John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator, and my colleagues from Massachusetts and Oregon. As you know, I feel very strongly about this legislation. My staff and I spent a lot of time working with our former colleague Senator Moynihan, and with Senator Rockefeller and others back in 2000 when we were putting this bill together. We put a lot of brainpower into this bill. We met with innumerable telecom companies and analysts and experts, working to craft a bill that provided real incentives, and doing so in a technology neutral manner. I do not care what the technology is, as long as it can provide broadband, it should receive the incentive. And I think this bill does that. It specifically anticipates copper wire, coaxial cable, terrestrial wireless and satellite technologies. If they can deliver true broadband services, at a measurable speed requirement, then they qualify for the credit. That is as it should be. It is the service we are after, not a specific kind of delivery system. So this bill sets the standards and lets all compete equally. All they have to do is meet the speeds, and they get the credit. For the current generation technologies, it targets rural and low- income areas. Those are the areas where the Federal Communications Commission has told us there is a problem with current generation deployment. For the next generation technologies, it targets the entire country, with the exception of urban businesses. That is because, while next generation broadband exists and is being deployed aggressively in some Asian and European nations, it has scarcely been deployed at all in the United States. I have a number of reasons for caring about broadband deployment. One is that I think we cannot allow the ``digital divide'' to continue, and there is a digital divide with broadband deployment just as there is with computer access and dial-up Internet access. In fact, the digital divide with broadband deployment is almost certainly greater than with computers or dial-up. So as a matter of basic equity, I think we must take quick action to deploy broadband across the nation. I also care about this issue because it is crucial for our international competitiveness. As Senator Rockefeller mentioned earlier, the United States is falling behind in broadband deployment. There is little disputing that fact. While some seem unconcerned about that matter, I am very concerned about it. I think there is little doubt that a nation with ubiquitous broadband will be more efficient and productive than a nation without it. And, the fact is, other nations are starting to outspend us on broadband infrastructure. Sweden has set aside some $800 million on broadband deployment in rural areas of the country--a much smaller area than the United States, obviously. And they have already spent an undisclosed amount to build a fiber-to- the-home system serving much of Stockholm, which is becoming a model for the rest of Europe. Now France is following suit. It recently announced that it will invest $1.5 billion on broadband infrastructure over the next five years, and much of it will probably be optical fiber, as in Sweden. In Japan, who knows how much the government is investing, but it is substantial. The investment is made through Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, which is supposedly an independent telephone company, but the majority ownership belongs to the Japanese government. In any case, NTT is in the middle of a huge fiber-to-the-home project all over the country, so the investment is clearly very large. And listen to this figure from South Korea. In Korea, the government is laying out some $15 billion to provide an optical fiber connection to 84 percent of homes by 2005. This legislation would invest only $540 million over 10 years. That is not a lot for a nation as large as the United States. But it is an important start, and we should pass it now and get the ball rolling. Finally, I feel strongly about this legislation because I think it is crucial for small business. As Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee I have an obligation to look out for that sector, and it is something I am passionate about. I am a former small businessperson myself, and I know how difficult it can be for a small company to compete with larger enterprises. Broadband can make that easier by increasing the productivity of the small business and opening up new markets. The telecom analyst Scott Cleland--many of you know him from his testimony here on the Hill on various occasions--wrote a short piece last year on the importance of broadband to small businesses. Paraphrasing Mr. Cleland, he said this. First, that small businesses have less access to broadband because they tend to locate outside the high-rent urban business centers. It's those urban business centers, he says where broadband is most plentiful. The second point he makes, and this is very important, is that we as a nation are losing as a result of this situation because small businesses tend to be a very innovative, economy-driving force. If broadband were more widely available to small businesses, Cleland says, the U.S. would benefit economically. Those are a few of the reasons why I feel very strongly about this legislation, and I think it is imperative that we pass it this year and send it to the president for signature. I am delighted that we are having this discussion today, and I look forward to working with all of you to pass this bill at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. KERRY. I wonder if my friend from West Virginia would yield for a comment at this point?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. Included in that agreement is a Sense of the Congress on the international climate change negotiations. The resolution originally passed the Foreign Relations Committee in August of 2001. At that time, Senator Biden and Senator Rockefeller played an important role in crafting it. The text as passed out of Committee called on President Bush to engage in the international negotiations and to present a proposal to the Conference of the Parties by October 2001 for a revised Kyoto Protocol or other binding agreement. However, since the Committee acted the state of the international negotiations has fundamentally changed. The revised text, as included in this legislation, reflects those important changes. I appreciate the work of Senators Biden and Hagel in crafting the updated text. I believe that the bipartisan consensus also strengthens the scientific and technical work that needs to be carried out and improves upon the structure for doing so. I am particularly pleased that the agreement incorporates provisions from the Commerce Committee's bill that will bring the world-class science, technology, and planning expertise of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and other Department of Commerce programs to bear on this problem--whether it is in climate observation, measurement and verification, information management, modeling and monitoring, technology development and transfer, or hazards planning and prevention. I am also pleased to see the bill includes language to establish a framework for a national coastal and ocean observing system, which is essential for climate prediction and coastal response planning.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Landrieu, in introducing an amendment regarding the need to assist more small businesses become energy efficient. This legislation reinforces a small business amendment that Senator Landrieu and I put forth last week regarding the Energy Star Program. It was successfully adopted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2002, and I thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski for that. There is an obvious missing player in our efforts to increase the number of small businesses that are using or developing products and processes that save energy, and it is the Small Business Administration. This amendment directs the Administration to develop and coordinate a government-wide program that educates small firms about the cost-benefits and business advantages of energy efficiency. I was astounded to learn last year, during a hearing I held on the business of environmental technologies, that SBA is not actively working with DoE and the EPA to advertise their joint program for promoting energy efficiency of small business. This is particularly hard to understand given that there is so much work to be done. There are an estimated 25 million small businesses in this country, and they account for more than half of all the commercial energy used in North America. However, according to Paul Stolpman, who testified on behalf of the EPA, only 3,000 small businesses have partnered with EPA in committing to improve their energy performance. I am not criticizing the EPA or the Department of Energy; they have a good initiative, and I support their efforts. I am simply pointing out that there are millions of small businesses left to reach, millions of opportunities to reduce energy consumption in this country. It is basic common sense that SBA could help significantly in that effort. After all the financial hardships small businesses suffered over the last couple of years because of price spikes and unreliability, energy isn't even a prominent issue on SBA's website. To illustrate the power of education and the need to coordinate outreach efforts through the SBA, I would like to share a story about one of the small businesses in my home State of Massachusetts that benefitted greatly from making energy modifications. Carl Faulkner is the owner of the Williams Inn in Williamstown. Years ago, he was approached by his energy company to receive a free energy audit and rebates to off-set the cost of upgrading his lighting systems. It seemed like a good idea, so he went ahead and took them up on their offer. After all was said and done, between the rebates and his new energy savings, he recovered his expenses in just 1 month. But that is not the end of the story. The results of those simple changes were so positive that he was inspired to learn even more about energy savings and to investigate where else his business was losing money on unnecessary energy usage. Since then he has put on special roofing, replaced air conditioner units, put insulation around pipes, and installed meters to determine when and where his business uses the most energy. With this information, Mr. Faulkner can bring down usage, saving even more energy and money. These simple changes have yielded vast results. In January and February, he saved more than $10,000. Mr. Faulkner now considers energy efficiency a never-ending process. He says if it weren't for outreach, he never would have made these important changes to his business. He changed his business from one that was consuming energy at an unmonitored level to one that has an energy management system that allows him to identify other savings. In addition to increasing energy efficiency of small businesses in order to reduce consumption, to reduce pollution, and to reduce reliance on foreign oil, there is a need for Federal agencies to increase their work with small business to research and develop new technologies and processes that are more energy efficient. In 1999, the SBA investigated the role of small business in technological innovation and found that when a market demands progress, change, and evolution, small firms play a key role. Just looking back to 1997, there were more than 33,000 small firms operating in the environmental industry, with combined revenues of $52 billion. That is billion. In Massachusetts alone, environmental technology businesses employ more than 30,000. No matter how you cut it, revenues, jobs, pollution reduction, energy supply, national security, there is a very good reason to encourage the innovation of efficient technology. And the Federal Government needs to make a serious effort to use small businesses to do that research and development as much as possible. At the very least, I would like to see a focus on these topics through the small business research and development projects through the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer initiatives. We have got the finest research universities in the world and certainly the most dynamic small business sector. I want a coordinated and heightened effort to use these resources for national energy policy. As I said yesterday when we were debating the proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we cannot drill our way out of our energy problem. We must innovate our way out of our energy problem. Not just innovation in more fuel efficient cars, but also appliances. If the Bush administration would fully implement efficiency standards for appliances that were issued in 1997 and last year, the Department of Energy estimates the total savings to business and consumers to be $27 billion by 2030. Why? Simply because of less energy use and generally less demand when using more efficient appliances. We can go further with more innovation. And we need to use Federal agencies to increase the interplay between small businesses, innovation, and the Nation's environmental and energy goals. I thank Senator Landrieu for offering this amendment. And again I thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, and their staffs, for their help in passing this small business amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Members on this side of the aisle have concerns about the structure of the estate tax. In fact, we voted to change it significantly. I think the estate size threshold could be even higher. We don't want small businesses to be hurt by people who, upon death, have to lose a family business or lose jobs in communities. There is a lot we need to talk about. But I think this is not the moment given what we are discussing. It is perhaps better that we save it for a different point in time. My amendment, No. 2999, is the pending business. Is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on every category with respect to independence, this will not affect the independence of the United States. We have to invent the new technologies that provide the new fuels for America. This will not affect the price for America. This will not liberate us from our dependency in the Middle East. This will not bring home one of America's young men or women who are in harm's way as a consequence of opening the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. What it will do is destroy forever this precious resource, designated as a pristine wilderness, that can never be returned to that state, which has been cherished by Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, and by all Americans for all of these years. Let's not vote today to give that up when there is a better set of choices for our country.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 9 minutes. Let me begin by paying respect to both Senators from Alaska. Though I disagree with them and they know that, they waged an effort that represents their principles, their views, their beliefs and, most especially, the beliefs of the people of Alaska, as they understand their responsibility. I emphasize as strongly as I can, none of us in the U.S. Senate are cavalier or dismissive of Alaska's interests. There are many ways to serve those interests. I certainly am one Senator who is prepared always to try to help with respect to economic development issues, other hardship issues that exist in a State that faces a different set of challenges from many of us in the Senate. I hope they understand that, that this is a difference based on an equally fervently held set of beliefs and a different interpretation of the facts. I think they are facts. There are some profound differences in that regard. With respect to the amendment on steel, I believe Congress must act to deal with the plight of steelworkers, retired steelworkers and their families. Steelworker retirees are being devastated by the loss of health care benefits. More than 125,000 steelworkers have lost those benefits due to the liquidation of 17 American steel companies, and another 500,000 steelworker retirees stand to lose their health care unless we act to protect them. I am glad that some of our Republican friends have discovered this issue. I regret that they want to trade their concern for steelworkers with the opening of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It would be disappointing if down the road our Republican friends are only prepared to try to deal with steelworkers in the context of the Arctic wildlife refuge and not in the context of their personal human plight. We will have an opportunity in a short period of time to try to deal appropriately with the problem of steelworkers. Yesterday Senator Wellstone made a very powerful statement in the Senate Chamber. There is nobody in the Senate who has fought harder or will fight harder for steelworkers than Senator Wellstone, but he will work in a bipartisan way, as he is now, to help us deal with this issue at the appropriate time. One of the things with which I disagree with my colleagues, as they have presented this issue, is that there has been this moving target of rationale for why we should be asked to drill in the Arctic wildlife refuge. We have heard on the other hand that those of us who oppose it somehow oppose job creation or we are in favor of high gasoline prices or we oppose energy independence or we support electricity brownouts, blackouts, that we oppose Israel, that we support Saddam Hussein. There have been a series of insinuations in the course of this argument that really don't do proper service to the merits of the argument or to the good faith of most U.S. Senators. It is interesting also that this moving target of support for this issue has found different rationale at different points of time. When California faced an electricity crisis last year in January, we heard Senators come to the floor and suggest that ANWR would help solve that problem. We actually had those arguments made. But only 1 percent of all of the electricity of California comes from oil-based, oil-fired electricity. ANWR has nothing to do with it. The Middle East has nothing to do with California's brownout problems or electricity problems. Then we heard when heating oils spiked and gas prices spiked, of course: ANWR is the answer. But the Arctic Wildlife Refuge drilling will not come online for about 7 to 10 years. When it does come online, it doesn't produce a sufficient amount of oil under anybody's scenario to have an effect on the world price or world supply. So that argument simply doesn't stand scrutiny. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge, at its best offering, will not affect the price of oil globally, and it cannot affect America's supply. Then, when we were hit with a recession and layoffs, we were told: the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is the solution. It is going to produce 700,000 jobs. But now the very people who made that study and talked about those numbers of jobs have repudiated that number and have acknowledged that that number was based on a 12-year-old study that had oil at the price of $45 a barrel in the year 2000, and all of us know it has been at about $25 or less, and that provides a different economic reality. The truth is that one might be talking about somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000, 60,000, 100,000 jobs, which is the number of jobs produced in the American economy in a 3-week period and anytime we are doing what we were doing in the period of 1997 to the year 2000. So this is really not even a jobs program. In fact, the very people who produced the faulty study acknowledged that, until the year 2007, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge doesn't provide any jobs at all--zero. That is according to the American Petroleum Institute's funded study that is faulty--maybe it was faulty to the wrong side, but they suggested there would be zero jobs in that period of time. So it is certainly not an antidote to recession, to the current economic problems we face. Promise after promise after promise about what it will do has been punctured by the truth. Here is a truth with which our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can never adequately deal. The truth is, even with the best, most optimistic prognosis of what you might get out of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge--even with that, and all of the other oil we possess in the United States of America, we have a problem: God only gave our country 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. The Middle East, Saudi Arabia, the gulf states, all of the countries from which we import, including Iran and Iraq, which have been the subject of much vilification, for good reason, have the largest share of the world's oil reserves. Saudi Arabia alone has 46 percent, compared to our 3 percent. Here is the other truth they don't want to deal with: Every year, the United States of America uses 25 percent of the world's reserves. Of the available oil, 25 percent goes to America, even though we only have 3 percent of the oil reserves. The simple equation, the truth that they don't want to deal with, is that the United States of America has an ultimate confrontation with its dependency on oil. Oil is a finite resource. One day, it is going to be used up. One day, we are going to have to move to a different form of transportation dependency. The question to be asked of Americans is: If we have to do it one day, and with all these ills that are associated with the dependency today, why don't we make the choice today to begin to define that dependency?

