Medicare HEALS Act of 2005

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his statement and his support. I thank my colleague from Alaska for her statement.

I come to the floor in opposition to the Sununu amendment, also. I hope Members will read it because it says:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to

plan, design, study, or construct new forest development

roads in the Tongass National Forest for the purpose of

harvesting timber by private entities or individuals.

This amendment is premised on inaccurate information and faulty assumptions about our Nation's timber industry, the Tongass, and the state of our national forests. Unfortunately, this type of information has become commonplace. It is the inevitable result of special interest campaigns which are designed to distort the facts and mislead the American public. For many years, I have worked to set the record straight, especially when it comes to the false claims about Alaska's stewardship of our natural resources. Unfortunately, this amendment requires that I attempt, once more, to set the record straight.

Misinformation about management of our national resources now runs rampant. I believe it lies at the heart of this amendment. It is the result of propaganda campaigns raised by extreme environmentalists and special interest groups who often get the facts wrong because they ignore our history. Our State once had a thriving timber industry. It supplied almost 2 billion board feet a year, employed over 3,000 timber workers, and generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. Treasury. But in the spirit of compromise and cooperation, our timber industry agreed to reduce the amount of timber it could harvest per year. In fact, one timber employee recently stated ``we cooperated ourselves right out of business.''

The Tongass National Forest was established in 1917. At 17 million acres, it is the largest national forest in the United States. It is twice the size of Maryland and more than 25 times the size of Rhode Island. As a matter of fact, if we look at the map showing the New England area, it shows how big this forest really is. The part that is covered in black is that portion of the forest that is open to timber on a proportionate basis. The other map that I have shows the forest as a whole and shows the result of the plans that have been developed. The area in blue is area that is still available for harvesting. All of the white part of that map of the Tongass is permanently closed to timber harvest.

The Tongass compromises 90 percent of the lands of southeastern Alaska. The remaining lands are State, more Federal, and private lands. The Tongass is the only forest in Alaska in which timber may be harvested now. Alaska's other forest, the Chugach National Forest, which contains 5.5 million acres, is now under a management plan which has reduced the allowable sale quantity to zero. The Chugach is completely closed to logging. No timber can be logged from that very massive forest, 5.5 million acres.

Federal timber policy regarding the Tongass has had devastating effects on the 32 communities in Southeast Alaska that depend on timber harvests for their livelihood. When Congress passed the Tongass Timber Act in 1947, an allowable sale quantity, which we call the ASQ, for the Tongass was set at 1.38 billion board feet per year. This level was slowly eroded. Under the 1959 Statehood Act, the State of Alaska was allowed to select only 400,000 acres of its 103-million-acre entitlement in Southeast Alaska.

Because there is little private land to support our local economies, Congress committed to provide support for economic development through timber sales. Congress codified that support in a series of laws beginning in 1971. In 1971, the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act set the ASQ, the allowable quantity, at 950 million board feet per year. During subsequent years, the timber industry in the Tongass supported almost 3,000 jobs and harvested an average of 520 million board feet per year. However, the amount of permissible harvest was again decreased in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which set an ASQ of 450 million board feet per year. At that time, the Senate believed that 450 million board feet per year would maintain a robust timber industry which was a major section of southeast Alaska's regional economy.

In addition, the Senate envisioned providing Federal funds for road building and advanced harvesting technology.

As former Senator Roth stated at that time in 1980, the bill:

. . . permit[s] the established timber industries to

maintain a rate of production necessary for their economic

success. It was understood by Members of the Senate during

this debate that a vital timber industry was necessary for

the economic survival of the residents of southeast Alaska.

As Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts said:

Our commitment was to treat Alaska fairly.

The commitment was again put to the test during the debate on the Tongass Timber Reform Act, which was called TTRA, in 1990. That plan set the ASQ at 450 million board feet on 1.9 million acres. The Act also directed the Forest Service to provide a supply of timber which meets the market demand in southeast Alaska. At that time, several Members from both sides of the aisle in the Senate adamantly agreed that this bill would be the final word on the Tongass.

As Senator Johnson of Louisiana stated:

I believe that the designation and disposition of the

public lands in the Tongass National Forest pursuant to this

act represent a responsible balance between the preservation

of wildlife areas and the availability of lands for more

intensive use as determined appropriate by administrative

planning and management. I further believe that this

agreement will allow Alaskans the certainty they need and

deserve by resolving the issue once and for all.

Now, that was in 1990. Senator Bingaman--now an original cosponsor of the Sununu amendment, as a matter of fact--said at the time:

This is a balanced bill that will adequately protect this

majestic national forest, while assuring a sustainable supply

of timber for current and future needs. . . . This

legislation recognizes that some areas should be protected,

while others should be managed for a sustained supply of

timber.

That was at the time of the 1990 act.

I remember speaking on the floor prior to passage of the bill. After years of broken promises and severe declines in the timber industry, I trusted our colleagues to do the right thing and resolve the issue of the Tongass once and for all. That is what everybody at the time said-- that Act was the final legislation pertaining to the Tongass timber harvest. I called on all Members of the House and Senate to listen to the voice of Alaskans. I received a promise, commitment, and assurance of those involved, who had the power to change these laws, that they recognized this was the end, that there would be no further divisions of the Tongass.

In 1997, however, the Forest Service completed the Tongass land management plan, which currently guides management of the Tongass. The development of that involved an unprecedented level of scientific review and public involvement. It took over 10 years and cost the taxpayers of the United States $13 million.

I opposed the plan because it contained again a drastic reduction in the amount of timber allowed to be harvested. It reduced the allowable sale quantity level to 267 million board feet per year. I thought the levels were

much lower than they needed to be, and they violated the commitment previously made to me. Numerous scientists who found that the Tongass could sustain far greater development supported my conclusion.

Yet, today, that plan seems like the golden age of the Tongass timber industry. I now find myself defending a plan I initially opposed, because of continued efforts to erode the promises made to our State.

This plan addresses how to manage the Tongass--a largely undeveloped forest landscape--over time. The centerpiece is a biological conservation strategy that protects the ``biological heart,'' as they called it, of the Tongass, designed to assure the sustainability of all resources and values, while allowing development on a relatively small portion of the Tongass to support communities in southeast Alaska through timber harvesting.

Mr. President, 93 percent of all forested areas in the Tongass are set aside under the 1997 plan; 93 percent are not available for timber harvesting. Timber harvesting can actually now occur on only 676,000 acres, or 4 percent of the 17 million acre forest. The allowable sale quantity under this plan is 267 million board feet--down, as I said, from over 1 billion board feet. An ASQ of 267 million board feet per year is the bottom quantity, as far as I am concerned.

Since 1990, the volume of timber harvested from the Tongass has dropped from hundreds of board feet per year. Last year, only 46 million board feet of timber was harvested--46 million board feet of timber from a forest of 17 million acres.

To comply with the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the current plan seeks to plan, prepare, and sell about 150 million board feet per year. Delays caused by litigation have prohibited the Forest Service from accomplishing this goal on the Tongass. Fourteen projects are currently under litigation. They represent over 238 million board feet of timber that should have been harvested in years gone by.

Direct timber jobs in the Tongass have declined from over 3000 in 1990 to less than 700 today. Unemployment in parts of southeast Alaska is well over 10 percent, all because of extravagant acts of those who oppose the very Act they championed at the time it passed in 1990.

Mr. President, 150 million board feet per year could support 959 direct timber jobs, totaling over $35 million in direct wages, Each direct timber job is estimated to support another 1.7 jobs in the local economy. These jobs are an important high-wage sector of the economy and provide much needed year-round employment for southeast Alaska. The benefits of a sufficient and sustained timber supply are obvious.

