not leading us to a better economic situation in America. But at the same time, I don't think Americans believe our investments in the future should be about fossil fuel, they should be about diversifying to cleaner, more fuel free supplies. Instead we are now asking them to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a very small amount of oil. My colleague talked about a large number of jobs that may result from this. However, we have all heard the expectations for an energy economy of the future that invests in alternative fuels and various renewable energy sources. Some of those job investments can be more than 3 million jobs in America. That is the energy economy that we want to see--not holding on to the past and exorbitant energy costs which the Department of Energy says is only going to give us a 1-penny reduction in gasoline prices--to get off fossil fuel. I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin 7 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, does the Senator from Oregon wish more time?

Ms. CANTWELL. Is the Wyden amendment the pending amendment?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Oregon 7 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think my colleague from Oregon, who has been a champion on this issue throughout the committee process, is prepared to call up the Wyden-Talent amendment and to speak on it at this time. How much time does the Senator from Oregon wish to have?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am happy to debate whatever amendment. Part of the previous consideration was to have a debate on a related amendment. I do not know where the Senator is in offering that amendment. Do we have a time period in which he might--if I can inquire through the Chair, does the Senator who is controlling the time on the other side know when the Senator might be available to offer his amendment?

Ms. CANTWELL. Well, it is my understanding that one of my colleagues wants to offer an amendment that was part of the previous unanimous consent agreement. I would ask unanimous consent, until they figure that out, that time during a quorum call be equally divided between both sides.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask how much time is left on each side.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, while I am waiting for some of my other colleagues to speak, I point out a couple of things about this process. I showed a chart earlier that Americans across the country, and certainly the news media covering this, say this budget process is not the way to go about the opening up of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. More importantly, there are issues that are precedent setting and raise concerns such as, do my colleagues want to debate the fact that they think 50 votes versus 60 votes is the way to do this policy? As a Senator from a State that now has to endure a survey for drilling off the coast of Washington, off the coasts of Oregon and California--and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been discussing opening drilling off the coast of Florida--this policy in the underlying reconciliation bill is a very dangerous precedent. That is, that if you can go to a budget process and open up drilling, why can't you open up drilling in any other part of the country through this process? I guess it is no surprise that the House of Representatives has actually already moved on legislation trying to open up drilling in other areas of the country. It is not a fantasy on my part that other Members of the other side of the aisle could be promoting drilling and could use a budget process for the same maneuver being used here. It sets a very bad precedent, a backdoor scheme. Because what we are basically saying is that those oil interests are above the public interests, and they do not have to meet the same requirements. For example, the National Environmental Protection Act. I have heard a lot about Scoop Jackson today. My colleagues should remember who wrote the National Environmental Protection Act and got it passed. It was Senator Scoop Jackson. We are very proud of that. Why would we take NEPA and limit the alternatives that could be considered under this bill for proposal impacts to the environment? That is what it does. By throwing this language in the budget resolution instead of a normal process, we are limiting NEPA. We are limiting judicial review. Why should we limit judicial review? We do not do that in other areas of oil drilling, but for this more pristine of areas we will limit judicial review? All because we are doing it through the Budget process. We will also be limiting the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Aren't they an integral part of planning for production in various parts of the country? Why can't current Bureau of Land Management regulations that provide for the Fish and Wildlife Service be used to provide for the protection of fish and wildlife? The answer is the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service are out of their normal role because we put this in the budget process. What about compatibility? Why does this legislation assume that oil and gas activities cannot be undertaken in a manner compatible with the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Transportation. The chairman has removed consideration in this underlying bill authorizing oil and gas from the coastal regions, which is unusual language considering there is a whole range of issues, including pipelines, ports, and systems. Again, NEPA, judicial review, Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, transportation, and other compatibility issues are not being addressed because we are throwing this in the budget process. What about the leasing provisions? I have talked a lot about this and I would love it if my colleagues from Alaska would support an amendment I plan to offer that specifies this cannot go forward until we verify that it is a 50-50 split or that it isn't going to go forward. This Senator would love to know that my colleagues from the other side of the aisle are so certain this is going to be a 50-50 revenue split that they are willing to support clarifying in