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield myself 1 additional minute.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I withdraw that amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate one of this Nation's brightest stars, Mr. Seiji Ozawa, who has presided over the Boston Symphony Orchestra as music director for the last 29 years. On April 20, Seiji will conduct the BSO in Mahler's Ninth Symphony and the conclusion of that performance will mark the final installation of his work in Massachusetts. The enthusiasm and precision he brings to his craft are legendary, and as he prepares to assume his new post at the Vienna State Opera, I want to take a moment to join people throughout Massachusetts and across the country in expressing our gratitude for the contributions he has made during his time with the BSO. For the last three decades Seiji Ozawa has challenged colleagues with his innovative interpretations and charmed audiences with his playful energy and focus. Through award-winning recordings, and celebrated performances in cities around the world, he has brought the beauty and insight of classical music to life for people of all ages. His service to the BSO stands as the longest continuous directorship in the history of the symphony, surpassing even Serge Koussevitzky, who held the baton from 1924 to 1949. Throughout that time, Seiji has lent his skills to the Berlin Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic, the Orchestre de France and the Paris Opera, where he presided over the debut of Messiaen's ``Saint Francois d'Assise.'' Seiji began his musical journey by enrolling at the Toho Music School in Tokyo, Japan, as a child. A rugby injury changed his original plans of becoming a concert pianist and soon after he shifted focus to the unique art of conducting. Once Seiji settled on this pursuit, his instructor at the Toho School, Mr. Hideo Saito, urged him to travel abroad and refine his skills. Following that advice, he won first prize at the International Competition of Orchestral Conductors, in Besancon, France in 1959. This accolade earned Seiji an invitation in 1960 from Charles Munch, then music director of the BSO, to study at the Tanglewood Music Center. That first Tanglewood visit resulted in Seiji winning the Koussevitzky Prize for outstanding student conductor, and it also marked the beginning of a mutual love affair between Massachusetts and the young conductor. Upon completion of his studies, Seiji moved to West Berlin to work with Herbert von Karajan. It was here that Seiji's unique presentation and style caught the eye of Leonard Bernstein, and upon returning to the United States he accepted Bernstein's offer to serve as assistant conductor of the New York Philharmonic for 1961 and 1962. In 1964, he conducted the Boston Symphony Orchestra at Tanglewood, raising the baton in a concert hall where he had studied just 4 years before. Word continued to spread about the enthusiastic Ozawa, and offers came in from orchestras around the world. Seiji decided on becoming the music director of the Ravinia Festival in Chicago, where he remained for five summers, and then moved to the Toronto Symphony until 1969. After a brief period with the San Francisco Symphony, Seiji became artistic director at Tanglewood in 1970, and was subsequently asked to assume the role of music director for the Boston Symphony Orchestra in 1973. It has been during his time with the BSO that Seiji became the cultural icon that we celebrate this year. In 1976, he was honored with an Emmy Award for the Boston Symphony Orchestra's PBS television series, ``Evening at Symphony.'' In 1994, he won a second Emmy Award for Individual Achievement in Cultural Programming, in recognition of his work ``Dvorak in Prague: A Celebration with the Boston Symphony Orchestra.'' In a nod to his early instructor and the Japanese heritage he has proudly shared with the world, he co-founded the Saito Kinen Festival in Japan, which will provide young people the same chance he had to learn the arts of conducting and performing. The academic community of my home state has recognized Seiji's tremendous talent with honorary Doctor of Music degrees from the University of Massachusetts, the New England Conservatory of Music and Wheaton College, and certainly our beloved Red Sox have never had a more enthusiastic supporter. Seiji arrived in Massachusetts as a young man finishing his education and beginning his professional ascension. After April 20, he will leave the Boston Symphony Orchestra a true master of his craft. While he has been guided by a deep respect for the past and its masters, Seiji remains the consummate modernist; a solitary individual fueled by an instinctual fascination and hunger for the unexplored frontier of the future. My constituents and I have been so proud to host Mr. Ozawa over these last three decades. For the rest of his career we will proudly think of him as one of our own in Massachusetts, and I join my constituents in thanking Seiji Ozawa for the invaluable contributions he has made throughout his time at Tanglewood and with the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin, if I may, by first of all saying it is my intention to answer each and every one of the assertions just made by the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Alaska. There is ample proof that those of us who oppose drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge are strongly in favor of drilling in many other parts of this country and are strongly in favor of a policy which keeps the United States on the cutting edge of energy production. In a few moments I will show how we are producing extraordinary amounts of natural gas, almost all the coal we consume, huge amounts of oil and other sources of energy, and, in fact, we are building new powerplants all across this country. None of us are standing here with our head in the sand arguing that we should not continue to produce energy. Moreover, I think the arguments made underscore the fundamental difference in the approach by those of us who believe there is a different energy future for the United States that does not require us to do injury to something we have set aside for a purpose. Beginning with a Republican President, and going through a series of Presidents over the last 25, 30 years, there has been an honoring of an ethic in the United States that suggests that the concept of a preserve should be exactly that. My colleague, a moment ago, said: What would happen if we said, drill in only 1 acre? Well, everyone understands that if you begin with 1 acre, it does not stay at 1 acre. It will progress. The first acre is the violation of the notion of set-aside. The first acre is the violation of the concept of pristineness. The first acre is the destruction of the concept of an arctic wildlife refuge that is absent any kind of industrialization. My arguments against drilling in ANWR are not based on the caribou. That was a wonderful picture, a great discussion of caribou, but that is not the principal argument here. It is interesting, however--and I will show, a little later, that our own Fish & Wildlife Service--I have heard my colleagues referring to radical environmental groups. The people who are cautioned against this are the administration's own functionaries who worked on this for years. The Fish & Wildlife Service finds there would be problems with respect to the ecosystem. The U.S. Geologic Survey has serious questions with almost all of the numbers that have been put forward by the proponents. So I begin at the beginning. I want to try to lay a record out here that I think is clear and, I hope, understandable and, I hope, in the end, compelling about why it is inappropriate to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. But I do want to say, the two visions are different visions of the energy future of our country. I honor what the Senator from Louisiana said. He is a strong advocate for his State. He is a terrific Senator. And he is right, we do need to do more drilling. I am in favor of more drilling. We should do more drilling in the deep water Gulf of Mexico, which Lord John Brown, the CEO, chairman of British Petroleum, says is the most significant oilfield unexploited in the world, which is where at least British Petroleum would like to put its energy, its efforts, not in ANWR. But let's begin at the beginning. Our colleagues have come to the floor and suggested to our fellow Senators that this is the first time in history that a ``national security'' issue has been filibustered. First of all, one could make a serious argument about the degree to which this is, in fact, a national security issue. But I will accept the question of how much oil we import. The question of American dependency on oil is legitimately a concern of the United States. But it is not addressed by drilling in ANWR, No. 1, and, No. 2, the record shows clearly that this is not the first time such an issue has been filibustered. If ANWR is important to the energy national security of the United States because it would affect how much oil might be available or how much oil we are importing, then CAFE standards are equally a national security issue for our country. In fact, CAFE standards are a far better response to national security because even the oil companies will tell us they can't produce oil from ANWR for anywhere from 7 to 10 years. When my colleagues come to the floor of the Senate and suggest to us that the crisis in the Middle East is a reason to drill in ANWR, that is a misleading argument because no oil will flow from ANWR, given the permitting, lawsuit, developmental processes, as I will show later, until from 7 to 10 years from now. And you don't even get to the peak production until somewhere, perhaps, around 2020. That said, if you put CAFE standards in place, you would have a much faster response to the oil. You would get 1 million barrels saved in a decade, and that would grow exponentially. In ANWR, as you drill, you lose the oil. You reach a point of peak production, and then it starts to go down. But if you put CAFE standards in place, it grows and grows through the years. So in fact, CAFE standards result in three times the savings of ANWR. I don't want to get into a CAFE standards argument. That is not why I am here. But CAFE standards is as much a national security issue for the United States as the question of whether or not we drill in ANWR. I will show later how ANWR doesn't even affect the total amount of oil on which we are dependent except for this tiny little sliver that is barely discernable on a graph. The point is, our colleagues have suggested this is the first time. I want to say this because the accuracy that disappears in this process is very important. The fact is, in the 101st Congress, second session-- I was a member of that Senate; I remember the vote--we had a motion to invoke cloture on the Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act. It failed. In other words, it was filibustered. It was filibustered, and 42 Senators managed to prevent us from passing the effort by Senator Richard Bryant of Nevada to have CAFE standards, which is a national security issue. Among those Senators who voted to continue the filibuster and not allow us to put CAFE standards in place were both Senators from Alaska and the Senator from Texas, who have asserted that we must allow a straight vote on ANWR. Let's dispense with the national security argument, and there is further reason to dispense with it because of the amount of oil we have in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. I want to show this chart. This is the world supply of oil production versus the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. If the Presiding Officer is having trouble seeing ANWR, that is because here it is. It is this yellow line at the very bottom of the chart versus all the oil production of the world. The United States of America only has 3 percent of the oil reserves of the world, including ANWR, including the Gulf of Mexico, our national monuments, all of our oil. Every single year, the United States of America uses 25 percent of the world's oil. I don't know any child in school who can't quickly figure out that if we only own 3 percent but we use 25 percent of the world's production, we have a problem. We have a serious problem. You can't drill your way out of this problem. If you drill all the oil in ANWR, you still face a fundamental issue which is the United States of America is overly dependent on foreign oil and is growing more and more so. In 1973, when we first met the cartel's oil crisis, we had a dependency on foreign oil of about 35 percent. Yet we responded, supposedly, with CAFE standards, with more production. Today, we are about 55 or 56 percent dependent on the rest of the world. And in the next few years, we will grow to 60 percent. Does anybody in their right mind believe if we depend today on foreign oil for 60 percent of our oil, that ANWR, which is only a fraction of the 3 percent that we possess, somehow has the ability to make a difference to the United States? The answer is no. No, you can't. You just can't squeeze that enough. So there are two competing visions here: A vision of the status quo, a vision that is similar to the one that is reflected in a willingness to avoid doing anything about global warming, even though every scientist says global warming is a problem; a willingness to ignore the need to be involved in the realities of science versus our desire just to go along the way it is and not upset the equilibrium in any way whatsoever. The fact is that about 70 percent of America's oil use goes to transportation. When I hear my colleagues talk about our terrible dependency on the Middle East for oil, ANWR doesn't end the terrible dependency on the Middle East for oil. I just heard the Senator from Louisiana say: Gosh, it would be great if we could vote in a way that we are not the hostages of Middle Eastern countries that can cut off our oil. Well, yes, it would be great. But voting for the Arctic Wildlife Refuge doesn't do that. It leaves you still 60-percent dependent on foreign oil. And any cartel, any terrorist, any country that wants to hold the United States hostage will hold us hostage until we liberate ourselves from our oil gluttony, dependency, whatever you want to call it. Those two visions are the vision of the status quo over here, and a vision over here of those who believe there is a different energy future for the United States. I quickly say as an outline, my sense of that energy future for the United States begins with four important principles. Those principles speak directly to what the Senator from Louisiana just said about whether we are willing to drill. No. 1, absent an exhaustion of remedies and a life-threatening threat to the United States, absent that, the United States should do nothing that doesn't make economic sense. Principle No. 1: It makes economic sense to do what we choose to do absent some life-threatening challenge that is coming down the road. Principle No. 2: We should commit ourselves again, given the same caveat, absent a threat that we have just got to respond to, we should commit ourselves that the choices we make do not diminish the quality of life of any American at all. So it makes economic sense. We don't diminish the quality of life. We can make those choices now. Principle No. 3: All of us who are opposed to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge must have the courage to stand up and say we are going to be dependent on oil still for 30 to 50 years or more in this country. It will take that long to make the energy transition, to make the transportation transition. And what we must do is put in place a set of policies that begin to accelerate our capacity in an economically viable way to begin to make that transition to this new energy future. That is alternatives and renewables and the hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid cars and a host of other things. I don't know why my colleagues are so pessimistic about America's capacity to meet a challenge through the skill and creativity of our entrepreneurs. When we put our entrepreneurial skill and energy to work in the United States of America, there is nothing we can't do. We have proven it--when we went to space. We proved it in the Manhattan Project when we needed to create a response to the terror of the Axis Powers and win World War II. We have proven it time and again. I believe that just as President Kennedy put a challenge to the country saying we are going to go to the Moon in 10 years--not knowing, incidentally, if we could in fact get there, not knowing if it was in fact achievable, but telling America that the reason we are going to do this is because it is difficult. And we did it. In 1990, when everybody said, oh, it is going to cost $8 billion to reduce the amount of sulfur in our air as part of the Clean Air Act and we cannot do it in that time period, what happened, Mr. President? We did it faster than we ever thought we would or could, and we did it for a cost not of $8 billion, or for $4 billion, which the environmental people thought it would cost; we did it for $2 billion, and we did it faster. The reason we did that was that no one was able to factor in the exponential benefits of technology, the rate at which one technological discovery spurned the next technological discovery. The way, in fact, that the serious commitment of the United States could do it invited private capital markets to make the decision that, hey, that is worth the investment. It is the old field of dreams: Build it, and they will come. We decided we were going to build it, and they came, and we did it faster. My colleagues are very pessimistic about the ability of the United States to bring online all of these