The timber industry in southeast Alaska has changed dramatically over the period we have described. The large pulp mills are closed. Three medium sawmills, one small sawmill, and a handful of micromills remain, but they are primarily idle because of the level of timber that can be cut right now. These businesses are family owned and community based and depend upon a supply of timber from the Tongass for their survival.

The remaining mills are involved in efforts to increase the demand for, and the stumpage values of, the timber in southeastern Alaska.

These people are trying to build a more integrated industry to provide finished products, such as window and door trim, to local, national, and international markets.

The Tongass timber program is working to complete investments in drying and planing lumber, having it graded, to sell in the local region.

Wood resources in southeast Alaska are now known to have unique qualities. Wood density and lumber strength is high. New lumber grades for Alaska yellow cedar and hemlock have recently been issued, which surpass the strength of other species currently used in construction in the lower 48, such as Douglas fir. This is also expected to increase the value of Alaska's timber.

In other words, we are trying to do what we can through technology to increase value of our timber, even though the amount of the timber is steadily declining.

The efforts of those remaining in the Tongass industry to adapt to current conditions will be worthless if Congress adopts the Sununu amendment. As I said, the amendment prohibits the Forest Service from using funds appropriated for the ``planning, designing, studying, or construction'' of timber roads.

Planning, designing, and studying are necessary to assure that we meet the multiple use consideration of the national forests. This forest area is full of small streams that contain migratory salmon. Wildlife is there. There are recreation values. A whole series of values require the Forest Service to study the areas that can be harvested. Careful planning, designing, studying, and construction is necessary to protect those values, as well as provide a transportation route so timber can be taken to market.

This amendment will effectively enact a roadless rule in the Tongass. It would prevent access to more than 300,000 acres of unroaded timber base in the areas that are open for timber harvest. Access to the small amount that is available should not be denied because of this amendment.

Data provided by the Forest Service shows at a minimum southeast Alaska will lose two mills and about 680 more jobs. These numbers will not support the industry described if this amendment passes.

Law requires that a sufficient timber supply be provided to meet market demand. That was one of the basic considerations that came from the 1990 Act. Current market demand is about 150 million board feet per year in our own area. Under this amendment, we would harvest less than 40 million board feet per year, bringing the industry to a standstill. I ask the Senate to reject this approach that would further renege on the obligation to southeast Alaska to fulfill the commitments that were made to Alaska and to southeastern Alaska under the Tongass plan.

Some of the Senators claim the Sununu amendment is about our fiscal responsibility to ensure taxpayers are not subsidizing the Tongass timber industry. But this is not about fiscal responsibility.

National environmental groups have spent millions appealing and litigating timber sales in the Tongass National Forest, causing program costs to soar and the number of sales to collapse. Almost 75 percent of all the costs associated with timber sales in the Tongass National Forest are spent on NEPA, appeals based on that Act, and litigation. The remaining 25 percent is the actual preparation and administration of a sale, including the building of roads.

Compliance with NEPA and other Federal laws and responses to appeals and litigation currently total about $110 per thousand board feet, or $110,000 per million board feet.

Without these costs, timber sale preparation and administration for the Tongass Forest would cost about $36 per thousand board feet. The average timber sale generates about $42.5 per thousand board feet. Without frivolous appeals and lawsuits, the Tongass timber program would yield a reasonable profit margin and make money for U.S. taxpayers.

Administrative appeals and litigation increase the cost of Tongass timber sales exponentially compared with the rest of the United States. The Forest Service estimates the timber sales in the Tongass are appealed and litigated more than four times that of timber sales in the national forests in the lower 48. It is the cost of this litigation and the cost of the environmental programs that are instilled by these extreme environmentalists that drive up the cost in the Tongass. Now they say we should stop harvesting timber because of the cost. Despite extensive environmental review and public participation, the majority of the timber projects in the Tongass are appealed and/or litigated.

Taxpayers are not subsidizing the timber industry. Under the National Forest Management Act, timber sale purchasers are required to competitively bid and pay market value for the sales they purchase. Purchasers also pay for all logging, transportation, and manufacturing costs.

In addition, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act mandates that national forests be managed for multiple use benefits such as fish, wildlife, recreation, and clean water.

Ecological benefits include various land management objectives such as

improving forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic fire.

All of those costs are what the environmental groups say are part of the cost of the timber sale program. They are not. Seventy-five percent of all the costs have nothing to do with harvesting timber. They have to do with the attacks of extreme environmental groups that now bring this amendment to say you cannot use Federal money to build these roads, or even plan them, because it costs too much.

In the Tongass, timber sales also provide basic infrastructure, such as roads and docks. This infrastructure provides residents and visitors with access to hunting, fishing, recreation, and wildlife viewing. The whole spectrum of tourist activity in southeast Alaska is supported by the roads constructed. Some roads constructed by timber sales serve as the basic road system between communities and ferry terminals, which are the water highways of the island communities of southeast Alaska.

That area has no roads. Even our capital cannot be reached by road. This is an island area. It must have roads basically from the edge of the water to the area available for harvesting which, by definition, is back away from the view shed that we keep along the water's edge to assure that tourists will have the proper view of the area.

I do believe these water highways between our southeastern islands are connected, in a way, by virtue of the forest roads that are developed under these timber sale programs.

These timber sales provide benefits beyond revenues earned. Economic benefits include new jobs, additional income for individuals and businesses. Basic tax receipts of this area depend on the harvesting of timber in the Tongass.

The problem that I see now is that these communities have come to rely on timber sales not only for jobs but for their local economies. Timber sales revenues are important to local communities which receive 25 percent of the proceeds of these sales for public schools and roads, as do all areas that have national forests. By prohibiting these roads which will kill the sales, in effect, the contribution that is brought about by the laws that pertain to national forests will not be realized in Southeast Alaska because there won't be any harvest or 25 percent to support the schools that come out of the national program.

That program applies to the entire United States. The timber roads program applies to all States where there are national forests. In the year 2004, the timber harvest for all 10 forest regions was about 2 billion board feet. The gross receipts totaled $217 million and expenditures amounted to over $268 million, and that number does not take all costs into account.

The 1998 timber sale performance information reporting system found net losses in 8 of the 10 forest regions. Some States may be able to show a profit or even break even, but clearly the national timber sale program does not.

As a matter of law and policy, national forest managers are required to behave differently from private forest managers, so it does not make sense to judge their performance by private sector standards--profits.

If the Forest Service's goal was to maximize profits, contrary to the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, the Forest Service would allow export of timber and sell it to the highest bidder worldwide in the global economy. But that would essentially outsource all of the value-added forest products industry of the United States, putting local mills out of business, eliminating jobs, and leaving local communities with few alternatives for revenue. Given our current economic climate, the United States cannot afford that policy.

I want to share a quote from President Roosevelt. Senator Murkowski mentioned he established the Tongass National Forest. I think it is relevant today. He said:

. . . First and foremost, you can never afford to forget

for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is

not to preserve forests because they are beautiful, though

that is good in itself, not because they are refuges for the

wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too is good in

itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as the

land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous

homes.

This national forest concept was supposed to provide an alternative to the development of privately owned timber and be a yardstick for the management of timber resources in our country.

The construction of timber roads is important for both the economic and environmental health of our forests. They provide access to timber used for wood, paper products, and home construction. They enable citizens to access our forests for public recreation, and they enable Forest Service employees to manage those forests for the public good.