the language that the actual opening up of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge cannot go forward unless it is a 50-50 split. If they are so certain that is going to happen, they should be willing to support my amendment. As far as the economic issues, I guarantee my State constituents know very well where their oil comes from. In fact, that has been the big complaint for a good part of the last 36 months, the fact that the FTC and other entities keep reminding the Northwest they are an isolated market getting oil from Alaska, yet our prices have gone up to over $3 a gallon. My constituents, who are getting squeezed at the gas pump, want two things. They want us to have a price investigation and make sure that price gouging is not going on and do something to protect them. And, two, they want something that will bring true competition to the price of fossil fuels and help them in not facing high fuel costs in the future. Even the Energy Department says it is not going to help my constituents. The Energy Department says in the peak years of production it would reduce prices a penny a gallon. I guarantee my constituents want more than a penny a gallon reduction in gas prices. They are not going to wait 20 years to get that. My constituents want to see real action on a price-gouging bill that we can push out of here that gives the authority to pursue the activities of record profits and make sure price gouging is not going on. They want us to get about diversifying the sources of energy we use. Diversification will mean a lot to our economy. I can say high gas prices are costing our economy today plenty. If you want to talk about the airline industry, which has seen a 293-percent increase in fuel costs over a 5-year-period of time, yes, there are people in Washington State who are losing their jobs because of that. They want aggressive action today. They do not want to see 10 years from now 6 months of an oil supply that is not going to help them. I want my constituents to understand a budget process that is a backdoor scheme that basically does not leave them any better off today or in the future than they are today is not a responsible solution to our energy needs. They want to see us truly come up with something that is going to get us diversified off our dependence on fossil fuels. With 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, the writing is on the wall. The United States needs to take a more aggressive action than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I remind my colleagues what the Milwaukee Journal pointed out: The reconciliation bill should be used to settle budget matters, not to abuse the public's trust. That is what we are doing in this bill, trying to pass a wildlife refuge off as an oil field drilling opportunity when we are not addressing important issues. We are not addressing the environmental protections, the judicial review, fish and wildlife, the transportation issues, or the Native Alaskan issues. We are setting down a very dangerous precedent. I don't want to see the same gimmick used for Washington State, for Florida, or other areas when this Senate thinks by sticking something in a reconciliation bill they can open up leasing of oil in the United States. Some of my colleagues, I know, are going to talk about an important issue as part of this debate, whether this oil that is produced out of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge should remain in the United States. If this Senate believes this debate is about oil and making America more secure, getting off of our 50-percent dependence on foreign oil is what we need to do. To do that, most people will say we have to get off the fossil fuel consumption. If my colleagues who want to support this amendment want to drill in Alaska, they ought to be willing to say the oil ought to stay in the United States. If you think it is part of our national security plan, then say it is part of our national security plan and keep it in the United States. I would go further to even say, why not create a refined product, like a jet fuel reserve, as they have in Europe? The Europeans figured out jet fuel is expensive. They have not only a strategic petroleum reserve, they have a jet fuel reserve. They figured out they do not want their airline industry subject to and their economy ruined by sudden price spikes. I would go further than many of my colleagues in saying not only can the oil not be exported, let's put it in a specific reserve dedicated to a particular, important sector of our U.S. economy--transportation and aviation. I look forward to my colleagues who, in committee, did not think it was such a great idea, who certainly thought that oil should be exported, who now say it shouldn't be. I am glad to see that change of opinion if that is what is going to happen in the Senate. This budget process is a backdoor end to opening a 6-month oil supply we will not see for 10 years and will not do a darned thing to help consumers now or when it is at peak production. We shouldn't fool the American people by giving them false choices in what is not a solution, and false budget choices when we cannot even guarantee to them the $2.4 billion that is assumed in this budget. The difference between Alaska winning and the United States winning on this debate is the difference between $2.4 billion and $480 million. So I hope my colleagues, besides looking at this export issue and saying this oil should stay in the United States, will also look at the commitment in saying that, yes, we only think this should be opened up if the United States actually gets $2.4 billion. Because otherwise this whole scheme is a matter of false choices, false budget choices, false security choices, and false choices for the consumer. In the end, Americans are still paying high energy prices. Mr. President, while my colleagues sort out who is going to potentially offer a second-degree amendment, I will yield the floor to discuss with my colleagues that process.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a National Congress of American Indians resolution that states their opposition to opening up drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.