other capacities to do these things more efficiently, cleanly, and effectively, and we can create tens of thousands, millions of jobs in this country, putting people to work in production for other parts of the world that also have the same demands and needs. Again, I repeat, we cannot drill our way out of America's energy challenge. We have to invent our way out of this challenge. We should begin now to encourage the greatest laboratories, our universities, our venture capitalists, the private sector, in the strongest way possible to begin to move us to this new energy future where America is not dependent upon these other countries. I am particularly sensitive when I hear my colleague say we don't want our young men and women sent off to these countries and put at risk. Let me tell you, I think one of the things I have fought for as hard as anything in the Senate is common sense about how we wage our wars and where and when we put people at risk. Mr. President, this is a false promise to America. The sons and daughters of America are more at risk every day that we remain prisoners of this equation where more than 45 percent of the world's oil supply is in Saudi Arabia. There is nothing we can do about that. We don't have as much. No matter what we try to do, we won't be able to repeat it. Moreover, the amount of oil in ANWR will not affect the price of oil globally at all. It doesn't create the kind of independence we want. This is a statement of Lee Raymond, chairman and chief executive officer of ExxonMobil Corporation. He is in the oil industry. He knows what he is talking about: The idea that this country can ever again be energy independent is outmoded and probably was even in the era of Richard Nixon. The point is that no industry in the world is more globalized than our industry. That is a chief executive of an oil company. Whether or not we do ANWR with respect to price is also critical. The first President Bush said: Popular opinion aside, our vulnerability to price shocks is not determined by how much oil we import. Our vulnerability is more directly linked to how oil dependent our economy is. President Bush is correct. Nothing about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge fundamentally alters the dependency of the United States. No one in the industry will suggest that, even at its best amount of oil, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge makes anything but a few tiny percentage points, in the low single digits, of difference on a 60- percent dependency on foreign oil. Even if you drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, you cannot affect the energy price. Alaska Governor Tony Knowles said: Evidence overwhelmingly rejects the notion of any relationship between Alaska North Slope crude and West Coast gasoline prices. Great Britain is entirely energy independent, fuel independent. They have their own North Sea oil. But Great Britain, despite the fact that it has a 100-percent capacity to supply its oil, is subject to the same price increases and the same price shocks as other countries in the world. ANWR, with its tiny little percentage, is not going to affect that. Let me deal with another issue if I may. I have enormous respect for Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens. They are friends. They have been my colleagues a long time, and they are fighting a fight in which they believe. They particularly believe in it for their State. I think every one of us in the Senate accepts responsibility for helping States that have difficulties making up revenue differences. That is why we have a Federal system in this country. We help farm country for different things at different times. I am certainly always prepared to try to be of assistance to the State of Alaska in ways that it needs it. One of the Senators, or both, has spoken about Senator Tsongas a number of years ago. None of us could comment on what was or was not said between Senators. I accept what Senator Stevens says. All I know is that Senator Tsongas was asked point blank in 1992: Do you believe that the Alaska refuge should be opened to drilling in 1992? Here is what the Senator said: Absolutely not. I believe we should prevent exploitation and devastation of this national treasure. To address our energy needs, we should promote maximizing energy efficiency, renewable resources, and our plentiful natural gas reserves. Once again, I cannot go back in history to a time when I wasn't here. But I do know that Paul Tsongas, as late as 1992, was opposed to drilling and certainly had no sense of any commitment he had made at that point in time in that regard. In this debate, as I mentioned a moment ago, I want to deal with the question of production. The Senator from Louisiana asked: What are we going to do? Where are we going to produce our energy? He asked legitimate questions, such as: If we are not going to do it here, how do we do it there, and so forth. Let me clarify this for the record. The proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge want to cast those of us who don't want to do it as somehow anti-energy production. As I have just described, I have a vision--and I think others share it--of huge energy production for the United States of America. We cannot grow our economy if we don't grow our energy production. We want to grow our economy, and we want the jobs that come with it. We need the strength for our Nation. Of course, we have to expand our energy production. Here is where these debates always somehow get dragged down, because people want to go to the places--I don't know, for sort of a debate advantage or political advantage but not where the truth is. This debate is not about whether or not we need to expand our energy. This debate is over how we expand our energy. How do we do it? Do we do it in ways that we know violate the air, leave toxic waste sites, tear apart the health of our fellow citizens, that pour particulates into the air so we have more emphysema, more lung disease, more cancer or do we try to use the ingenuity God gave us to go find the cleaner, more thoughtful technologies that make a difference in the long-term future of our country and indeed the planet? That is the choice. Once again, I say there are those who want the status quo where they think all we do is drill oil, and there are those who believe there is a different energy future for the country. Let me point out, America produces almost all the coal that we consume, and the tax package that is in this energy bill, if we pass it, promotes clean coal--clean coal. America produces about 85 percent of the natural gas that we consume, and this energy bill includes a provision to federally subsidize the construction of the massive gas pipeline to carry the estimated 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska to the lower 48 States. Those who argue that we are coming to this energy unconscious ignore the fact that in this very bill, there is a provision to build a pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 States so we can burn clean energy in an intelligent way. We hear that those of us opposing the development of ANWR are even against electricity production. Wrong again. In New England alone we have built 12 new powerplants in the past 2 years. We have put more than 3,500 megawatts online, another 12 new powerplants are under construction and will come online in the next 2 years, putting an additional 6,300 megawatts online. There has been no opposition to these projects. We produce a significant amount of oil in America. We do not produce all we consume, as I have just described, and that will never happen without some extraordinary introduction of efficiencies and alternatives. I have explained why, and I do not have to go back over that, but we remain one of the largest oil producers in the world today. I say this because given the debate in this Chamber, Americans might believe the only oil in the Nation is somehow underneath the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and we are preventing the only oil in the Nation from being drilled. That is just not true. According to the Energy Information Administration of the United States, we are one of the top oil producers in the world today. In 2001, the United States produced roughly as much oil on a daily basis as Saudi Arabia and the former Soviet Union, which is about 8 to 9 million barrels a day. America produced more than twice as much oil as Iran, more than three times as much as Iraq, more than three times as much as the United Arab Emirates, and more than three times as much as Canada. The idea that we have blocked all the oil development is absolutely ridiculous, faced with those statistics. I want to talk about the Gulf of Mexico. Ask an oil company executive privately right now--and some of them have gone on record publicly-- whether they really want to dig in Alaska. The answer is sometimes no, or it depends. Oil companies are holding 7,000 leases today for deepwater exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and not using most of them. The reason they have not drilled in the Gulf of Mexico where they already have the permits is because they have waited for the price of oil to go up because that helps the economics. The fact is, if tomorrow the United States were cut off, it would not be only Alaska we would look to; it would be the Gulf of Mexico; it would be other oil supplies of the United States to which we would look. According to the Minerals Management Service, there are between 16 and 25 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. That depends on the price, as I will explain in a moment. Economically recoverable oil is different from other categories of oil that are in the ground and available. ``Economically recoverable'' reflects what you can get at the current cost of oil. One of the interesting points is most of the studies of our colleagues who come in here and say we ought to do this and create 700,000 jobs and so forth are based on a completely false price for oil, not the price we have today. Development in the Gulf of Mexico has accelerated. According to the Minerals Management Service, 42 new deepwater fields have come online since 1995. Production is expected to climb from under 1 million barrels per day in 1995 to as much as 1.9 million barrels per day 3 years from now. The Gulf of Mexico reserves are so promising that Lord Brown, whom I mentioned earlier, the CEO of British Petroleum, calls them some of the most promising reserves in the world. He was asked where the most important place to find oil is in the United States. He was asked this in an interview by ``60 Minutes'' a couple of months ago. Here is what he said: The deep water Gulf of Mexico, part of the United States, is probably one of the greatest new oil provinces in the entire world. Let me highlight some of the production that is underway in Alaska because it has been suggested that somehow we are shutting down Alaska's capacity to pump oil. Last May, the State of Alaska completed a lease sale of 950,000 acres on the North Slope. It is the largest lease by any State in history, and they have announced another 7 million acres will be put up for lease in the coming years. The State of Alaska has scheduled 15 oil and gas leases on 15 million acres. In 1999, the Bureau of Land Management held a lease sale of 4 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. It is in the process of releasing 3 million acres and other plans and it has announced a third lease sale of a planning area of 10 million acres. In April of 2001, BP, Phillips, and ExxonMobil predicted that there is at least 7.8 billion barrels of oil to be developed on the North Slope of Alaska. In many ways, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge represents our God-given natural strategic petroleum reserve. If, indeed, 20 years from now none of these things I have predicted happen, if we are so backed up in a corner, if technology does not come through, if we do not do our work, then at least we might have had the wisdom to have held on to this God- given strategic petroleum reserve, rather than going for it right now at a time when it is not necessary and in demand. Let me speak to some of the important issues that I think have to be clarified as part of the record. No. 1, how much oil is in Alaska? We hear of different amounts of oil that we could find there. There are very different estimates. Some people say more than 16 billion barrels; some say far less; some argue not enough to make development economically viable. That is not where I am. I am not trying to go to either extreme, and I think those who only go to the extremes do a disservice to the debate. I would like to present what I think is the amount of oil that could be technically recovered, and that is the amount of oil that could be extracted using today's technology without any consideration of cost. Of course, we know cost is a consideration, but I am going to deal with it technically. I have heard this reference continually to radical environmental groups. I do not think the United States Geological Survey is a radical environmental group. They say there is a 95-percent probability that at least 6 billion barrels of oil are technically recoverable. There is a 5-percent probability that at least 16 billion might be technically recoverable. The mean, or the most likely outcome, is that 10 billion barrels of oil are technically recoverable. The second question is then, How much is economically recoverable? This is an estimate of how much oil you could produce at a certain price of oil. That number matters actually much more than the technical reserves because oil companies simply do not produce oil they cannot bring to the market profitably. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, again, if oil is priced at $25 a barrel, then there is a 95-percent chance that 2 billion barrels are economically recoverable. There is a 5-percent chance that 9 billion barrels are economically recoverable. A mean chance, or the most likely outcome, is 5 billion barrels are economically recoverable. I might add, these numbers are taken straight from the Congressional Research Service briefing on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and the cost estimate is directly from the Energy Information Administration reported by CRS. It is difficult to estimate how much oil might be in the refuge. There are complicating factors, but for the claim to keep coming at us that the refuge is going to produce 16 billion barrels and to make all the arguments dependent on that is not to do justice to the probabilities I put forward and to the realities of oil exploration. The claim is not only unrealistic, it runs counter to what proponents claim to be the leading reason for drilling, because the leading reason for drilling is that it is going to produce for us cheap oil. If it is going to produce cheap oil, you diminish the amount of recoverable oil because the economics do not work. So if you are driving the price down--you cannot get caught in this argument and have it both ways. I also want to highlight the important difference between what is called in-place oil, technically recoverable oil, and economically recoverable oil. I know this is a little arcane, but I want to do it because I want the record to reflect this is not about caribou alone, it is not about some ``not in my back yard.'' This is about clear science, economics, oil policy, national security policy, energy policy, and the long-term interests of our country. The fact is these definitions are vital to understand and to weigh the choice we have. On Alaska's North Slope, near Prudhoe Bay, there is a field called West Sak. In 1989, Arco estimated the West Sak field held as much as 13 billion barrels of oil in place, with another 7 billion listed as potential. Estimates published in the Society of Petroleum Engineers placed the estimate at more than 30 billion barrels of oil in total. But the Alaska Department of Natural Resources estimates that only 370 million barrels of oil, less than 2 percent of the oil in that reserve, will be produced through the year 2020. Why? Because that is all that is economically recoverable. This is Alaska itself telling us it is limited because of the price. It is not enough to say there is oil in the ground. We have to understand how much one can get out, at what kind of price, and what is realistic. We are going to hear that with emerging technologies and still-to-be- invented technologies, the amount of economically recoverable oil might rise. I concede that. That is true. That is a positive thing, if it happens in the future. But it is also true that the amount of economically recoverable oil may be less and the price may go down. Why may it go down? Because a whole bunch of people are already starting to push that technology curve in the alternatives, and if suddenly someone comes in with the capacity to do the hydrogen fuel cell or other things, the entire transportation mix and dependency of the United States changes, the demand curve goes down, and the price goes down, and far less oil will be recoverable. On March 10, 2002, the New York Times published a story with the following headline: ``Oil Industry Hesitates Over Moving into Arctic Refuge.'' The article highlights why the oft-repeated claim that the refuge will produce 16 billion barrels of oil is simply inaccurate, and I share this quote: ``Big oil companies go where there are substantial fields and where they can produce oil economically,'' said Ronald Chappell, a spokesman for BP Alaska, which officially supports the area and drilling. He continued: ``Does ANWR have that? Who knows?'' That is the conclusion of the company; not 16. Who knows? The article continues: There is still a fair amount of exploration risk here. You could go through 8 years of litigation, a good amount of investment, and still come up with dry holes or uneconomic discoveries, said Jerry Kepes, the managing director for exploration and production issues at the Petroleum Finance Company, which is a Washington consulting firm for oil companies. Quote: It is not clear that this is quite the bonanza that some have said. So we have to weigh, do we take this not quite so clear bonanza and destroy an Arctic wildlife refuge, for which some people have disrespect but, as I will show, I think is a concept that captures the imagination of many Americans and is worth preserving. This article says a great deal about how little oil might be in the refuge, and it stands in stark contrast to some of the claims we have heard in the press and in the Senate about the 16 billion. An article in the Washington Post examines some of the competing claims over the refuge oil potential. It said as follows: How much oil is out there? No one knows for sure. But the environmental movement's favorite statistic is a USGS estimate that the Coastal Plain contains 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil at the current price of $20 per barrel, about what the Nation uses in 6 months. I will concede in the last few days the price of oil has gone up a little bit. That figure probably goes up with it, and of course that is true. But Senator Murkowski wrote a letter to the Post that the USGS actually estimates 10.3 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. The truth, according to the USGS, that conducted this study, is they have said directly Senator Murkowski is wrong in stating that figure and the environmentalists are right, and that is a quote from the USGS. To lay it out, proponents of drilling are regularly exaggerating the production by as much as 200 percent. Likewise, some of the opponents of drilling sometimes underestimate production by as much as 40 percent, assuming that oil costs less than $20 