The timber road program in Alaska is managed in the same manner as the timber road program of every national forest in the United States. The only difference in our case is we provide special protections, such as culverts, to ensure safe fish passage, and we protect the terrain. We have learned from the mistakes of the past. We do not build roads the same as they do in other areas. We strive to strike a balance between conservation and economic development.

And now with this amendment, some Members of the Senate would penalize Alaska for doing the right thing. We have developed a basic approach to use our timber areas to protect other values besides timber harvests. We could seek to significantly reduce the amount of these protections required for our timber road system, and we could drastically reduce the funds required, but that would be inconsistent with proper stewardship of our national forest lands.

Because only 1 percent of Alaska's lands are privately owned, it is imperative that the Federal Government allow us to use some of our resources on Federal lands. The Federal Government manages, by the way, 235 million acres of Alaska's land.

We have a long, proud history as responsible stewards of our natural resources. Alaskans will always manage our lands in a way that ensures its vitality. Timber is a renewable resource. It can be--and will be-- managed as such under the Tongass land management plan.

Much of Alaska will remain pristine wilderness. We have set aside a tremendous amount of it. But we need some certainty that we will be able to harvest small portions of the forest which are not already set aside. We need to know we will be able to sustain the timber industry today with the assurances of the past. We need assurances that our efforts will not be met by more resistance, such as the frivolous lawsuits and amendments such as this.

In order to give our communities a chance to be prosperous, Congress should allow the Tongass to be managed under the forest management plan without further unwarranted interference.

I remind the Senate, the same environmental groups that caused the Tongass to lose money through frivolous litigation and stalling tactics, as I said, are now calling for an end to the timber program under the guise of fiscal conservatism. It is disingenuous and duplicitous, and their approach is given sanction and credibility by this amendment. This amendment should be defeated.

I do hope that our colleagues will consider this: Taxpayers for Common Sense has repeatedly opposed Federal funds for the entire National Forest System. They argue that 105 of the 111 national forests spend more money in the operation of forests than they collected through timber sales. They want us to meet the cost of all multiple use values the cost of recreation, the cost of conservation, the cost of protecting wildlife--by the revenues coming in from the small amount of areas of the forest allowed to be harvested.

This group singled out several national forests as wasteful. I want to point out to the Senate that the Taxpayers for Common Sense attacked forests in California, Alaska, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, and Utah. I urge the Senators involved in this amendment to consider this. Why single out Alaska? Why is it that Alaskan roads cannot be built with Federal money? They are being built in all these other national forests deemed wasteful.

I am surprised my colleagues from New Hampshire and New Mexico would offer this amendment in view of the conditions of the forests in their own States. According to the Wilderness Society, the Forest Service's timber program in New Hampshire lost between $813,000 and $1.2 million. We are

being attacked for something that does not exist in Alaska alone.

In New Mexico, the timber program lost between $365,000 and $414,000.

The same economics are applied to the Tongass Timber Programs as in all National Forests. The difference in Alaska is that four times as many lawsuits are brought against Tongass timber sales than in the rest of the United States.

If this amendment is designed to protect the taxpayer, then restrictions on Federal funds for timber roads should apply to all forests in every State. And I think special interests will come after those other areas, if this amendment is passed.

I call this an ill-conceived amendment. I urge it not be adopted. It would add weight to the logic embraced by Taxpayers for Common Sense who have attacked, as I said, almost every forest in the United States. It will send us down a slippery slope by setting a precedent for halting road programs in national forests.

The roads designed and built by the Forest Service are in the best interests of the Nation because they protect all the values of the multiple-use concept of our national forests. This is not only important to the timber industry, but it is important to millions of Americans who rely on roads for access to national forests.

I do not want to encourage environmental groups to continue waging frivolous lawsuits in the hopes of making timber programs throughout the United States too expensive to continue. What they are doing is increasing the costs. Again, I point out, 75 percent of the costs in Alaska are involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the appeals and litigation that ensue whenever the Forest Service offers a timber sale in the Tongass.

Adopting this amendment would unfairly and unjustly distinguish one State--our State--sending a sobering message to Alaskans: Despite Congress's statements and actions in the past, a Senator voting for this amendment will be telling Alaskans that their economic well-being is secondary to special interests, and when push comes to shove, Congress will forget about the commitments of the past, forget about the promises of the past, and move to satisfy this extreme environmental movement that is the basic cause of the problem as far as the forests are concerned.

If Congress chooses to adopt this amendment, none of our forests are safe. No forest can afford to sit idly by. These special interest groups are designing ways to destroy an important Federal program based on spurious allegations with regard the economics involved. Those economics are affected more by the environmental movement, which is challenging most timber sales in the Tongass, than by the forest actions themselves.

Above all, I ask the Senate to remember that this amendment goes back on congressional promises made to Alaska. In exchange for withdrawing over 100 million acres of land for parks, refuges, and forests, including 17 million acres in Tongass National Forest, Congress promised that it would leave intact sufficient land to maintain a robust timber industry in Alaska.

Unlike the timber industry in other States, Alaska's timber industry is reliant on the Tongass, which comprises 90 percent of Southeast Alaska. Only 676,000 acres are currently open for timber harvesting.

Since 1980, jobs in the Alaskan timber industry have shrunk from over 3,000 to less than 500 today. We have only four small family-owned timber mills left.

This amendment is not about fiscal responsibility, it is a back-door attack on the timber industry to benefit this extreme environmental movement.

As I said, 75 percent of the timber sale cost is from NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act, compliance, appeals, and litigation. Without those, the Tongass would make a 13-percent profit.

Many of the national forests in the United States have monetary returns per dollar invested, which is less than the rate of return of the Tongass, and they are not considered at all in connection with this amendment. This amendment would set a precedent that litigation can make the cost of timber programs in all national forests too expensive to continue.

If this amendment was really about fiscal responsibility, then all national forests would be included. Most of the timber programs throughout the United States--as I said, 8 out of 10 of them--are not profitable. In fact, according to the Forest Service--and I close with this point--the Tongass is one the best managed forests in the Nation. It has one of the lowest costs per acre, including the timber program.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment that I think would reverse efforts to manipulate the budget resolution process to pass what I believe is a controversial energy policy. This policy is so controversial it doesn't even meet the bar for what I think is reasonable legislation. It couldn't even gain the 60 votes needed in this body.

I think it is important that we have a continued debate on drilling in Alaska that meets the environmental and permit processes that any drilling in America would have to meet. And that is not what we are discussing in the underlying bill.

My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Feingold, Dayton, Lieberman, Kerry, and others, and would prevent oil and gas exploration and drilling within the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I appreciate that this debate over the Arctic Refuge coastal plain has continued for more than 2 decades. I know the Presiding Officer and my other colleague from Alaska have spent many hours on this legislation. But this issue has continued to stir the passions of many and polarized communities across our country. That is because this debate is more than just about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It is not simply about protecting one of America's last remaining great treasures. Rather, it is a debate that forces us to confront our priorities. It forces us to ask basic critical questions: Where do we go from here on the future of our energy policy? What inheritance do we want to leave our children from an environmental perspective?

We all must realize that God only granted the United States less than 3 percent of the world's remaining oil reserves and we as Americans need to do more with our own ingenuity to become less dependent on foreign oil.

Imagine a future where we don't turn a blind eye to oppressive regimes in the Middle East only because they happen to control the majority of the world's remaining oil reserves, or a future where Americans can drive hybrid or hydrogen-powered SUVs that get 40, 50, or even 100 miles per gallon. That is how we want to see our future. That is how we are going to save consumers who are being hurt at the gas pump today by these unbelievably high prices.

