Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So, as it presently stands, the time once used tonight, unless agreed to by unanimous consent for an extension, will not be available?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. There is no agreement. May I be precise? We are talking about 2 hours that was available for the delivery of the amendment, and an hour--and time for opposition, equally divided; is that right? Two hours?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right. And the time used by the proponents and opponents as described by the Parliamentarian--there is some 7 or 10 minutes for each side? What is the present situation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So once those 19 minutes are consumed, this discussion is over and cannot be brought tomorrow?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I just wanted to let the Senator know.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is there any reason why it would not be consumed tonight?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may, I ask the Senator from Delaware if I can have 5 minutes of the time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have asked for 5 minutes from the Senator from Delaware, which has been yielded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the debate presented by my distinguished colleagues on the other side who are for drilling in ANWR: Don't worry about it. After all, look at what happened in these other places. They are drilling foreign oil for consumption by Americans. We have lost so many jobs in the oil fields. I will tell you about those jobs in the oil fields. You tell me where there is a shortage of jobs in this country, and I will tell you where they can get employed immediately. Tell me where there are people looking for work, I will tell you where they can get employed immediately. The fact is, yes, we are importing more oil. We ought not to be. I am no different than anybody else when we talk about those who owe us a responsibility to make sure we have the products that we helped save when we sent our young people to war in 1990 and 1991. We cannot disagree about that. One is not less patriotic than the other. This is not a question of loyalty. This is a question of how the world functions. Right now, those of us in the environmental community say we ought to be cautious about the use of our precious, pristine wildlife areas. I heard the Senator from Oklahoma say--I do not want to mimic what he said, but he did say: Well, that area that is reserved for drilling, some 2,000 acres, is not so pretty anyway. It was hard for me to believe my ears. What do you mean it is not so pretty anyway? We have some areas in our country that are not so pretty that attach to areas that are beautiful. It is the not-so-pretty areas that help keep the pretty areas, and those that are essential for our existence as a species, the human species, to function. So we cannot dismiss it like that. With all of the best intentions of managing the way we transport our oil and we explore for it, it is all subject to human frailties. If we have had a pipeline that has worked well for lots of years, I salute it. But, remember this, in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez ran aground--and it was human error, there is no doubt about that but you cannot remove it. We lost a spaceship with our precious astronauts aboard because of some human error. These things do not happen without human intervention. We cannot dismiss this and say: Don't worry about it; everything will be all right. We will take care of it. I say that is not so. I wish we could get all our Senators to do a flyover of the ANWR. I guarantee there would be a majority voting the other way, saying do not drill there unless there is no other way in the world for us to survive. We have other sources of oil, other sources of energy being considered and developed. There is work going on in Azerbaijan. You know, when it is said we should only consume American oil to the extent we need oil, I do not believe that is necessarily so. I would rather save that reserve. Heaven forbid if we need it some day in the future. I would like to bring it in from other sources. There are minerals in this country which we do not mine anymore because it is cheaper and better on the environment to import some of those minerals. That is the way things go. We have become a profligate society in our use of energy. We have SUVs popping up everywhere. The automobile companies do not mind making them. The workers of those automobile companies do not mind working there. The guys who work in the gas stations--whether the oil comes from Saudi Arabia or from Oklahoma or Texas--do not mind their jobs. They have businesses that are based on supplying that energy. We are a society that is overblown with riches, and we are using whatever energy we want. We consume fresh air with congestion. There are more cars out there than we know what to do with, but that does not stop us from using our cars. We are saying, as long as we are profligate, just wasting it, let's get it; let's go up to the ANWR and drill in that pristine area described in different fashions as beautiful or not so beautiful or the home for some of the animals; they will survive anyway. I say do not take the risk. I would rather see us practice conservation, which we have not done in this society of ours. I have not heard anybody--I am talking about either from the administration presently in power or any of us--talk about conservation programs: Save it, don't just use it; save it if you are concerned about it. But no, look at the traffic lines. Nobody wants to save oil.