per barrel. In my estimation, the most reliable prediction is that the refuge might produce about 5 billion barrels of oil over its productive lifetime, and that is if oil is priced at about $25 per barrel. I should add that the Energy Information Administration predicts oil will be at about $22.50 per barrel, not $25 per barrel. So, again, 5 billion barrels may be somewhat high. What would it mean if one were to find 5 billion barrels in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? That is the next thing we ought to try to measure. A lot of promises have been made by the other side. They have suggested it is a solution to oil shortages, heating oil shortages, high gas prices, electricity brownouts, unemployment, national security. It is even being tied to specific conflicts and incidents around the globe. Someone might believe, listening to this, that the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is the magic elixir that is going to cure most of the ills we face. But the fact is, if one is simply an oil company and they are looking to drill some oil, that can be a lot of oil. It is money, money in the pocket, profits; no question about it. I acknowledge that. That is not what we are measuring. We are not an oil company. We represent the people of the United States of America, and our country has to weigh that potential 5 billion barrels and what it means in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to the curves we displayed earlier that show our dependency on foreign oil, 70 percent of which goes into transportation, which mandates that we begin to deal with a whole different set of energy choices for our country. There is another issue we need to think about with respect to this. We need to think about how much oil is going to be produced not in the total lifetime but on a daily basis because that is what affects supply. This number helps us understand what the real impact of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge might be. Once again, the proponents of the drilling, from the White House to the Senate, have exaggerated those estimates more than they have even exaggerated the overall recoverable oil. We have heard that the refuge oil is, as I said, a solution to a whole bunch of problems, such as the California electricity crisis. I showed the quote where Alaska Governor Tony Knowles responded it will not have any impact at all on California. The refuge, as I said, will not produce oil for 7 to 10 years. That means if you open the refuge today, you are not going to see oil until about 2012, maybe a couple of years earlier. The relevant agencies of our government and the industry itself have said this 10-year figure is about the average; maybe 7 to 10, but they bank on about 10. The Energy Information Administration says 7 to 10 years. The Congressional Research Service says 10 years. The industry's own economic analysis produced by WEFA Economic Forecasters, which I should add is wildly optimistic about every aspect of oil drilling, predicts it will take 10 years for the oil to begin flowing. That is from the group that produced most of the studies on which they rely. They say 10 years. Asked in a Senate hearing how long it will take, the president of the exploration of production for ExxonMobile said: In the normal process we would probably allow 3 to 4 years for the permitting which would put you in the 10-year range. Let's end these arguments that this is the cure to the Middle East crisis today, or that this is somehow going to prevent a young American man or woman in uniform from having to go over and defend an oilfield next year, the year after, or the year after that. The United States, even if we drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is still so dependent on foreign oil now, until we change our overall energy mix, America's youth will be at risk to protect America's dependency. We have heard a lot of talk about jobs, how many jobs will be created, what this will do. We have even heard that the Arctic Wildlife Refuge drilling is the solution in place of the stimulus or part of the stimulus during the course of last year, and it will produce an immediate impact. It is interesting to note Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton has been sent around to a bunch of press events in Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, and New York as a representative of the Federal Government--incidentally, the agency charged with managing our public lands--and she has been promising the drilling of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge creates 700,000 jobs across the Nation. Secretary Norton's tour, No. 1, is a political tour, not the management of our lands. And oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge does not create 700,000 jobs. That claim comes directly from a study that has been universally discredited. It is a bogus study. First of all, the 700,000 job claim is for 1 year in about 2015. Yet you never hear the Bush administration mention that. Not only is the 700,000 number a wild exaggeration, but it doesn't represent the startup and decrease with respect to jobs in this particular effort. Moreover--and here is the most important thing, much more important than anything else with respect to the study--the claim is based on a 12-year-old study produced by WEFA Economic Forecasters, paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. According to that API study--this is their study--drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge produces zero jobs for the next 4 years; zero jobs according to their own analysis. There is a choice. We can invest in the pipeline for natural gas which could immediately produce jobs, or we could drill immediately in other areas where we know we already have permitting and the ability to drill. That would be a more immediate job production than this. It is interesting, you would have to wait until 2007 for the jobs to be produced. I highlight a couple of the technical inaccuracies of this study which has been thrown around so much. The Center for Economic Policy and Research assessed that study and made the following points. No. 1, according to Energy Information Agency estimates, the API study overstates oil production in the refuge by a factor of 3. Adjusting the projections to keep them in line with the EIA estimates reduces predicted job creation by more than 60 percent. The API study assumes other oil producers, especially OPEC, do little to increase production and bolster oil prices. Adjusting other production to keep them in line with conventional estimates reduces the job creation by another 40 percent. The API study assumes the economy will be far more affected by a drop in oil prices than is reasonable to expect and substituting a more reasonable estimate lowers the projection by about 75 percent. As I have said, that study was written 10 years ago. So we can test some of the assumption and predictions easily. The study was based on oil costing more than $45 per barrel in the year 2000. Let me repeat: Here is a study that they are still using, they still come to the floor to say creates a lot of jobs, that, in fact, predicted a price of oil double what the price of oil is today, which increases the recoverable oil and changes the entire economics. Oil back then was $25 per barrel. Here is another example. The study assumes that when Arctic oil flows, the world market for oil will be 55 million barrels per day. The world market today is already more than 70 million barrels a day, and it will be much higher by the time the production occurs. When the wrong and, frankly, stretched assumptions are corrected in the API study, the job estimates fall to 50,000 nationally. To put this in perspective, that is fewer jobs than what our economy generated in an average week over the years 1997 through the year 2000. That is what our economy is capable of doing in any week if our economy is moving in the right direction. I will read from an Associated Press article published in March a remarkable story that shows that while President Bush's Cabinet Secretary, Gale Norton, tours the Nation promising America 700,000 jobs, the people who supported the API study are distancing themselves from it because it is faulty. Here is what the article reports: The authors of the 1990 study no longer work at the company [that prepared it], according to a spokesman who acknowledged it was ``a bit out of date.'' ``We would not come up with the same numbers today,'' said Mary Novak, an economist and managing director. Some of the assumptions made more than a decade ago ``are suspect, and you might underline suspect,'' says Roger Ebel, a global energy expert for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. And he has been involved in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge drilling debate. The Congressional Research Service has looked at this question and assessed how many jobs might be created from drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Its report also casts doubt on the API study. CRS said the following. First, if the economy is operating at full employment, jobs created by drilling in the refuge would come at the expense of an equal number of jobs in the rest of the economy. In other words, if we pull this economy out of recession and get ourselves to full employment, drilling is not going to create any additional jobs. That is the Congressional Research Service; it is not me. I am quoting the Congressional Research Service. Second, job creation from drilling in the Arctic Refuge may be as little as 8 percent of API's claims. The Congressional Research service gives a range of between 60,000 and 130,000 jobs. Again, when the economy was expanding in recent years, it created that many jobs in 3 weeks. Third, should oil prices drop, which CRS describes as uncertain, any employment gain from that drop would be offset by harm to oil producers not operating in the refuge, who would then conceivably reduce their operations and workforce, impacting suppliers and local economies in other ways. Let me turn to a question of price. Jobs is not the only expanded, exaggerated component of the argument. Another is the question of how, if we develop in the refuge, we will lower the price of oil and gasoline, heating fuel, diesel, all the products we produce from oil. When we examine the facts which I went through a bit earlier, the fact is, the price of oil now is not going to be affected by what happens in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge because, as we have seen, you have to be, first of all, certain about the amount of oil it will produce; and, secondly, there are three different assumptions to make about the oil from the refuge. You could use the exaggerated peak production, you can use the 1 million barrels a day you hear about from the President and from other supporters, or you could use the mean production, which is about 660,000 barrels for 1 year, in the year 2020, or you could use an average production over the life of the refuge, which is about 360,000 barrels of oil. I say the reason we might use any of these is that none of them, even the overblown 1 million barrels a day, will have any impact on oil prices whatsoever. Use any one you want, it does not matter, because the bottom line is that you cannot affect the price even on the day of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge's largest production of oil. Here is why. Central to the idea that the refuge will lower oil prices is the notion that the United States of America, in our production, drives oil prices. It does not, and it will not. It cannot. The price of oil is set in the global market. According to the Energy Information Administration, the world market for oil in 2020 will consume 119 million barrels per day. Refuge oil, for that single peak year of 2020, would amount to between .25 and 1.17 percent of the entire global consumption. That is simply not enough, under economic models of anybody anywhere. No economic model would suggest that .25 to 1.17 percent of the total production has the ability to affect that global oil price. The fact is that the average production, probably at around 360,000 barrels, is much less than peak production, and we all know that is not going to have the ability to affect the price. So this argument is incorrect. What about independence from imported oil? I talked about that. I do not want to repeat all of that now. But the bottom line is there is not one single day in which the Arctic Wildlife Refuge production will replace Saudi imports. It just doesn't amount to that. These are not my numbers, these are the numbers that come from the Congressional Research Service. I should point out the technical estimate is not a likely outcome. It is not the economic estimate. I use it to make the point that using only the highly optimistic, greatest potential, you still do not have the ability to affect the total of the Saudi imports. The false promises go way beyond Saudi Arabia. As we have heard them say over and over again, ANWR will ensure energy independence; it will reduce our dependence on imported oil. Nothing we have heard has revealed anything except that promise is completely inflated and unrealistic because of the relationship of the amount of oil there to the global supply. The report from the Energy Information Administration was requested by Senator Murkowski. This report, requested by Senator Murkowski, says if you accept the EIA's reference case for oil imports and the mean estimate for refuge oil production that is the most likely outcome, oil imports will drop from 62 percent to 60 percent for 1 year, about 2020. Every other year, imports will be higher. This is, again, the Energy Information Administration in response to Senator Murkowski. So the President of the United States and other proponents have told America they have a plan for the Nation, a plan to ensure energy independence, to protect our national security. They back up the plan with a lot of talk about national security. They have insisted we attach ANWR to the Department of Defense authorization bill last year because it was an urgent matter of national security. They hold press events with big pictures of Saddam Hussein. When two servicemen died in duty to our Nation, they suggested it was about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and that was related because we do not drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Their plan, this master plan that will ensure energy independence, is simply without validity. Under no economic model whatsoever, under no supply and demand curve, no way whatsoever can 3 percent supply the needs of 25 percent and growing. It just does not happen. So we need to vote accordingly here in the Senate. The fact is that 20 years from now, we will import 60 to 62 percent of our oil from foreign countries. Nothing we do, absent inventing alternatives, is going to diminish that. If we drill in the Arctic Refuge, we are not going to stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia. Nobody suggests that. We are not going to stop importing it from any of these other nations we are concerned about ultimately. So I think it is clear that the flow of money to terrorists is not going to stop. If we drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, it is not going to suddenly make peace in the Middle East. If we drill in the Arctic, our forces are not suddenly going to come home. There is going to be no change in deployment; There will be no change in what we may have to do with respect to Saddam Hussein, which we ought to do anyway, regardless what happens in the ANWR. Will a single soldier, marine, or sailor today in harm's way come home if we make a decision to drill? The answer is no. We should not. We should terminate this notion that somehow fools people that that is, indeed, what is at stake here. I want to correct one thing I said a moment ago. The CAFE standards would not begin immediately. Earlier I misspoke when I said that. The CAFE standards take some time to ramp up and take effect. But had we put that into effect in 1990, we would today, in the year 2002, be saving 1 million barrels of oil per day, which is close to the amount we import from Iraq. That represents the Iraq figure. I have spoken almost entirely about energy policy. It is my own belief that this is sort of the critical moment in the life of the United States, in our lives, to make a choice about our future. Are we going to just kind of keep going down the road where we pretend to ourselves that just drilling for oil is the solution? Or do we begin to force the transition? In the 1930s, many parts of America did not get electricity. They could not get it. But Roosevelt and others decided it was critical for the development of our Nation, for our Nation's future economy, and for our well-being, for kids to be able to have schools with lights, to have power and so forth in their homes--that we got that electricity out into the rural and poor communities. So what did we do? The Federal Government spent several billion dollars to subsidize, to make sure we put that electricity out. In the same way, the Government must today make a decision about the well-being of our country. Are we better off continuing down a road where we already know we have oil we can drill in Alaska and the North Slope? I have described how much we are drilling, how much has been leased and put out for lease already. We already know we have 7,000 leases in the Gulf of Mexico. We can go down there and continue that process. But are we going to make the decision as a country to begin to embrace a future that is a different mix of fuels for transportation and begin to legitimately end our dependence on foreign oil? The only way to change our dependence on foreign oil is to change the way we propel our motor vehicles. Transportation consumes 70 percent of the oil we use. I said this at the outset, and I want to repeat these principles. Not one of these choices we make for our energy future should be done if it doesn't make economic sense. We do not have to lower the quality of life for Americans. We have to recognize we are going to drill for 30 to 50 years and we have the places we can do that. Finally, most of the gains in the near term, in terms of fuel use and our dependency, are going to come from efficiencies in the current regime. Those efficiencies come from hybrids, new technologies, alternatives, renewables, et cetera. Those are the principles that must guide us. But I do not want to leave out what I think is a critical component of this argument that should not be diminished. It does not deserve to be derided in the way it has been derided by some of our colleagues, with respect to what this refuge means in terms of the environment. Some who want to industrialize the Arctic Refuge call it a barren wasteland. It has been described as hell. It has been described in many different ways, but I think those descriptions reveal more about a point of view and the value than it does about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. There are those on the opposite side of this debate who may look at the refuge and only see beauty in an oil rig, and they may only see the foregone profit of conservation. But those views do not reflect the science, and I don't believe they reflect the best instincts of Americans. Let me read some of the more objective descriptions of ANWR's environmental value to America today and to future generations. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the great untouched lands remaining in America and on the northern continent. Its ecological value is unlike any other in the Nation and in the world. The Congressional Research Service describes the refuge as follows: ``The portion of Alaska's North Slope between Prudhoe Bay and the Canadian border represents this country's largest, most diverse remaining example of a largely untouched arctic ecosystem. . . . The apparently hostile nature of the area belies its national and international significance as an ecological reserve. It protects a virtually undisturbed, nearly complete spectrum of arctic ecosystems, and is one of the last places north of the Brooks Range that remains legally closed to development.'' In 1959, the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote: ``The great diversity of vegetation and topography . . . in this compact area, together with its relatively undisturbed condition, lead to its selection as the most suitable opportunity for protecting a portion of the remaining wildlife and its frontiers. That area included within the proposed range is a major habitat, particularly in summer, for the great herds of Arctic caribou, and countless lakes, ponds, and marshes found in this area are nesting grounds for large numbers of migratory waterfowl that spend about half of each year in the rest of the United States; thus, the production here is of importance to a great many sportsmen. . . . The proposed range is restricted to the area which contains all of the requisites for year round use. The coastal area is the only place in the United States where polar bears dens are found.'' The Department of Interior found in 1987 that ``the Arctic Refuge is the only conservation system unit that protects, in an undistributed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystem in North America.'' It described the 1002 area as ``the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and is the center of the wildlife activity. . . . The area presents many opportunities for scientific study of a relatively undistributed ecosystem.'' Let me repeat that the Fish and Wildlife Service is not a radical environmental group. Frankly, I am tired of people who refer to this sort of radical environmental component when our own agencies--the Fish and Wildlife Service and Interior--are telling us, don't disturb this. This is what the Fish and Wildlife Service says: The closeness of the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean in the Arctic Refuge creates a combination of landscapes and habitats unique in North America. The area has exceptional scenic, wildlife, wilderness, recreation, and scientific values. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the only protected area in the Nation where people can explore a full range of arctic and subarctic ecosystems. The Refuge includes alpine and arctic tundra, barren mountains, boreal forests, shrub thickets, and wetlands. The coast has numerous points, shoals, mud flats, and barrier islands that shelter shallow, brackish lagoons. The tundra is typically a layer of peat overlain by a carpet of mosses, sedges, and flowering plants. Spruce, poplar, and willow trees shade the south slope valleys. Continuous summer daylight produces rapid but brief plant growth. Underlying permaforst and low evaporation cause many areas to remain wet throughout the summer. These factors, along with shallow plant roots and a slow revegetation rate, result in a fragile landscape easily disturbed by human activities. Why would we violate the concept of a pristine area? Why, when oil is available in all these other areas we talked about, is there such a compelling interest in destroying that area at this point in time? The Fish and Wildlife Service has inventoried some of the refuge's environmental qualities. They include: 18 major rivers; arctic tundra, the Brooks Range, boreal forests, and a full range arctic and subarctic habitats; the Brooks Range of mountains rise only 10-40 miles from the Beaufort Sea on the coastal plain; the greatest variety of plant and animal life of any conservation area in the arctic; more than 180 birds from four continents have been identified in the Refuge and its coastal plain is a major migration route; Peregrine falcons, endangered in the lower-48 states, thrive in the Refuge; it is home to 36 species of land mammals; it protects the calving ground of the Porcupine caribou herd, the second largest herd in North America; it is home to black, brown and polar bears; 9 marine mammals live off its coast; 36 fish species live in its rivers and lakes; there are more than 300 archaeological sites; and, there are no roads, trails or developments. Wilderness prevails. That is the question before the Senate, whether this is a valuable wilderness. People say it is only going to be a small imprint; it is only going to be a few pipes and a few roads. The fact is, experience has shown us that is not an accurate description of what happens. William O. Douglas, the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice said. This is the place for man turned scientist and explorer; poet and artist. Here he can experience a new reverence for life that is outside his own and yet a vital and joyous part of it. Cecil Andrus, the former Secretary of the Interior, said: In some places, such as the Arctic Refuge, the wildlife and natural values are so magnificent and so enduring that they transcend the value of any mineral that may lie beneath the surface. Such minerals are finite. Production inevitably means changes whose impacts will be measured in geologic time in order to gain marginal benefits that may last a few years. Congressman Morris Udall said, It is a whole place, as true a wilderness as there is anywhere on this continent and unlike any other that I know of. President Jimmy Carter has written, Having traveled extensively in this unique wilderness, I feel very strongly about its incredible natural values.'' . . . ``I have crouched on a peninsula in the Beaufort Sea to watch the ancient defensive circling of musk oxen who perceived us a threat to their young. We sat in profound wonder on the tundra as 80,000 caribou streamed around and past us in their timeless migration from vital calving grounds on the coastal plain. These plenomena of the untrammeled earth are what lead wildlife experts to characterize the coastal plain as America's Serengeti. We have heard that drilling will not take place on the entire Refuge. Rather it will take place only on the refuge's coastal plain, the so- called 1002 Area. So I want to talk some about the 1002 Area and why it should be protected. It is not a complicated issue. The coastal plain is a special place even within the environmental treasure of the refuge, and it is the place where oil exploration is likely to do the most damage to the Refuge. The Department of Interior found in 1987 that the 1002 area is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and is the center of the wildlife activity. . . . The area presents many opportunities for scientific study of a relatively undistributed ecosystem. The Fish and Wildlife Service has said that The Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge, the part of the Refuge being considered for oil drilling, is the most biologically productive part of the refuge and the heart of the refuge's wildlife acivity. Opening the Arctic Refuge to oil development would threaten the birthing ground of thousands of caribou and important habitat for polar bears, swans, snow geese, muskoxen and numerous other species. I repeat that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with the responsibility for making those judgments. A group of more than 500 ecologists, biologists, resource managers, and other experts from around the country have assessed the scientific literature and the importance of the Coastal Plain. They made the following conclusion: Five decades of biological study and scientific research have confirmed that the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge forms a vital component of the biological diversity of the refuge and merits the same kind of permanent safeguards and precautionary management as the rest of this original conservation unit. In contrast to the broader coastal plain to the west of the Arctic Refuge, the coastal plain within the refuge is much narrower. This unique compression of habitats concentrates the occurrence of a wide variety of wildlife and fish species, including polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, caribou, muskoxen, Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, snow geese, and more than 130 other species of migratory birds. In fact, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arctic Refuge coastal plain contains the greatest wildlife diversity of any protected area above the Arctic Circle. Scientists with the National Audubon Society studied how oil development might impact the millions of birds that migrate through the Coastal Plain to locations throughout the lower 48 States, South America, and even Africa. They concluded that: The Arctic Refuge, including its coastal plain, has extraordinary value as an intact [intact] ecosystem, with all its native birdlife. The millions of birds that nest, migrate through, or spend the winter in the refuge are a conspicuous and fundamental part of the refuge ecosystem. Obviously, this is a special place. Those who deride it as simply a barren wasteland, better for oil drilling than anything else, I think do a disservice to the conservation ethic, the preservation ethic, and to the value of the ecosystem itself, which has been preserved for a purpose. But let me just point out how drilling would, in fact, impact this special place I have described. This is the last thing I will do before yielding. We hear people argue that oil drilling will do little or even no harm to the Coastal Plain ecosystem. But, unfortunately, the evidence from decades of oil exploration in other areas of Alaska shows otherwise. It simply tells a different story. The history speaks. The Fish and Wildlife Service has examined that question and concluded the following: All reasonable scenarios for oil development on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge envision roads, drilling pads, long pipelines, secondary or feeder pipelines, housing, oil processing facilities, gas injection plants, airports and other infrastructure. In addition, the U.S.G.S. 1998 assessment found that oil in the Arctic Refuge appears to be spread out in several pools rather than in one large formation like Prudhoe Bay, making it harder to minimize the development ``foot print.'' A group of more than 500 ecologists, biologists, and resource experts wrote the following: The Interior Department has predicted that oil and gas exploration and development would have a major effect on water resources. Fresh water already is limited on the Refuge's coastal plain, and direct damage to wetlands will adversely affect fish, waterfowl, and other migratory birds. These potentially disruptive effects to fish and wildlife should not be viewed in isolation, however. . . . We urge you to protect the biological diversity and wilderness character of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from future oil and gas development. I want to summarize a briefing provided to the Senate by the Wildlife Society of America. The society was founded in 1937. It is an international, nonprofit, scientific and educational association dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education. Its membership is comprised of research scientists, educators, communications specialists, conservation law enforcement officers, resource managers, administrators, and students from more than 60 countries. What makes their briefing so important is that it addresses both the scientific evidence and the erroneous information that has been widely circulated by the industry and by drilling proponents. Let me address the scientific first. I will read from their position on the refuge. In September of 2001, the Wildlife Society released its official position of petroleum exploration and development in ANWR. It was prepared and approved by the Alaska chapter of the Wildlife Society. They object to oil development on the Coastal Plain for the following general reasons: The adverse effects of petroleum development on some wildlife species at existing North Slope oil fields have not been avoided. The unique aspects of wildlife resources in the environment in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain are such that mitigation of the impacts of oil development is questionable. The long-term, cumulative effects of petroleum extraction on fish and wildlife resources are unknown. There is substantial scientific merit in maintaining part of Alaska's Arctic Coastal Plain in an undeveloped state for long-term studies of the effects on fish and wildlife resources of climate change in the Arctic. The statement continues: The Alaska Chapter's position statement committee was composed of federal, state, industry, and university wildlife biologists, including caribou experts--all from Alaska. In developing the position statement, the committee accounted for all available data relating to wildlife resources and oil development, whether the data supported or opposed drilling. Most committee members have had extensive experience working in northern Alaska and used this experience to formulate their recommendations. The Wildlife Society advocates using sound biological information in policy decisions. The Society desires that all scientific aspects of the ANWR issue, including the uncertainty permeating the issue, be considered openly, as the final policy is developed. Careful analysis is extremely important at this time, because not only are the wildlife impacts of oil extraction uncertain, but numerous other issues--such as the amount of recoverable oil, the potential energy benefits from it, and the prudence of drilling in the Refuge--are still under debate. The society provided additional important details to support its conclusion. Let me say very quickly what they said: Development of the Coastal Plain's petroleum resources could have serious, long-term impacts to caribou and other wildlife resources of the Arctic Refuge. With present knowledge of the fish and wildlife resources of the Arctic Refuge and of the functioning of arctic ecosystems, and considering available information on the impacts of current and ongoing petroleum development in Alaska's North Slope oil fields, the primary biological concerns of the Alaska Chapter of The Wildlife Society regarding oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge include: Potential impacts on the Porcupine Caribou Herd that migrates to the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge; Potential impacts on muskoxen that inhabit the Coastal Plain of the Refuge year round; Potential impacts on polar bears that use the Coastal Plain in [that period of time]. . . . [As well as] the effects of disturbance on up to 500,000 adult snow geese that migrate through the Coastal Plain; The dewatering of streams and lakes during exploration and production activities. . . . Alterations of shoreline ecosystems for the construction of causeways, drill pads, and other petroleum-related facilities. . . . The unknown, long-term, and cumulative effects of development on ecosystem processes critical to long-term viability and integrity of the arctic environment. Based on studies in existing areas of oil development in the North Slope, they believe petroleum development on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would inevitably result in loss of wildlife habitat and probable declines in some wildlife populations. Many times throughout this debate, people have pointed to the development of the central and western portions of Alaska's North Slope, particularly Prudhoe Bay. They say this proves that the oil companies can develop the refuge without harming the environment. Well, no one is going to dispute that wilderness goes on forever in every place. But you cannot put an oil drilling complex in a wilderness area and call it wilderness. You just can't do it. You are either going to decide you are going to have some area set aside as pristine wilderness or you are not. That is part of what this debate is about, in conjunction with the question of timing. Maybe in the United States of America, somewhere down the road, our backs will be up against the wall, and maybe we will not have made good economic decisions, maybe we will not have developed the technologies we need. Maybe somewhere down the line other nations all gang up, and they will not supply us, and the United States may be stuck in a position, and this tiny bit of oil will make a difference, and the United States at that point might decide it wants to make that choice. But there is nothing in the economics, there is nothing in the current global situation, there is nothing in the amount of oil that can be found, there is nothing in the economically recoverable oil that suggests that that kind of difference is worth this choice at this time, particularly when there is so much in the way of oil alternatives in the Gulf of Mexico, natural gas alternatives, and continued drilling in Prudhoe Bay, the North Slope area. But the record of Prudhoe Bay itself is not quite as pristine as they want to suggest it is. Oil development on the North Slope has resulted in 500 miles of roads, more than 1,100 miles of pipelines, thousands of acres of facilities spread out over 1,000 square miles, 3,800 exploratory wells, 170 exploratory drill and drill pads, 22 gravel mines, 25 processing plants for oil, gas, and seawater, 56,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain, which is twice as much as is emitted by the city of Washington, DC. Our Nation's Capital emits less global warming gas than drilling in Prudhoe Bay. Nearly 400 spills occur annually on the North Slope's oilfields; roughly 40 toxic substances, ranging from waste oil to acids, have been spilled. As much as 6 billion gallons of drilling waste have been dumped in 450 reserves pits. Three class I injection wells have been constructed and injected with more than 325 million gallons of waste. Thirty class II injection wells have been constructed and injected with more than 40 billion gallons of waste. Several experts have examined the impacts of oil development in Prudhoe Bay on the environment and what it might mean for the oil development of the Arctic Refuge. Again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says: Air and water pollution and contaminated sites continue to be a serious problem in Prudhoe Bay and are inevitable with any oil development. Many gravel pads on the North Slope are contaminated by chronic spills. In addition, hundreds of oil exploratory and production drilling waste pits have yet to be closed out and the sites restored. More than 76 contaminated sites exist on the North Slope and contractor performance has been spotty. Prudhoe Bay is a major source of air pollution and green house gas emission among the Arctic Coastal Plain. Prudhoe Bay facilities annually emit approximately 55,000 tons of nitrogen oxide which contributes to smog and acid rain. North Slope oil facilities release roughly 24,000 tons of methane. Industry has numerous violations of particulate matter emissions and has opposed introduction of new technology to reduce nitrogen oxides and requirements for low sulfur fuel use. That is our own Fish and Wildlife Service. A group of more than 500 ecologists, biologists, and resource experts wrote Congress saying: Based on our collective experience and understanding of the cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration and development on Alaska's North Slope, we do not believe these impacts have been adequately considered for the Arctic Refuge, and mitigation without adequate data on this complex ecosystem is unlikely. Oil exploration and development have substantially changed environments where