In the future we want Americans to have the opportunity to enjoy and appreciate this unique part of Alaska. That is why I believe the amendment I am offering today talks about our national priorities. That is why this is too important a question to slide into the budget bill. This bill circumvents the processes for permitting and environmental safeguards.

It is ironic that if this legislation passes we will actually be opening up drilling in a wildlife refuge with less protections than any other drilling in any other site in America. So instead of going to greater extremes to protect a particular wildlife refuge, we are going to have the weakest standard. The American people expect more.

I hope my colleagues appreciate that there are many flawed assumptions inherent in this drilling proposal. The simple act of putting a policy on a budget bill itself, I believe, is disingenuous.

But that is not all because section 401 will almost certainly never raise the $2.4 billion that drilling proponents claim it will. That is because the measure presumes to generate these funds by splitting revenues between Alaska and the Federal Government on an even 50-50 basis. But I think my colleagues might be surprised to learn that this 50-50 legislative language may not hold up in court. We just don't know right now. We do know the State of Alaska has long maintained it is due 90 percent of all the natural resource development revenue generated from Federal land within its boundaries, and we know this remains a controversial issue. Some have suggested this proposed 50-50 split in this legislation is merely a ploy to win passage. Some have suggested that once it passes, it will be followed by a court battle from the State of Alaska to force the Federal Government into a 90-10 split of revenue. So this $2.4 billion the United States might receive would be a much different picture.

My colleagues may be interested to know that even in June of this year, the Alaska legislature passed a joint resolution. It stated:

The Alaska legislature opposes any unilateral reduction in

royalty revenue from exploration and development of the

coastal plain of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and any

attempts that could coerce the State of Alaska into accepting

less than 90 percent of the oil, gas, and mineral royalties

from Federal lands in Alaska that was promised at statehood.

That is something that was passed by the Alaska legislature, showing us they have every intention to fight for a 90-10 split.

Later this week I will also offer an amendment that will get at this issue of trying to guarantee a 50-50 revenue split. I hope my colleagues will be recorded on that amendment and show they truly intend to have a 50-50 split and that this not just a ploy in which later the revenue scheme is changed.

I am also concerned that many Senators may not support my amendment because they believe drilling in the refuge can be done in an environmentally benign way. They actually believe we should move forward because they think drilling in ANWR can be done in a way that is environmentally sensitive.

I think they are wrong. There is no real way to sugarcoat the fact that the oil company records on the adjacent

Prudhoe Bay have been shameful. The facts speak for themselves.

According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the Prudhoe Bay oilfields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 504 spills annually--annually--on the North Slope since 1996. Through last year, these spills included more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances, most commonly diesel, crude oil, and hydraulic oil. It takes one spill to permanently destroy a section of this fragile arctic ecosystem. The people know this.

To quote an official from the North Slope city of Nuiqsut:

Development has increased the smog, haze, and is affecting

the health and the beauty of our land, sea, and air.

I can only imagine how devastating that must be for someone whose culture and experience is so invested in the vast open spaces and abundant wildlife.

The news media has reported widely on these issues of oil spills. 2 weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal, and many other papers, have reported on some serious allegations. They have uncovered evidence that indicates there has been intentional dumping of untreated toxic mud, a dangerous contaminated byproduct common to Arctic drilling.

We have seen reports that the owner of an alpine field was forced to pay an $80,000 fine for releasing 215 tons of excess carbon monoxide annually. And, yes, this is the same field that some of my colleagues visited last March, along with the Secretaries of Energy and the Interior. Yet it is not the pristine area. There is already evidence of pollution in that area. This is the same field my visiting colleagues characterize as the cleanest in the world. And I note the Alpine field is just 8 miles from Nuiqsut.

I also want the American people to know that the tradeoff for destroying our Nation's last great wild frontier will not be relief from skyrocketing gas prices. Our sacrifice will do little to decrease our reliance on foreign oils from countries that don't have our best intentions in mind. Here is why. The Energy Department's latest analysis estimates that even when the refuge oil hits peak production 20 years from now, it will lower gas prices by just one penny. A penny, Mr. President. That is not an estimate that I have come up with, that is the Department of Energy's own estimate.

That is not very impressive considering the fact that the constituents in my State of Washington are now paying twice as much for a gallon of gas as they did just 3 years ago.

I also urge my colleagues to vote for an amendment that my colleague from Oregon plans to offer. This legislation would prevent any of this oil from going to foreign markets, such as China. Senator Wyden has pointed out to us and many others, including those in the State of Oregon, that there is no guarantee that the Arctic Refuge oil would ever be used in the United States.

So if my colleagues think if we pass this legislation that somehow it is going to help the United States in the crisis we are in now, the Department of Energy analysis of the very little effect and the fact that this oil will not be kept in the United States are two reasons to support my amendment instead.

Mr. President, the American people feel strongly about drilling in the refuge and other protected areas of our country. They want to know that the Senate is working to pass appropriate legislation that manages these unique areas in a forthright and open manner. Our Nation must continue to preserve and protect the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I understand that some of my colleagues believe it is appropriate to sacrifice this area for what will amount to about 6 months' oil supply, but I think all Senators today agree that these are questions that are not part of a budget policy. They are more fundamental about the discussions of what our national energy policy should be and the future of our country.

I hope my colleagues will also begin to finally start focusing on energy policies to diversify off fossil fuel, to recognize that God gave us only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and that the best interest of the United States is to diversify off fossil and plan for a future that lowers gas prices, plan for a future that makes us more secure on an international basis.

Yes, I will.

Mr. President, I don't know what the agreed-upon order is this morning, whether we are supposed to use an entire hour or if we are going back and forth. I am happy to have the debate go back and forth and yield to my colleague.

I do.

Mr. President, I am going to yield to my colleague, Senator Feingold. Before I do, I point out there is a misrepresentation that somehow drilling in ANWR only covers a small area. Drilling in the refuge will really create a spider web of industrial activities over the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain, so it is much larger than just a small footprint.

This legislation might also open up nearly 100,000 acres of native land on the Arctic coastal plain. So it is a much bigger impact than my colleague might have commented on. I want to make sure that point is clear.

The other issue is, I don't think there is anybody in America who still believes our future and the future security of America depends on fossil fuel. I have seen the television commercials from the oil industry. Even they are always talking about the future, and alternative fuels, and what they are doing to diversify our nation's energy supplies. I certainly hope they hurry up and do that because the high price we are paying at the pump and their exorbitant profits are not leading us to a better economic situation in America.

But at the same time, I don't think Americans believe our investments in the future should be about fossil fuel, they should be about diversifying to cleaner, more fuel free supplies. Instead we are now asking them to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a very small amount of oil.

My colleague talked about a large number of jobs that may result from this. However, we have all heard the expectations for an energy economy of the future that invests in alternative fuels and various renewable energy sources. Some of those job investments can be more than 3 million jobs in America.

That is the energy economy that we want to see--not holding on to the past and exorbitant energy costs which the Department of Energy says is only going to give us a 1-penny reduction in gasoline prices--to get off fossil fuel.

I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin 7 minutes.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Collins, Mikulski, and Jeffords be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2358.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

I yield to the Senator 3 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, through the Chair, if I could inquire what the Senator from North Dakota is trying to propound in the unanimous consent request?

I thank the Senator.

I would like to go over what I think are the important reasons we should not drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and why my colleagues should support the Cantwell amendment to strike this language from the Budget Reconciliation Act.