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I take 5 minutes off the resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as to this debate about whether or not it is American jobs, Americans, thank goodness, are working at jobs that are productive and have given us the strongest economy ever seen in the history of mankind. We ought to reduce our dependence. I agree with my friends on the other side, but that does not mean we have to go to a source that raises questions about our ability to preserve the environment. I said it before, when I think of my children, one of the most important assets I see in this country is a good environment, good natural resources. Even if they never get to visit Alaska, I have done it. I do not want to be a ``Johnny's been all over the place,'' but I was also in Kuwait. I saw the situation the Senator from Alaska described. I was in an airplane several thousand feet in the air. The windshield was covered with soot from the burning oil fields. It was a terrible waste of lives and energy, but it happened. What we have to do is make sure our allies, the people whom we worked to save, understand what we mean when we call on them to help us through a crisis. I could not agree more with my friends on that score. I believe we should have gotten much tougher than we did. I had an occasion to speak to a diplomat from one of the Mideast countries. I said: Do you know what you are doing? You may make a better profit right now, but you are alienating the American people, and you are not going to recover from that so easily. Do not depend on us when you issue an alarm--``help save our skins; help save us.'' Some of them went to other countries to enjoy themselves when we did the fighting. That is not going to happen easily again. The Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and some of the friends on the Republican side, including Senator Snowe, who voted with Senator Boxer on protecting the ANWR--there was a commentary in the Washington Post from someone who cannot be declared a cockeyed liberal or crazy environmentalist. I will read the quote before I identify who it is: I totally agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a truly unique pristine ecosystem, and I believe we should not damage it. It should be set aside in wilderness designation in perpetuity, Smith wrote to the New Hampshire Citizens for Arctic Wilderness. That is Senator Bob Smith, someone we know well, who is chairman of the environment committee, and we are hearing from the chairman of the Finance Committee that we ought not do this. These are people who deserve to be heard, and we know there are other people in the Republican Party who agree with us. We are going to find out when we put this to a vote. The vote will come sometime tomorrow. I hope we will close this debate at this point. While everything to be said has been said, not everybody has said everything. I yield back any time I requested from the resolution which I did not use.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. To be clear, because I think there is perhaps some misinterpretation of what the Senator is looking for, that is pay down the debt as a mandate of the budget process--pay down the debt, and that is regardless of where those payments come from. I understand the Senator wants to get the debt paid down. But I just want to be sure I am correct in what I understand his intention is, once again to pay down the debt. Regardless, we are going to take $15 billion out next year, and the next year it is $30 billion, and then $45 billion, et cetera, among the first things. That is a mandate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. While I wasn't present to hear Senator Byrd's presentation, there is no doubt in my mind that the Byrd proposal is one we have to support. The last thing we want to do now is to reduce that tax in order that we might give OPEC or the distributors, whomever, a chance to boost the price for the difference. One of the toughest things we have to do is to try to meet our obligations with the resources we have available. The American people know very well that one of the most important things we do is to maintain our transportation infrastructure. I plan to do whatever I can to see that that is done. My remarks are short, but they are very supportive. I congratulate Senator Byrd for his usual wisdom in presenting something that we have to think seriously about and, frankly, I support fully. I thank him for that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We do, Mr. President. If, however, the proponent of the amendment wishes to continue addressing the Senate, we have no objection. We are waiting for people to come by.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That would be fine.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation regarding the time for any opposition to the amendment?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will speak off the budget resolution itself. I have listened with interest to the comments of the Senator from Colorado. I salute what he says he wants to do to get the debt reduced more than anybody else: Get it lower, bring it down. It doesn't matter how we get it there, if we have to burn the house down to get it. There isn't anybody here who doesn't know we are terribly short of funding for programs we need to have in place, that even the Republican budget resolution--and I serve on the Budget Committee--was passed by the majority without any support from the minority. None of the Democrats voted for this resolution. I think it is fair to say the principle of paying down the debt was established by President Clinton and his administration when they said, ``Save Social Security, pay down the debt.'' They were almost simultaneous acts. Some disagree and say it is another IOU from the Government. But it is an IOU from a much stronger balance sheet. I come from the business world, and that is the way I look at things. I ask the Senator from Colorado, if he will indulge me, what is the total savings he hopes to have or the total debt reduction he plans to have over the 5-year period?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator be kind enough to tell me what the formula says in direct debt repayment over the 5-year period? I understand that it is in increments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Then $30 billion.

Frank Lautenberg

Speeches

Manage analytics