they have occurred in Alaska's central Arctic. Since the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated about 800 square miles of Arctic habitats have been transformed into one of the world's largest industrial complexes. Oil spills, contaminated waste, and other sources of pollution have had measurable environmental impacts in spite of strict environmental regulations. Roads, pipelines, well pads, processing facilities, and other support infrastructure have incrementally altered the character of this system. The Wildlife Society, the Alaska chapter, believes that ``petroleum exploration and development are not warranted on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,'' which they have deemed, as I mentioned earlier, a critical area for the abundance and diversity of wildlife. We also need to look at the issue of compliance. This is particularly true when oil production starts to decline, as it will. There is a curve here. Let me share it with you. I have the chart in the cloakroom. Maybe we can get it in a minute. The point of the chart is to show that obviously, like any finite resource, as you begin production, you begin slowly. You build up. You build up to a peak. And then, of course, since there is only so much there, you begin to come down. What often happens in this debate is we wind up with peak production day being the amount of oil that is thrown around, whereas you have to work up to that and then come down. If you were to compare that to what would happen, for instance, with CAFE standards, CAFE standards don't go up and down, CAFE standards continue to accrue as you go forward. Every day in the future, you will be grabbing X amount of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and so forth, out of the atmosphere and recapturing it or preventing it from going in. You can actually save three times as much fuel as the peak production day. You save three times as much foreign dependency by putting CAFE standards in place as you would drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. When oil exploration is over, when the companies don't want to invest any more money in the project, what is the commitment to clean up? All over this country--the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey--there are unfunded liabilities in toxic sites where the companies don't clean them up. We have just seen this administration seek to change the ``polluter pays'' principle which, incidentally, is a tax on the American citizen. I don't know if people are focused on that right now. Maybe it is worth a moment. When you undo ``polluter pays,'' as the principle that has guided our cleanup in America of our toxic sites, then the question is, Who pays? The average taxpayer is going to pay. The Federal Government is going to have to dump that money in if the ``polluter pays'' principle is not there. That is a tax increase on Americans. It is the Bush environmental tax on Americans. By ending ``polluter pays,'' we are now going to turn, and either nobody cleans it up--which is what is happening right now because we are not putting the money into Superfund--or the taxpayer across the country pays. That is the problem in Alaska, too. Who is going to clean up in the end? What is the State pristineness? Can you ever restore pristine? The answer, I think most people know, is no. In the year 2000, BP Alaska reached agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency to pay $7 million in civil and criminal penalties and $15 million to carry out a nationwide environmental management system. BP was sentenced in Federal court in February 2000 to pay $500,000 in criminal fines and $6.5 million for failing to report illegal hazardous waste disposals on the North Slope. From 1993 to 1995, employees of a contractor up there illegally discharged hazardous substances, including solvents, waste paint, paint thinner, waste oil containing lead and toxic chemicals such as benzene, toluene, methylene chloride, by injecting them into wells. They failed to report the illegal dumping as required by law. The Wall Street Journal, in a series of investigative stories, has documented widespread problems at other facilities on the North Slope. On April 12, 2001, they reported: Days before Interior Secretary Gale Norton's much- publicized tour of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oilfields last month, state inspectors made a startling discovery: almost a third of the safety valves tested at one drilling platform failed to close. The story continues: . . . technicians say they have complained for years about the integrity of the industry's ``friendlier technology.'' Some technicians who operate machinery--which proliferates on Prudhoe Bay and could be replicated in the wildlife refuge-- are so understaffed and lacking in routine maintenance that they are leak-prone and vulnerable to explosions. On April 26, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported: About 10 percent of the safety shut-off valves in BP Amoco entire drilling operation on Alaska's Western Prudhoe Bay failed to pass state tests during the first quarter. . . . On November 9, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that an internal report revealed ``widespread operational problems at its giant oil field in Prudhoe Bay''--that they were widespread operational problems. Investigators found large and growing maintenance backlogs on fire and gas detection systems and pressure safety valves. The report concluded: The systems are old, portions of them pre-date current code and replacement parts are difficult to obtain. Let me close by saying I have made it clear in my comments that those of us who oppose the Arctic Wildlife Refuge do not oppose drilling. We embrace drilling in many parts of our country as an ongoing need for 30 to 50 years of this country's future. We will remain oil dependent, despite even our best efforts, if we were to make our best efforts. I have suggested that we need an organizing principle for our energy future that does what makes economic sense. We should not make choices that don't make economic sense, and we do not have to lower the quality of life of any American. We heard debate on the floor of the Senate a few weeks ago about what kind of cars people were going to be ``forced'' to drive. No American is ever going to be forced to drive any kind of car if we do what we need to do with respect to the future. If you want to drive a big SUV or a huge truck to take your kids to soccer games, go ahead, absolutely. I think most soccer moms in America are outraged that cars get as little mileage for the gasoline as they do. They would love to pay less when going to the gas station to fill up. All of that technology is available to us to allow people to drive the car of their choice that is more efficient. There are many choices available to us. We can drill in those 7,000 leases in the deepwater drilling of the Gulf of Mexico. I have gone through the long list of the Arctic leases that were available that were put out last year. The largest oil and gasoline lease in the history of our Nation, just over a year ago, was 950,000 acres on the North Slope. They have scheduled 15 oil and gas leases on 15 million acres now. The third lease sale of a planning area of 10 million acres is coming right down the road. We don't need to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and destroy the concept of a pristine refuge in order to accomplish our goals of, in fact, being independent or improving the national security of our country. That is really the choice here, for all of us in the Senate: Whether we will respect this concept until we find 15, 20, 30 years from now that we leaders of the country have not made wise choices with respect to the alternatives and renewables, alternative means of propelling our automobiles. I was just out at the National Energy Alternative Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado meeting with Admiral Truly. They are doing extraordinary work. They say if the United States were to put in more effort and ratchet up our research on alternative propulsion, alternative heating, and other mechanisms, we could significantly advance the curve in this country. We have not been serious about that. The only thing we appear to be serious about thus far is continuing the dependency that has put us into this problem in the first place. So I hope my colleagues will take advantage of this vote, which represents an opportunity to suggest that our value system in this country, and our sense of economics, and our sense of security are well-grounded and well-placed with respect to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator want to have a dialog?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today with a great deal of pride to introduce the Senate's first bipartisan pension reform bill since Enron's downfall ruined the lives of thousands of workers and their families. I am introducing this bill with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, who has worked closely with me to develop a much-needed proposal that will greatly help our nation's workers to achieve greater pension security and receive better investment information and advice. Our bill is called the ``Worker Investment and Retirement Education Act of 2002,'' or the WIRE Act. Senator Snowe and I are pleased that Senator Feinstein and Chafee have joined with us as original cosponsors. As you know, Enron's bankruptcy, which caused thousands to lose their retirement savings, since their pensions were invested heavily in Enron stock, has prompted many members of Congress in both parties to introduce pension-related legislation. President Bush has also suggested several reforms. Many of these proposals share some common elements, while others contain measures that are objectionable to one side or the other. Senator Snowe and I share the view that worker retirement protection is much too important to become another partisan issue, where the upcoming elections cloud our judgment and prevent us from passing much-needed legislation. We can, and should, pass critical pension reform this year that helps American workers fee secure about their retirement savings. In my view, the playing field has been tilted against workers for far too long, and it is unfortunate that it takes a travesty like Enron to make those of us in Congress act in their interests. Of course, the pension issue is one that falls in the jurisdiction of two Senate committees. I strongly support Senator Kennedy's bill, which recently passed out of the HELP committee here in the Senate. Soon, however, the Senate Finance Committee will also consider pension reform. Given that the history of that Committee is one in which the best bills are often bipartisan, I wanted to work with Senator Snowe to develop a pro-worker bill for the Finance Committee that can be combined with Senator Kennedy's bill later on. The House of Representatives has also followed such a two-committee approach, although I have some significant reservations that the final bill that passed last week does not do enough for workers. I hope to work within the Finance Committee and with Senator Kennedy to develop a better bill here in the Senate, so we can pass legislation this year that the President will sign. Our goal should be to pass a bill that receives a two-thirds vote in both chambers not because we think President Bush will veto it, but because we want to signal to the country that partisan politics can be pushed aside when the true interests of hard-working Americans are at stake. Despite all of the news in recent months about corporate greed and excess, recent polls show that nearly two-thirds of the public believes that the most important issue with Enron's collapse is the loss of jobs and savings. With 38 million people controlling nearly $1.7 trillion in 401(k) plan assets, and with nearly 40 percent of large-plan assets tied up in company stock, much of which cannot be sold until workers reach a certain age, it is clear that the playing field needs to be tilted back towards workers. Our bill does just that, and because it is a complete approach, including all types of so-called ``defined contribution'' plans, as opposed to just some plans, it does so without opening any major new loopholes that would allow workers to be further exploited. The first thing workers need out of a pension reform bill is better information, because for millions of Americans, their retirement savings is their only true asset other than their homes. Under our bill, all covered workers would be given basic, unbiased information on the basics of investing, as well as personalized information from their employers to help them know if they are adequately preparing for their retirement years. This additional information will make a huge difference to millions of workers who currently have no knowledge about the basics of investing, or if they are saving enough to live comfortably in retirement. Next, since current law prevents most workers from receiving any sound guidance about financial planning, our bill includes the text of S. 1677, the Bingaman-Collins investment advice bill. Under this bill, millions more workers will benefit from professional, independent investment advice paid for by their employers. Workers will be able to select appropriate investments and better plan for their retirements without the creation of new conflicts of interest. Like other bills, our bill addresses the issue of blackout periods, those times when plan participants are prevented from making changes to their asset allocations. Senator Snowe and I believe that companies should provide adequate notice before any blackout period, our bill requires 30 days' notice, and inform workers of its expected length. In addition, blackouts should generally be limited to 30 days for plans that are heavily invested in company stock. Exemptions could be granted to small businesses or companies in unusual circumstances, such as a merger. This latter rule is one that distinguishes our bill from many of the others. But it seems common-sense to use that plans with more volatile assets, such as plans heavily invested in company stock, should be forced to end blackout periods as quickly as possible in order to minimize market risk for the workers. Moreover, during blackout periods, management should be prohibited from selling large blocks of stock on the open market. We command President Bush for suggesting this additional protection for rank-and- file employees, and we will work with him to help it become law. But most important, workers want and deserve a greater say in where their money is invested. Diversification is a key principle in any balanced investment strategy. Workers should be empowered with the ability to direct where their retirement savings are invested. While the shift to more broad-based stock ownership is generally a positive trend in our society, employees should no longer be forced to buy company stock with their own contributions. In addition, if workers choose to buy company stock with their own funds, they should be able to diversify these contributions whenever they wish. It's their money, after all, and they should never be forced to relinquish control of it. For employer contributions to retirement plans, workers should be allowed to begin diversifying these contributions once they are vested in the plan. Our bill accomplishes that goal while avoiding new loopholes by applying different diversification rules based on the type of contribution, worker payroll deduction, employer matching contribution, or employer nonmatching contribution, rather than the type of plan. We want to make sure that the situation with Enron never happens again, and the protections in our bill will accomplish that goal. In our view, Congress should also provide special diversification rights for older workers, because the closer you are to retirement, the more you have to lose should stock prices fall. Therefore, under our bill, once a worker turns 55, he or she would be permitted to completely diversify their retirement assets, with no restrictions. This will be the case regardless of tenure with the firm, and regardless of the type of plan. Companies must notify workers of this right to diversify when the worker has reached 55 years of age, thereby giving older workers the additional layer of protection they deserve after a lifetime of work and saving. I want to say a word about ESOPs. Employee stock ownership plans are important in that they give rank-and-file employees an ownership stake in their firms, which is largely a good thing. We should continue to encourage firms, both public and private, to include their workers in their success. Many public companies are converting parts of their 401(k)s to ESOPs to take advantage of a feature in the tax code that allows them to deduct dividends paid on the shares in the plan. However, these conversions to so-called KSOPs have downsides, in that these plans are generally more restrictive than 401(k)s when employee diversification right are concerned. As a result, Congress must include both KSOPs and ESOPs in any new diversification rules, to the extent that the plans are at public companies. If we fail to include them, or include one but not the other, we would open a new loophole while limiting workers rights. But again, since broader employee ownership is a generally positive development, we need to help workers without killing publicly- traded ESOPs. Our bill does so. Plus, another unique feature of the Kerry-Snowe bill is that for all workers under age 55 who choose to diversify some of their KSOP or ESOP shares, the firm will still be allowed to deduct for tax purposes the dividends that would have been paid on those shares, for the year of the sale and the following two years. This provision will smooth the transition to a more worker- friendly system. Finally, the government should create an Office of Pension Participant Advocacy, similar to the Taxpayer Advocate Service, where both unionized and non-unionized workers can turn to voice their concerns about pension policy. The Pension Participant Advocate would issue an annual report to Congress recommending changes to the pension laws. This idea is one that appears in several bills before Congress, and it is long overdue. All of these proposals will protect our workers, and more importantly, they will do so without prompting reductions in benefits. Businesses could still contribute stock to retirement plans. Workers will be empowered to diversify their assets, but they would not face any new rules that limit their own choices, such as a hard cap on the amount of a single stock they could own. Our bipartisan approach will ensure that workers are better off in the long run, and that's the outcome we all want.