As my colleagues have said earlier, we should not be doing this in the Budget Reconciliation Act, and it really does set a precedent for what I hope is not further attempts to drill in other parts of the United States, whether it is off the coast of Washington, the coast of Florida, or anywhere else by simply thinking you can come to the budget process and open up drilling in various parts of the United States. It is a very dangerous precedent. It also lays aside very important environmental regulations that should be met by any drilling efforts in the United States. So here we are, about to allow drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and it is going to have the less protection than any other public land.

Let me go through the 10 reasons I think we should not be doing this.

First, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge does not solve our current gasoline or heating oil supply problems, and I guarantee you, my colleagues are going to hear a lot about home heating oil and other problems when they go home after we break for this year and people see their high heating bills and the enormous cost increases they are paying. So this is no solution for our immediate problem. In fact, even if oil were flowing today from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, who is to say that OPEC would not lower its supply and keep prices high? Moreover, the fact we are talking about something that is not going to happen for 7 to 12 years from now is clearly not going to help us in the near term.

Second, the oil supplies in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge are not going to help us be any less dependent on foreign oil. We already know that our biggest problem is that this country is 50 percent dependent on foreign oil, and moving forward in the next 15 years that dependency will grow to over 60 percent. To me, that says the way to get off fossil fuel and foreign consumption is to diversify, something this bill is certainly not doing.

The third issue is that we really do need to get off fossil fuel. So how are we going to do that? That answer is that we need to diversify into alternative fuels, such as Brazil and other countries have done, to look at a biofuels strategy and become more self-sufficient. The United States only sits on 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. To plan a strategy that continues to focus on this is just shortsighted.

Fourth, drilling in the Arctic will not translate into savings at the gas pump. Let me repeat that. It will not in the near term translate into savings at the gas pump. The Energy Department, its own energy information administration, said that even when the Arctic Wildlife Refuge oil supply is at peak production, it will only reduce gas prices by a penny a gallon. So we are going to open this pristine wilderness area for a penny a gallon 20 years from now.

Moreover, I believe it is important for my colleagues to get about the real debate and pass legislation that focuses on the price-gouging activities that could be occurring in America. Instead of passing this on a budget bill, why don't we bring up by unanimous consent or on some other piece of legislation a price-gouging bill that gives the Federal Government the same power that 23 States have in prosecuting oil companies or others who are involved in manipulating the price of gasoline at the pump? That is what we should take extraordinary measures in the Senate to do, not this.

Fifth, there is no guarantee that the oil from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge will be used in the United States. My colleague, Senator Wyden, I am sure is going to talk more about this issue, but there is nothing under the current laws and regulations that is going to say that this oil is going to stay in the United States. So as my colleague from Illinois said, here is this product we are going to get from a wildlife refuge, and there is no guarantee that it is going to help our national security at all, that it won't be exported to the highest bidder.

Sixth, oil leasing in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge will not bring significant revenues to the Federal Treasury as a certainty. Right now, there is a big debate. There is a debate between the State of Alaska and the Senate about how royalties from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge should be divided. The State of Alaska has been very clear. They think they get 90 percent of those royalties. This bill tries to say they are going to get 50 percent. We know the State of Alaska is going to pursue that in court. The difference is a lot of money. If Alaska is successful, that means they will get 90 percent of the revenue assumed by this budget bill. This proposal says that the United States might get $2.4 billion. The State of Alaska is saying: No, no, no, you are only going to get $480 million. The difference between $480 million and $2.4 billion is a lot of money, and I would like to see clarity that if this have to happen we are not going to move forward without the guarantee that, in fact, we are going to see 50 percent of that revenue.

Seventh, the oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as one of my colleagues said, is about giving the oil companies something more of profits. The notion that they have had $30 billion in profits in the last quarter--$30 billion in profits in the last quarter--and yet they are not helping to diversify at a time when it is very clear to the American people that being overdependent on foreign oil and fossil fuel in general is not the right direction for our country.

Eighth, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will harm its ecosystem. Wildlife is going to be harmed. The fact that people think these things can work together is amazing. We should consider the reason the Wildlife Refuge was established in the first place, because it is a unique area. There is a lot of drilling that goes on in Alaska and a lot of area that is consumed by this. The original designation of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge was for the purpose of preserving this area.

Ninth, drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge cannot be assumed to be environmentally benign. I know my colleagues would like to think that. But the fact is, in Prudhoe Bay and the oilfields of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, there have been 4,532 spills from 1996 to 2004. In fact, the current rate of reportable spills on the Alaska northern slope is about 1 every 18 hours.

My colleagues would like to say this can be done in an environmentally sensitive way or that the environment is not going to be impacted. I don't believe that is true. I believe the number of oil spills that have been reported show that is not the case.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of the recent North Alaska oil company fines and penalties, the amount of money in penalties that have been paid by various companies over the last couple of years for either clean air violations or pipeline leak detections or other reasons for which various oil companies have been fined.

Mr. President, lastly, on these reasons why we should not move forward, is the notion that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a symbol of this country's desire to protect and preserve wildlife areas and that somehow people would like to assume that long- term damage has not already been done to other parts that have been opened up for drilling.

In fact, a Environmental News Service article that summarizes a 2003 National Academy of Sciences report that says for three decades of oil drilling on the Alaskan North Slope, while it has brought economic benefits, for sure, it has also caused lasting environmental damage ``and a mixture of positive and negative changes to that area.'' The report found that some environmental damages will last for centuries.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I think it is known that the environmental damage to the region has been done, that leaks and clean air issues are prevalent in the area, that oil companies are being fined for those violations, and that we cannot just go about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and think we are solving our problems.

In fact, I would like to show my colleagues a copy of a map of what we are talking about. Here is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Here is the rest of northern Alaska. One can see the various designations of existing Federal and State leases. The active Federal leases are in yellow. This is the area under discussion. So all the rest of Alaska in this particular area--in yellow and red, and even in this beige, proposed Federal leasing plan--a lot of territory that is already involved in oil and gas production. Why not leave this last slice of Alaska's Northern coast alone and pristine?

A Washington resident, just to give my colleagues an idea, actually took some pictures of this area of the wildlife refuge. One can see it is a very pristine area with wildlife and streams running through it. We can imagine why someone wanted to preserve this area and why it is so important to the United States.

This happens to be, in my mind, a pretty infamous picture because when my colleague, Senator Boxer, and I were on the floor discussing this issue a few years ago, there was a copy of this picture that was at the Smithsonian, part of an exhibit done by a Washington photographer, a retired Boeing engineer who visited this area and took some pictures and had a public display at the Smithsonian. As soon as these pictures were used on the floor of the Senate, somehow his exhibit was sent to the basement of the Smithsonian and got a lot less attention because somehow, I guess, this picture portrays for the American people something some people didn't want to see or didn't want to have advertised so specifically.

Here is another picture of the area that depicts what an unbelievable, pristine resource this is for the United States. We can see how delicate the ecosystem of this region is and how challenging oil drilling activity in this region can be.

I say to my colleagues that I believe the American people, and certainly the news media around the country, have gotten the gist of what this debate is about because they have expressed their opinions about this as well. I think they have been right on track about this issue. I would like to talk about some of those opinions.

The Milwaukee Journal Newspaper said:

. . . This effort may succeed, not because it's good public

policy but because supporters are trying to sneak it into a

budget reconciliation bill . . . supporters of good

government should not allow that to happen.

That is one newspaper in the Midwest.

Another from the South, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

. . . As always, drilling advocates are using distortions and

half-truths, claiming that awarding extractive leases on

protected lands will significantly reduce the Nation's

dependence on imported oil while having minimal impact on the

region's fragile ecology.

That from a newspaper in the South.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer, another newspaper that has followed this issue. I thought they hit it right on the head in today's debate because they say:

Congress has wasted years trying to enact this single

proposal when, by now, ingenuity and investment in technology

could have developed better answers. Whether the United

States drills in the Arctic Refuge or not, this country has

no comprehensive plan to wean itself from oil. That's what's

really needed.

If I can finish for a second, and then I will yield to the Senator to make his request.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is a summation of what this debate is about. We have debated this for years, and the reason it has been contentious is because a lot of people have concerns about this direction and proposal. But now to do this on the budget where the environmental safeguards that are applied to other drilling, where the NEPA process and other safeguards are ignored, where we are not sure what oil revenue the United States is really going to get to recognize in this budget, when we don't know whether we are going to keep this oil for economic security reasons, I agree with the Sentinel which said:

The reconciliation bill should be used to settle budget

matters, not to abuse the public's trust.

I will yield now to the Senator from North Dakota for his proposal.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am pleased to be standing on the floor today about 8 months after the last opportunity that we had to debate the issue of development of a very small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. During that time--during that 8-month intervening time--we have seen the price of a barrel of oil rise to as high as $73--now about $63. The chairman of the Energy Committee indicates that this morning it is about $59.

That rise has come because of a number of factors--continuing strong oil demand in China and India and other developing nations. It has come because of the effects of weather. We have seen the consequences of the hurricanes in the gulf. It comes also because the world fundamentally needs more oil.

Goldman Sachs, in August, predicted that oil will average $68 again next year.

Also, since the last time we debated the subject of ANWR, we passed an Energy bill. In that Energy bill, we addressed not only production, but we addressed conservation. We addressed renewable energy sources, alternative energy sources. But in terms of doing anything significant to directly increase domestic oil and gas production, we didn't do much in that Energy bill. We delayed that action until now.

I would like to take some time this morning to talk about why development of the Coastal Plain is not just necessary in light of the current events in the past few months, not just the price of energy but in light of what has happened up north in view of the technological change, the new data that has been developed in the past decade to prove, to establish, that we can develop ANWR oil without harm to the environment and to the wildlife that live there.

My colleague from Washington, who has proffered this motion to strike the ANWR provision, has said her amendment is really about national priority. I would suggest that the national priorities which are at stake with ANWR are priorities that relate to energy security, a priority that relates to environmental security, and a priority that relates to National and economic security.

These are what the priorities are about and this is what ANWR can do for us as a nation. It can help us with our reliance on foreign sources of oil, it can help us with jobs, it can help us build a stronger economy, and it can help us in terms of meeting our environmental obligation to our land.

Let me talk about some of these issues. First, national security. When we talk about the reliance we have as a nation on foreign sources of oil, it is not just talk. The reality is, this hits us, it impacts us in an incredibly significant way. Right now we are about 58 percent dependent on foreign oil. This dependency is expected to pass the two- thirds mark within the next 20 years. It threatens our national security. It threatens our economy.

When we see statements coming from Venezuela, for instance, one of our leading sources of imported oil, suggesting maybe they do not need to do business with the United States, and we recognize the competition for oil on the global market, competition from China, from India, we recognize we must do more domestically to meet our needs, to strike this balance between our need and what we are able to supply.

Chairman Domenici spoke to the jobs factor, the economic side, as well as what this means to our balance of payments. ANWR oil will help stabilize not only our national energy prices, but it will generate more than $30 billion in Federal revenues within 15 years.

We talk about reducing our balance of payments deficit all the time. People need to appreciate one-quarter of this Nation's trade deficit relates to what we pay other countries for our oil. Last year we paid $166 billion to buy oil overseas. We will pay even

more than that this year. We have to do something to address that balance of trade issue.

The jobs will be created. People associate jobs as drilling and exploration jobs. What they need to keep in mind is, when we have development of this size that we believe we can have on the Coastal Plain, this means jobs all over the country in terms of making the nuts and bolts, the pipes, the hauling, the shipping. This means increased commerce, increased job activity all over the country.

We throw around a lot of numbers, but look what it could mean to individual States: To my colleague from Washington, 12,000 jobs in Washington State; 80,000 jobs in California; 48,000 jobs in New York State; Pennsylvania gets 34,000; Florida, 34,000; Arkansas, 5,500. These are jobs associated with the activity that will go on up north. This is one of the reasons we have support across the country for opening ANWR, a small portion of the Coastal Plain, to oil exploration and development. People see the economic opportunity for them even in States that are thousands of miles away.

Farmers recognize this will help them with stabilizing what they need to do when they are planting the crops in the spring. Think of those products made from oil. We get so fixated on the transportation sector, but the reality is we derive much from petroleum. There are those that will say if we park every car in this country today, we would not have this incredible dependency on foreign sources of oil, we would not have this dependency.

However, I suggest we are a nation that is dependent on petroleum for many things. Transportation is incredibly important, but we have toothpaste, footballs, ink, life jackets, antiseptic, dentures, glue, clothing, food preservatives. So much of what we consume as a nation comes from petroleum products. We should not say, if we conserve a little bit more, we do not need to open ANWR. We need to face, as a nation, that we have a reliance on petroleum.

When we talk about the amount of oil available up north, again, we hear numbers floating all around. Some people say it is 6 months' supply; it is an insignificant supply. The fact of the matter is, and this is according to USGS estimates, ANWR's Coastal Plain has a 50-50 chance of containing the second largest oilfield in North America. As was stated before, what we anticipate to get out of ANWR would be the equivalent of the Texas oilfields. To those suggesting Texas is insignificant in terms of its contribution, we would say that is crazy.

Another example regarding what we anticipate to get from the reserves up North: the equivalent of what we have been receiving from Saudi Arabia for the past 25 years. Again, these are not insignificant amounts of oil.

What we anticipate we would receive from ANWR on a daily basis would have offset the oil we lost when the Gulf of Mexico was hit by the hurricane damage and we had all of the oil shut in.

If we are to discount the potential of ANWR, it is as shortsighted a viewpoint or perspective as we could ever have when it comes to our energy sources. This is akin to saying we should not open up Prudhoe Bay because, based on the reserves we know or expect to see there, we think it will only provide this country 3 years' worth of oil. That is what the estimates were. Prudhoe Bay has provided this Nation with up to a quarter of its domestic oil supply for the past 28 years.

We want to be given a chance on the Coastal Plain to demonstrate we can do something actively to reduce this country's reliance on foreign sources of oil.

Again, back to the national priorities. Care for the environment: We take that very personally in Alaska. I take it very personally. I was born and raised there. I am raising my kids there. I want my grandkids to be raised there. I want them to have the quality of life we as Alaskans enjoy. We take the obligation to not only create jobs and revenues for Alaskans, but we take the obligation to care for our land as one of our highest priorities. This is why it is significant. When Alaskans speak on this, 70 percent of Alaskans support developing ANWR. The residents who live on the Coastal Plain, the people of Kaktovik support opening ANWR because they can see the benefits to them, but they can also see they can have the benefits of jobs and revenues that can help them with their schools and their health clinics, that they can do that in balance with the environment, so their hunting, their subsistence, their whaling, is not sacrificed.