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today with a great deal of pride to introduce the Senate's first bipartisan pension reform bill since Enron's downfall ruined the lives of thousands of workers and their families. I am introducing this bill with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, who has worked closely with me to develop a much-needed proposal that will greatly help our nation's workers to achieve greater pension security and receive better investment information and advice. Our bill is called the ``Worker Investment and Retirement Education Act of 2002,'' or the WIRE Act. Senator Snowe and I are pleased that Senator Feinstein and Chafee have joined with us as original cosponsors. As you know, Enron's bankruptcy, which caused thousands to lose their retirement savings, since their pensions were invested heavily in Enron stock, has prompted many members of Congress in both parties to introduce pension-related legislation. President Bush has also suggested several reforms. Many of these proposals share some common elements, while others contain measures that are objectionable to one side or the other. Senator Snowe and I share the view that worker retirement protection is much too important to become another partisan issue, where the upcoming elections cloud our judgment and prevent us from passing much-needed legislation. We can, and should, pass critical pension reform this year that helps American workers fee secure about their retirement savings. In my view, the playing field has been tilted against workers for far too long, and it is unfortunate that it takes a travesty like Enron to make those of us in Congress act in their interests. Of course, the pension issue is one that falls in the jurisdiction of two Senate committees. I strongly support Senator Kennedy's bill, which recently passed out of the HELP committee here in the Senate. Soon, however, the Senate Finance Committee will also consider pension reform. Given that the history of that Committee is one in which the best bills are often bipartisan, I wanted to work with Senator Snowe to develop a pro-worker bill for the Finance Committee that can be combined with Senator Kennedy's bill later on. The House of Representatives has also followed such a two-committee approach, although I have some significant reservations that the final bill that passed last week does not do enough for workers. I hope to work within the Finance Committee and with Senator Kennedy to develop a better bill here in the Senate, so we can pass legislation this year that the President will sign. Our goal should be to pass a bill that receives a two-thirds vote in both chambers not because we think President Bush will veto it, but because we want to signal to the country that partisan politics can be pushed aside when the true interests of hard-working Americans are at stake. Despite all of the news in recent months about corporate greed and excess, recent polls show that nearly two-thirds of the public believes that the most important issue with Enron's collapse is the loss of jobs and savings. With 38 million people controlling nearly $1.7 trillion in 401(k) plan assets, and with nearly 40 percent of large-plan assets tied up in company stock, much of which cannot be sold until workers reach a certain age, it is clear that the playing field needs to be tilted back towards workers. Our bill does just that, and because it is a complete approach, including all types of so-called ``defined contribution'' plans, as opposed to just some plans, it does so without opening any major new loopholes that would allow workers to be further exploited. The first thing workers need out of a pension reform bill is better information, because for millions of Americans, their retirement savings is their only true asset other than their homes. Under our bill, all covered workers would be given basic, unbiased information on the basics of investing, as well as personalized information from their employers to help them know if they are adequately preparing for their retirement years. This additional information will make a huge difference to millions of workers who currently have no knowledge about the basics of investing, or if they are saving enough to live comfortably in retirement. Next, since current law prevents most workers from receiving any sound guidance about financial planning, our bill includes the text of S. 1677, the Bingaman-Collins investment advice bill. Under this bill, millions more workers will benefit from professional, independent investment advice paid for by their employers. Workers will be able to select appropriate investments and better plan for their retirements without the creation of new conflicts of interest. Like other bills, our bill addresses the issue of blackout periods, those times when plan participants are prevented from making changes to their asset allocations. Senator Snowe and I believe that companies should provide adequate notice before any blackout period, our bill requires 30 days' notice, and inform workers of its expected length. In addition, blackouts should generally be limited to 30 days for plans that are heavily invested in company stock. Exemptions could be granted to small businesses or companies in unusual circumstances, such as a merger. This latter rule is one that distinguishes our bill from many of the others. But it seems common-sense to use that plans with more volatile assets, such as plans heavily invested in company stock, should be forced to end blackout periods as quickly as possible in order to minimize market risk for the workers. Moreover, during blackout periods, management should be prohibited from selling large blocks of stock on the open market. We command President Bush for suggesting this additional protection for rank-and- file employees, and we will work with him to help it become law. But most important, workers want and deserve a greater say in where their money is invested. Diversification is a key principle in any balanced investment strategy. Workers should be empowered with the ability to direct where their retirement savings are invested. While the shift to more broad-based stock ownership is generally a positive trend in our society, employees should no longer be forced to buy company stock with their own contributions. In addition, if workers choose to buy company stock with their own funds, they should be able to diversify these contributions whenever they wish. It's their money, after all, and they should never be forced to relinquish control of it. For employer contributions to retirement plans, workers should be allowed to begin diversifying these contributions once they are vested in the plan. Our bill accomplishes that goal while avoiding new loopholes by applying different diversification rules based on the type of contribution, worker payroll deduction, employer matching contribution, or employer nonmatching contribution, rather than the type of plan. We want to make sure that the situation with Enron never happens again, and the protections in our bill will accomplish that goal. In our view, Congress should also provide special diversification rights for older workers, because the closer you are to retirement, the more you have to lose should stock prices fall. Therefore, under our bill, once a worker turns 55, he or she would be permitted to completely diversify their retirement assets, with no restrictions. This will be the case regardless of tenure with the firm, and regardless of the type of plan. Companies must notify workers of this right to diversify when the worker has reached 55 years of age, thereby giving older workers the additional layer of protection they deserve after a lifetime of work and saving. I want to say a word about ESOPs. Employee stock ownership plans are important in that they give rank-and-file employees an ownership stake in their firms, which is largely a good thing. We should continue to encourage firms, both public and private, to include their workers in their success. Many public companies are converting parts of their 401(k)s to ESOPs to take advantage of a feature in the tax code that allows them to deduct dividends paid on the shares in the plan. However, these conversions to so-called KSOPs have downsides, in that these plans are generally more restrictive than 401(k)s when employee diversification right are concerned. As a result, Congress must include both KSOPs and ESOPs in any new diversification rules, to the extent that the plans are at public companies. If we fail to include them, or include one but not the other, we would open a new loophole while limiting workers rights. But again, since broader employee ownership is a generally positive development, we need to help workers without killing publicly- traded ESOPs. Our bill does so. Plus, another unique feature of the Kerry-Snowe bill is that for all workers under age 55 who choose to diversify some of their KSOP or ESOP shares, the firm will still be allowed to deduct for tax purposes the dividends that would have been paid on those shares, for the year of the sale and the following two years. This provision will smooth the transition to a more worker- friendly system. Finally, the government should create an Office of Pension Participant Advocacy, similar to the Taxpayer Advocate Service, where both unionized and non-unionized workers can turn to voice their concerns about pension policy. The Pension Participant Advocate would issue an annual report to Congress recommending changes to the pension laws. This idea is one that appears in several bills before Congress, and it is long overdue. All of these proposals will protect our workers, and more importantly, they will do so without prompting reductions in benefits. Businesses could still contribute stock to retirement plans. Workers will be empowered to diversify their assets, but they would not face any new rules that limit their own choices, such as a hard cap on the amount of a single stock they could own. Our bipartisan approach will ensure that workers are better off in the long run, and that's the outcome we all want.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska very much. And I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague--so we can try to get a sense of planning how we will proceed--what he would anticipate in terms of how long he thinks he may be presenting the amendment. Then we can get a sense of how we might go forward.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, could I just ask a strictly procedural question of my colleague?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased today to introduce the Welfare Reform and Housing Act. This bill contains measures to improve access to adequate and affordable housing for families eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, benefits. It is essential that low-income families struggling to make the transition from welfare to work have access to affordable, quality housing options. Families with housing affordability problems are often forced to move frequently, which disrupts work schedules and jeopardizes employment. Many of the affordable housing options are located in areas that have limited employment opportunities and are located a long distance from centers of job growth. Furthermore, high housing costs can rob low-wage workers of a majority of their income, leaving insufficient funds for child care, food, transportation, and other basic necessities. Maintaining stable and affordable housing is critically important to holding down a job, yet an alarming number of low-income families do not have access to affordable housing. The data from Massachusetts is shocking: in order to afford a two-bedroom unit at the fair market rent established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, a minimum-wage worker would have to work 105 hours per week; in 1995, 2,900 poor families used private homeless shelters, while in 2000 the number grew to 4,300, with a majority of these families being low-wage workers who had once been on welfare. Lack of affordable housing is not a problem exclusive to Massachusetts. The Brookings Institution found that nearly three-fifths of poor renting families nationwide pay more than half of their income for rent or live in seriously substandard housing. Nationwide there are only 39 affordable housing units available for rent for every 100 low-income families needing housing. And for the fourth year in a row, rents have increased faster than inflation. We must address the issue of affordable housing during reauthorization of the welfare law because many low-income families hit this formidable roadblock on their path to employment. Though access to affordable housing is often left out of the discussion of welfare reform, it is crucial that we address this issue during our reauthorization of the welfare reform law this year. The welfare reform legislation will not allocate considerable new funds to increase affordable housing opportunities, however, modifications to the TANF statute can be made to address the problem by other means. That is why today I am introducing the Welfare Reform and Housing Act. This legislation will address the housing issue in the context of welfare reform in six major ways: First, the measure will make it simpler for states to use TANF funds to provide ongoing housing assistance. TANF-funded housing subsidies provided for more than four months would be considered ``non- assistance'' instead of ``assistance''. By considering these subsidies as ``non-assistance,'' states that want to implement housing assistance programs using TANF funds will not have to work within the constraints of current Health and Human Services rules surrounding ``assistance'' subsidies. Second, the bill would encourage states to consider housing needs as a factor in TANF planning and implementation. My legislation would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to gather increased and improved data on the housing status of families receiving TANF and the location of places of employment in relation to families' housing. States will be required to consider the housing status of TANF recipients and former recipients in TANF planning. Third, the legislation would allow states to determine what constitutes ``minor rehabilitation costs'' payable with TANF funds. It is now permissible to use TANF funds for ``minor rehabilitation'' but there is no guidance from HHS on what types or cost of repairs are allowable, making it difficult for states to determine the extent to which using TANF funds in this area is permissible. By allowing states to define what constitutes ``minor rehabilitation,'' more states with similar needs will follow suit. A recent study of the health of current and former welfare recipients found that non-working TANF recipients were nearly 50 percent more likely than working former recipients to have two or more problems with their housing conditions. Research has shown that poor housing conditions often can cause or exacerbate health problems. Fourth, my bill would encourage cooperation among welfare agencies and agencies that administer federal housing subsidies. By improving the dialogue between public housing agencies and state welfare agencies, the two groups will be able to enter into agreements on how to promote the economic stability of public housing residents who are receiving or have received TANF benefits. Fifth, the legislation would authorize HHS and HUD to conduct a joint demonstration to explore the effectiveness of a variety of service- enriched and supportive housing models for TANF families with multiple barriers to work, including homeless families. Finally, my bill would clarify that legal immigrant victims of domestic violence eligible for TANF and other welfare-related benefits are also eligible for housing benefits. The proposal would ensure that abused immigrant women seeking protection under the 1994 Violence Against Women Act that are also eligible for other federal benefit programs have access to federal housing programs under section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act. Recent proposals made by the Administration and some members of Congress aim to increase work requirements for families receiving TANF funds. Therefore it is important that we are committed to ensuring that low-income families have a fair chance at employment. We have made progress addressing many barriers to work for low-income families such as child care, job training, and transportation. But in order to fully support families make the transition to work we must address the shortage of adequate and affordable housing. The Welfare Reform and Housing Act brings housing into the welfare reform dialogue and aims to help ameliorate the housing problem so that low-income families leaving welfare have a chance to succeed in the work force.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased today to introduce the Welfare Reform and Housing Act. This bill contains measures to improve access to adequate and affordable housing for families eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, benefits. It is essential that low-income families struggling to make the transition from welfare to work have access to affordable, quality housing options. Families with housing affordability problems are often forced to move frequently, which disrupts work schedules and jeopardizes employment. Many of the affordable housing options are located in areas that have limited employment opportunities and are located a long distance from centers of job growth. Furthermore, high housing costs can rob low-wage workers of a majority of their income, leaving insufficient funds for child care, food, transportation, and other basic necessities. Maintaining stable and affordable housing is critically important to holding down a job, yet an alarming number of low-income families do not have access to affordable housing. The data from Massachusetts is shocking: in order to afford a two-bedroom unit at the fair market rent established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, a minimum-wage worker would have to work 105 hours per week; in 1995, 2,900 poor families used private homeless shelters, while in 2000 the number grew to 4,300, with a majority of these families being low-wage workers who had once been on welfare. Lack of affordable housing is not a problem exclusive to Massachusetts. The Brookings Institution found that nearly three-fifths of poor renting families nationwide pay more than half of their income for rent or live in seriously substandard housing. Nationwide there are only 39 affordable housing units available for rent for every 100 low-income families needing housing. And for the fourth year in a row, rents have increased faster than inflation. We must address the issue of affordable housing during reauthorization of the welfare law because many low-income families hit this formidable roadblock on their path to employment. Though access to affordable housing is often left out of the discussion of welfare reform, it is crucial that we address this issue during our reauthorization of the welfare reform law this year. The welfare reform legislation will not allocate considerable new funds to increase affordable housing opportunities, however, modifications to the TANF statute can be made to address the problem by other means. That is why today I am introducing the Welfare Reform and Housing Act. This legislation will address the housing issue in the context of welfare reform in six major ways: First, the measure will make it simpler for states to use TANF funds to provide ongoing housing assistance. TANF-funded housing subsidies provided for more than four months would be considered ``non- assistance'' instead of ``assistance''. By considering these subsidies as ``non-assistance,'' states that want to implement housing assistance programs using TANF funds will not have to work within the constraints of current Health and Human Services rules surrounding ``assistance'' subsidies. Second, the bill would encourage states to consider housing needs as a factor in TANF planning and implementation. My legislation would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to gather increased and improved data on the housing status of families receiving TANF and the location of places of employment in relation to families' housing. States will be required to consider the housing status of TANF recipients and former recipients in TANF planning. Third, the legislation would allow states to determine what constitutes ``minor rehabilitation costs'' payable with TANF funds. It is now permissible to use TANF funds for ``minor rehabilitation'' but there is no guidance from HHS on what types or cost of repairs are allowable, making it difficult for states to determine the extent to which using TANF funds in this area is permissible. By allowing states to define what constitutes ``minor rehabilitation,'' more states with similar needs will follow suit. A recent study of the health of current and former welfare recipients found that non-working TANF recipients were nearly 50 percent more likely than working former recipients to have two or more problems with their housing conditions. Research has shown that poor housing conditions often can cause or exacerbate health problems. Fourth, my bill would encourage cooperation among welfare agencies and agencies that administer federal housing subsidies. By improving the dialogue between public housing agencies and state welfare agencies, the two groups will be able to enter into agreements on how to promote the economic stability of public housing residents who are receiving or have received TANF benefits. Fifth, the legislation would authorize HHS and HUD to conduct a joint demonstration to explore the effectiveness of a variety of service- enriched and supportive housing models for TANF families with multiple barriers to work, including homeless families. Finally, my bill would clarify that legal immigrant victims of domestic violence eligible for TANF and other welfare-related benefits are also eligible for housing benefits. The proposal would ensure that abused immigrant women seeking protection under the 1994 Violence Against Women Act that are also eligible for other federal benefit programs have access to federal housing programs under section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act. Recent proposals made by the Administration and some members of Congress aim to increase work requirements for families receiving TANF funds. Therefore it is important that we are committed to ensuring that low-income families have a fair chance at employment. We have made progress addressing many barriers to work for low-income families such as child care, job training, and transportation. But in order to fully support families make the transition to work we must address the shortage of adequate and affordable housing. The Welfare Reform and Housing Act brings housing into the welfare reform dialogue and aims to help ameliorate the housing problem so that low-income families leaving welfare have a chance to succeed in the work force.