We like to talk up North about the gains in technology that have been made over the past 30 years. They are stunning. We are proud to speak of them. Earlier, Senator Domenici spoke to the trip we took up North with several Members and the Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Energy. We went to an exploration pad built up on an ice pad. They make an ice pad, and the ice pad is connected by an ice road. This road is almost a Zamboni-type machine. They roll it out over the very frozen tundra and they create this road of ice. The ice buildup is probably a foot or so thick, maybe higher in certain areas as you approach stream crossings. The exploration pad is a pretty compact unit and very impressive in terms of the size and scope of the equipment used. They have Rollagons with tires that are 15 feet high. They are huge, immense pieces of equipment. They go in, haul in the exploration equipment over the ice roads in the middle of the winter. Keep in mind, the State, in consultation with other agencies at the Federal and local level, make a determination for exploration. You cannot come in and explore at any time. You have to do it during the season that is allowed. They make measurements as to the thickness of the freeze before they will allow any activity to begin construction of the ice roads or any activity on the tundra.

This is an example. This is not the exploration unit we went to, this is in the National Petroleum Reserve. It is very similar in size. We have the exploration rig standing taller in this photograph with a few outbuildings that allow those working out there to stay warm, get a little bit to eat. You can see the ice road going out there on the tundra. That is what it looks like in the winter. This rig probably is out there for 2 to 3 weeks. Then they pack up and move it to the next exploration area the company might be looking to. This is what it looks like in the summer.

This photograph is the exact same area we saw, Rendezvous 2 well, National Petroleum Reserve. This is exactly what it looks like during the summer. The ice pad has melted. All of the equipment was removed during the winter when the ice roads were there. What is left is this stub of that exploration well. It is tough to tell from this picture because it actually looks pretty tall, but that stub is only about as tall as I am. It might be about 6 feet, a little taller. That is what is left.

This is what we do up North. We do it for a couple of reasons. First, because we know it is the right thing to do. We need to make sure we are caring for the environment. Second, we have the toughest, the strictest environmental standards for oil exploration and drilling anywhere in the country, and I would say probably anywhere in the world. We are proud of it. We are proud of the results that come out of this. We can do the exploration. We do it in a safe and sound manner. We try to leave as little footprint as possible. We are doing that because it is the right thing to do, but we are doing it because we are working with the Native people who live up there, who have lived up there for generations, who want to be able to continue to hunt and fish and whale.

The caribou are free to room. The central caribou herd near Prudhoe Bay in the 30 years since we have had oil development has grown 10 times. Some say we scare away the caribou and the Native communities will not have the subsistence source. The fact of the matter is, the reality proves otherwise. We are doing what we should be doing when it comes to care for the environment.

Polar bears have not been mentioned today, but they might later in debate so I will address them. There are some who are concerned that man's activity there will be driving the polar bear from the Coastal Plain. The fact of the matter is we have very healthy polar bear stocks up North in the Coastal Plain area where we are talking about the potential for ANWR development.

We have about 29 identified dens. We use infrared detection to determine where the polar bear are actually denning so we do not go near them. We are taking the steps needed and necessary to care for the animals and the environment.

Other things we are doing to recognize we need to work with the environment, with the animals, with those who would live there, include drilling restrictions during the summer months to prevent noise activity. There are prohibitions on any kind of seismic activity when the whales are migrating through. We are using directional drilling so we go into the ground and under the surface, and we are able to drill out 3 or 4 miles in every direction so there is no disturbance to the surface.

We are talking about a 2,000-acre limitation. I will go back to the map of the Coastal Plain to again put it in perspective. We are talking about 2,000 acres. That is about the size of an average size ranch in South Dakota, according to what the Senator from South Dakota tells me--2,000 acres in an area. The Coastal Plain on this map is the green area. The Coastal Plain is 1.5 million acres. We are asking to drill and explore in an area the size of 2,000 acres out of 1.5 million. The other colored areas on the map indicate the wilderness area and the Refuge itself.

The orange shown on the map is the Refuge. The wilderness area is the yellow part of it. The whole Arctic National Wildlife Refuge itself is an area the size of South Carolina. It is 19.6 million acres. Of that 19.6 million acres, we have 8 million that are dedicated wilderness. We cannot, will not, have no intention of going in and doing anything. That is entirely protected.

The balance in the orange is all Refuge. We are not talking about any exploration activity or development in that area. The only area we are looking at exploring is the green area, the 1.5 million acres. And within that we are talking about 2,000 acres.

For those of you who live and work in the Washington, DC, area, that is about the size of Dulles Airport. Actually Dulles Airport is a little bit bigger than that. So that kind of helps put in context what we are talking about.

Now, the Senator from Washington mentioned this legislation would also open up and allow the natives of Kaktovik to open up and be able to explore on their lands that are contained in the Refuge. The 2,000- acre limitation applies to the natives of Kaktovik, the Arctic Slope. It applies to all lands within the Coastal Plain--all lands within the Coastal Plain.

If there is oil that is discovered and explored and produced on native land, that part is part of the 2,000-acre limitation. So we are not expanding this from 2,000, plus whatever might be found on the native land itself.

Let me speak a minute to some of the other issues that were raised by some of my colleagues. The point was made there is nothing in this legislation that would prohibit Alaska oil from being exported. In fact, that is the case. But I should remind my colleagues that very little--very little--Alaskan North Slope crude has ever been exported. We do not anticipate that it would be exported, given the demand on the west coast, given the demand in this country. None is regularly exported now, and it has not been exported regularly in the past 6 years.

Now, it is true that back in 1995 we had a glut of oil on the American west coast, and Congress did, in fact, vote to permit the export of Alaskan oil. So from 1996 to 1999 there was about 5.5 percent of Alaska production that was being exported over to the Asian countries to relieve that glut.

We are now in a different time, a different place. There is no excess oil on the west coast. At this point, even though we are allowed to do so, there is no oil that is being exported. So where is it going? Fifty percent of all of Alaska's gas, coming from Prudhoe Bay, goes to the California refineries. This is near San Francisco and LA. We have 42 percent going to Puget Sound up in Washington State, and 8 percent goes to the State of Hawaii. There is a very fractional amount that stays in Alaska for in-State refinery needs.

But what you also need to keep in mind is that it is cheaper for us to ship the oil to the lower 48 than to the Far East. It is a matter of pure logistics. It is 2,056 miles to LA versus 3,401 miles to Yokohama, Japan. So the economics of it suggests that it does not make sense to ship any oil from Alaska overseas at this point.

Now, another issue that was raised was the issue of oil spills. This is something that when you hear the debate, these issues raised, you kind of have to take a deep breath and say the statistics on a piece of paper do not tell the whole story, unless you have the facts, the footnote, and the background that goes with it.

It has been suggested there have been all of these spills up North, and these spoil the Arctic tundra. But what they do not mention is, the companies that are operating up there have to report every spill--every spill--of any nonnaturally occurring substance. So if there is a spill of saltwater, it has to be reported--anything more than a gallon of oil or chemicals, such as lubricating oils, hydraulic fuels.

So when you go up North, you will see in the wintertime--and will in the summertime because the vehicles during the cold winter months are kept running for a good portion of the time--each and every one of the vehicles has what they call a ``diaper'' underneath the transmission to collect any leaking transmission fluid. Because if that were to get on the road, if that would get on the surface, that could be a reportable incident.

The vast majority of the spills at Prudhoe Bay have been of saltwater, saltwater used in water flooding to enhance oil recovery. They have not been oil spills.

Now, the other thing you do not hear is that the average oil spill was 89 gallons. This is the equivalent of about two barrels of oil, and that of that, those two barrels of oil, 94 percent of that oil was absolutely, totally cleaned up. According to DEC, which is the State Department of Environmental Conservation, 93 percent of all oil spills were of less than 100 gallons in volume, two-thirds were of less than 10 gallons, and less than a quarter barrel of oil.