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bingaman for offering an amendment for me and Senator Landrieu to the energy bill regarding small business and energy efficiency. Quite simply, this amendment says that as the Department of Energy and the Department of Environmental Protection work together to raise public awareness of the Energy Star Program, they must make a special effort to reach out to small business. What is the Energy Star Program? It is an initiative that identifies and promotes energy-efficient products and buildings in order to reduce energy consumption, improve energy security, and reduce pollution. Because small businesses have little time and few resources to learn about options for energy efficiency, within Energy Star there is a voluntary and free program for small businesses that enables owners to calculate the costs of energy efficiency upgrades, estimate payback periods and explore providers of products, services, and financing. It only makes sense to focus on small businesses. America's 25 million small businesses make up half the economy and, according to a report by E SOURCE, entitled ``The Forgotten Majority: Small Business, Hidden Opportunities,'' small businesses account for more than half of all the commercial energy used in North America. Small businesses represent significant buying power for energy efficient technologies, many of which are developed and manufactured by small businesses. By promoting the development and use of energy efficient products and practices in our small businesses, we will not only help reduce energy use and pollution, but we will also help small businesses cut costs, saving billions of dollars, according to the Center for Small Business and the Environment. By reducing their bottom lines, small businesses increase their competitiveness in the market. In the last few years, I have held three hearings on small businesses, energy and the environment. Testimony after testimony from policy experts to small business owners validated that investing in energy-efficient and environmentally friendly technologies is a good business, returning far more than compliance with environmental regulations. While energy efficiency is a major cost-cutting option for small businesses, too few know about it or the Energy Star Program and endorsed Energy Star products. In addition to this amendment, there are other steps we can take to increase awareness. One, enlist the Small Business Administration to spread the word and coordinate efforts with the EPA and DoE. Right now, in spite of a hearing we held last August regarding the business of environmental technology and the benefits of Energy Star services to small businesses, SBA continues to bury Energy Star within its website. The three agencies should coordinate their efforts, SBA has contact with thousands of small businesses daily, and is in a unique position to reach them compared to DoE and EPA. Another step we should take is to have SBA's disaster loan program and Federal Emergency Management Agency promote Energy Star products when small businesses rebuild or replace equipment. Billions of dollars each year go to rebuilding businesses and homes, and it presents an excellent opportunity to invest in products that are good for the economy and the environment. Last, for small businesses that do want to make upgrades, the upfront cost is often a deterrent, even with rebates from local utility companies. Small businesses typically don't have a lot of extra cash lying around to finance the purchases. SBA should find a way to work with the DoE and EPA to facilitate upgrades by getting financing for qualified businesses through the SBA's loan programs. Because we know energy efficient products increase profits, that should help lenders approve loans because there will be money for repayment. I thank Senator Landrieu for joining me in offering this amendment. I thank Byron Kennard of the Center for Small Business and the Environment and his colleague Carol Werner for educating the public and policy makers about the significance of small businesses to energy and environmental policy. And, lastly, I thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski and their staff for making this amendment possible.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I speak today to congratulate Melanie Sabelhaus, who was confirmed by the Senate last evening as the Deputy Administrator for the U.S. Small Business Administration. The U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing on Mrs. Sabelhaus' nomination on February 27, 2002. On March 12, 2002, the Committee voted unanimously in support of her nomination and recommended her favorably to the full Senate, which approved her nomination by unanimous consent on April 8, 2002. I would like to thank the Senate floor staffs for their assistance in moving Mrs. Sabelhaus' nomination so quickly. Mrs. Sabelhaus has had an excellent career that has provided her with both the necessary management and small business experience required of a Deputy Administrator at the SBA. Having chaired her nomination hearing and known her from her volunteer work with the Nantucket Historical Association, I can report that President Bush has made a qualified choice in selecting Mrs. Sabelhaus for the critical post of Deputy Administrator at the U.S. Small Business Administration. I believe calling this position critical in no way overemphasizes its importance, for the Deputy Administrator has historically served as the day-to-day manager of the SBA in the Administrator's absence. In fact, the Deputy Administrator position was made subject to Senate confirmation a little over ten years ago, with the passage of the Small Business Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1990, precisely because the Congress recognized its importance to the management of the Agency. During the nomination process, the Committee received assurances from Mrs. Sabelhaus and Administrator Barreto that one or both would be on hand to run the SBA on a daily basis, barring extraordinary circumstances. The SBA's role is vital to our continuing economic well-being, especially now as we seek to improve our economy. Loan programs, technical assistance programs and contracting programs are just a few of the tools the SBA has to help small businesses--and a small sample of the issues Mrs. Sabelhaus will face on a daily basis as she seeks to aid the Administrator in implementing the President's policies and congressional initiatives. It is my hope that as a former small business owner and innovative thinker Mrs. Sabelhaus will steer the agency toward our bipartisan goal: to cultivate the entrepreneurial spirit of this country and provide all--including women and minorities in the small business world with adequate and equal access to capital and opportunities and the resources and counseling that often determine a business's success or failure. I look forward to working with Mrs. Sabelhaus, the new Deputy Administrator for the U.S. Small Business Administration, as we seek to assist the small business community.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would urge that there be no further delay, no further obstruction, and that the Senate act--at long last--to pass a bill that is very important to so many small businesses in this country crippled by the economic fall-out of September 11, including businesses that were already struggling before September 11 during the recession and are now faced with even more difficult prospects. For months, tens of thousands of small businesses have been asking for help--an immediate helping hand--just to keep their businesses going--particularly working capital to meet payroll and pay the bills-- but they have been forced to make ends meet by using credit cards and depleting personal savings because small businesses doesn't have the same access as big business--to credit or otherwise. Left in the lurch by congressional inaction and delay, these businesses and their employees paid the price. Now it is time that the Senate delivers the relief the vast majority of us were prepared to deliver in the first weeks after September 11, urgent relief delayed by partisan gamesmanship. My American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act has gotten a lot of attention over the past 5 months. It has been blocked from even a meaningful debate on the Senate floor. What makes this week different? What makes it different is that we have reached final agreement with the White House on a compromise, thanks to our last resort--hardball tactics of our own--and the bill has at long last been cleared to pass the Senate by unanimous consent. I thank the 63 cosponsors of this bill. I thank the numerous small businesses and small business advocates who have worked so hard and used so much of their limited resources to free this bill for passage. This diverse coalition of business leaders and Democratic and Republican policy makers have stood by us from day one--their support should have been enough to guarantee passage way back then, but it wasn't enough to stop some from playing partisan games with even bipartisan legislation. Now, at long last, the good faith efforts of our supporters are being rewarded. It is my hope that having worked out our differences with the White House, we have cleared the way for passage not just through the Senate but also through the House. Once this help is enacted, small businesses will finally be able to receive desperately needed economic relief. I am pleased with the compromise. It preserves provisions that are really important for those small businesses that have needed help over the past few months but fell through the cracks in SBA's disaster loan program, or fell through the cracks in the private sector where lenders have cut back on loans to small businesses over the past year. It simply was not enough, not efficient, and not cost-effective to use only one of SBA's many lending programs to serve all the small businesses throughout this country that were hurt by the terrorist attacks or that have been struggling with the credit crunch. All of the SBA's tools should be used to help the affected small businesses, and this bill does just that. Because this bill was blocked from consideration, Senator Bond and I were forced to enact some of these provisions through a defense bill. I very much thank Senators Byrd and Hollings for including them. Specifically, we made it possible for small businesses to get working capital loans through the SBA's 7(a) loan program. SBA is calling these ``STAR loans,'' and compared to the economic injury disaster loans, borrowers are accessing capital faster. In just seven weeks, since the loans were made available, nearly $38 million has been loaned to 129 small businesses. It reminds us that being able to go sit in the office of a lender in the same town is far more efficient and effective than requiring a small business in West Virginia or Puerto Rico to call a 1-800 number in Niagara Falls for emergency assistance. One needs only to look at the record by comparison for economic injury disaster loans outside New York and Virginia to see the need for these STAR loans. After 22 weeks (nearly 6 months), only 2,600 loans have been approved, adding up to a denial rate of almost 50 percent . That doesn't even include the small businesses that were turned away before they even filled out an application because of outdated size standards. That has left a lot of small businesses across this country without assistance. A lot of small business owners turning are in their keys to the bank. As one small business advocate said today, in reference to the thousands of tour bus companies that went out of business, ``I understand the banks now own a wonderful fleet of tour buses.'' Well, for those small tour bus owners who have been waiting for this bill to pass and still need a working capital loan to ramp back up in the upcoming tour season, the compromise preserves the refinancing of business debt under a disaster loan. They need this so that they can restructure debt to survive this business slump. We fought very hard to keep this assistance in the bill. For the owners of travel agencies--the majority of which are small businesses--we have increased the size standards for your industry so that more of your companies qualify for disaster loans and 7(a) emergency loans. Please spread the word to travel agencies that were turned away earlier in the year because they were considered too large. They might need working capital more than ever now that the airlines have completely eliminated commissions. For small businesses that need access to credit and can't get it because of the credit crunch, Senator Bond and I were able make SBA's programs more affordable by reducing the fees borrowers pay through September 2004. In both the Senate and the House, we have had hearing after hearing trying to get fairer fees for the borrowers who need capital and the lenders who make loans, but until now we haven't gotten any cooperation. This bill will make a difference. Whether you need working capital through SBA's 7(a) loan program or credit to buy a building or equipment through SBA's 504 loan program, it will now be less expensive. Stimulating lending and borrowing is good for the economy because it creates jobs and saves jobs. By law, small businesses that borrower money through the SBA 504 loan program have to hire or retain on employee for each $35,000 borrowed. This is a win-win situation for our economy. The overall purpose of this emergency legislation is to provide access to the full complement of SBA loans and business counseling in order to help small businesses hurt by the terrorist attacks of September 11th and their aftermath. This legislation will help mitigate bankruptcies, business closures, and lay-offs and address the shrinking availability of credit. However, small businesses doing business with the Federal Government have also felt the impact of the terrorist attacks. Small business contractors, because of very real and legitimate security concerns, have experienced a dramatic increase in costs for work in and around Federal Government facilities. We have heard reports of small businesses being denied access to their equipment on military bases, waiting for hours each day to enter government facilities and being limited in the hours they can work on their projects. Let me cite the situation faced by Dave Krueger, President of AS Horner Construction, Inc. out of Albuquerque, NM. Dave was currently doing work on a Federal contract at an Air Force facility pouring concrete parking aprons. Immediately after the attack, his company was locked out of the facility for nearly 2 weeks and currently has limited hours to access the construction site. Dave estimates that this will result in cost increases of at least 10 percent, meaning he will take a loss on this contract. Such situations cannot go unresolved. Small businesses are far too important, not just to our national economy, but to our national defense as well. Small business is a vital component of our national supply chain and essential to our national security interests. To address this, S. 1499 establishes an expedited procedure whereby Federal small business contractors can apply for an equitable adjustment to their contract if costs have been incurred due to security or other measures resulting from the terrorist attacks. In the interest of compromise, Senator Bond and I agreed to reduce the funding available for these provisions from $100 million to $50 million. The Kerry-Bond approach has always been cost-effective--about five times cheaper than the administration's approach. CBO estimated that providing this assistance to small businesses would cost $860 million. The final compromise, based on CBO's estimates, is down from $860 million to $300 million. This is a good compromise. It will help small businesses in every State. It is a reasonable approach that maximizes existing resources and private sector help. I strongly and respectfully urge my colleagues to let this legislation pass. Small businesses in your State will thank you. I ask that a list of supporters of S. 1499 be printed in the Record. The list follows: S. 1499 Supporters: Airport Ground Transportation Association; American Bus Asso- ciation; American Subcontractors Association; Associated General Contractors of America; Association of Women's Business Centers; CDC Small Business Finance; Chicago Association of Neighborhood Development Organizations; Citizens Financial Group, RI; Clovis Community Bank, CA; Coastal Enterprises, ME; County of San Diego; Delaware Community Reinvestment Act Council; Fairness in Rural Lending; Florida Atlantic University Small Business Development Center; Helicopter Association; HUBZone Contractors National Council; National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders; National Community Reinvestment Coalition; National League of Cities; National Limousine Association; National Restaurant Association; National Small Business United; National Tour Association; New Jersey Citizen Action; Rural Housing Institute; Rural Opportunities; Self Help Credit Union; Small Business Legislative Council; U.S. Conference of Mayors; United Motorcoach Association; United States Air Tour Association; United States Chamber of Commerce; United States Tour Operator Association; Women's Business Development Center.