So over the past decade, for the past 10 years, up North, there have only been 11 crude oil spills of more than 1,000 gallons, and 97 percent of that oil was fully recovered.

We can talk about the spills and reportable spills, but if you look at a number, it is important to know: A, what was it that was spilled; B, how much; and, C, how the cleanup was handled.

Prudhoe Bay is actually one of America's cleanest areas. ANWR development, given the technology we have, we know is going to be even better.

Now, I have to address the issue of too little oil to even bother exploring. I mentioned it very briefly at the beginning.

The USGS has recently updated its estimates. In fact, it was just within the past week or 10 days or so that USGS released its updated estimates for the amount of economically recoverable oil that will be found in ANWR. What they are now saying is that at the prices we are looking at--they peg it as $55 a barrel--93 percent of all the technically recoverable oil will be economically worth producing. That is up from a previous estimate of 83 percent. It means we have a 50-50 chance the Coastal Plain is going to contain 9.7 billion barrels of oil. Again, this would be the second largest oil field in North America.

When we talk about the amount that is available to us, I think it is important to put that in perspective. We are talking about the second largest field in North America. Currently, Prudhoe has been operating and supplying 20 percent of this country's domestic energy needs. It has for 30 years. We want to be able to supplement that with ANWR.

There is one other point I do feel is important to address. Several of my colleagues on the other side have suggested that because ANWR is contained in this budget reconciliation package, it is not the appropriate place, and that for a major policy decision such as this, it has not been given the time and the consideration and cannot be in this process.

As the senior Senator from Alaska, the occupant of the Chair, knows, this is something that has been debated and discussed for decades. ANWR has been the subject of dozens of bills, literally many dozens of congressional hearings. Legislation to open ANWR passed the Congress in the 1996 Budget Reconciliation Act. It was vetoed by President Clinton. But we have had several bills that have been introduced since then.

In the 106th Congress, we had legislation. Six bills were introduced in the 107th Congress. Legislation to open ANWR was approved by the House in the 108th Congress. In the 109th, also, the House introduced legislation. There have been countless tours of the Coastal Plain, where many Members of this body have had the opportunity to go up and see it for themselves. ANWR has probably been one of the most thoroughly researched, debated, and discussed issues pending before the Congress for the past 18 years.

I do not think any of us can stand here with a straight face and say that Congress is acting too quickly on this issue. It is something that has been aired very publicly, and over a great deal of time, with a great deal of public input.

I would like to conclude my remarks by speaking very briefly about those people who live in the Coastal Plain, the residents of Kaktovik. These are a very hardy people who have lived there for generations and generations, and who want to remain. But they are in a community where energy costs are extremely high. It is very difficult to find any kind of economic activity in the area. They are primarily a subsistence- based village. But they want to make sure, like all the rest of us, their kids get a decent education. They want to make sure they have some access to health care within their community. They want to have certain protections, if you will--whether it be a fire truck to help them when they have a house fire, as they had a couple years ago and had no way to provide for the protection of the property in that home.

They view the opening of ANWR as an opportunity for them to be participants. But they are also looking at this from the very critical perspective of being the only Alaskans who live in this area who would be affected by the development. They want a seat at the table. They want to be consulted. They want to be heard. They want to make sure that, in fact, the development that does take place is done in concert with their needs as the residents of this area for generations and their needs as people who live off the land.

We are working with the people of Kaktovik. I have introduced stand- alone legislation, along with my colleague from Alaska, and along with my colleagues from Hawaii, that would provide not only for environmental protections to be written into how we develop ANWR, but basically we codify all of those items we have discussed over the years, whether they are the environmental concerns, whether it is the 2,000-acre limitation on development, but also a provision to provide for economic impact aid to the residents of Kaktovik and any other Alaskans who may be impacted, to provide for a method of consultation with the natives of Kaktovik and the region.

What we are trying to do through the stand-alone legislation is provide for, I think it is fair to say, safeguards. For all those who may be concerned that, well, this budget reconciliation says ``open up ANWR, the only limitation is a 2,000-acre limitation,'' be aware that what we are providing for in the freestanding legislation, I think, is a very comprehensive set of guidelines for how we move forward positively, as we look to achieve that balance between development and care and concern for our environment up North.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Forest Service. The creation of the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture is remembered as probably one of the most significant conservation legacies of President Theodore Roosevelt.

During President Roosevelt's tenure, there were established 5 new national parks, 51 bird reserves, 4 game reserves, 18 national monuments, and 150 national forests, including the Tongass National Forest. All told, some 230 million acres of land was set aside for the public. It is no wonder that President Roosevelt is regarded not only as the first but perhaps the greatest conservation President.

President Roosevelt shared his vision for the national forests in an address to the Society of American Foresters on March 26, 1903. Here is what he said:

First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for one

moment what is the object of our forest policy. The object is

not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful,

although that is good in itself. Nor because they are refuges

for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too, is

good in itself. The primary object of our forest policy . . .

is the making of prosperous homes. Every other consideration

comes secondary. A forest that contributes nothing to the

wealth, progress or safety of the country is of no interest

to the Government, and should be of little interest to the

forester.

He further said:

Your attention must be directed to the preservation of

forests, not as an end in itself, but as a means of

preserving and increasing the prosperity of the nation.

I find it somewhat ironic that during the centennial year when we celebrate the achievements of the Forest Service and the professional foresters who manage these forests, that this particular amendment is offered today. This is an amendment opposed by the Society of American Foresters. This society represents 16,000 professional foresters from across the Nation. It is opposed by the National Association of Home Builders. It is an amendment opposed by the very people who were identified as the core stakeholders of our national forests by the Roosevelt administration.

This amendment is opposed by organizations which, like President Roosevelt, believe in the wise use of our forests. It is opposed by the National Association of Counties. It is opposed by America's working men and women who belong to the labor unions that make up the Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee. We have the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the PACE International Union, the International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the United Mine Workers, the Southern Council of Industrial Workers, and the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers.

The amendment we have before the Senate now does not comport with President Roosevelt's vision for the national forests. It is an amendment that turns our national forests, which are intended to support multiple uses, into wilderness areas. It is the falling domino in the nationwide campaign to lock up our national forests, throwing people out of work and wreaking havoc on our local economies. And most offensively, to me, it is an amendment that discriminates against just one forest--the Tongass National Forest, in the State of Alaska. It is only directed to the Tongass. It covers no other national forest in the Nation. I suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that first it is the Tongass; next it will be the forests in your home States.

Even though this amendment is cloaked in the language of fiscal responsibility, it should come as no surprise that the usual suspects are working hard for its adoption--those who seek to shut down and to prohibit any timber activity on national forest lands. It is not that they are fiscal conservatives themselves. It is because they specifically oppose logging in the Tongass. These are groups such as the Wilderness Society, the Alaska Rain Forest Campaign, the National Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, formerly known as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. These are organizations that have just said no, there shall be no timber activity in the Tongass.

The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, now known as Earthjustice, is a group that maintains an office in Juneau for the purpose of appealing and then litigating the timber sales that are presented in the Tongass.

It is no wonder the Forest Service finds it difficult to efficiently manage the timber program in the Tongass. I am told we have about 2 years of the Forest Service planned timber offerings that are either under appeal or litigation at any one time. This is four times the rate experienced by the Forest Service nationally.

It is fair to say the professional foresters, in whom President Roosevelt placed his trust, no longer manage the timber in the Tongass. I can tell you these professional foresters are very frustrated that what we have are trial lawyers and judges who have more to say about managing our forests than they do.

The proponents of this amendment will tell you this is about making the free market system work within our national forests. As long as the litigators can tie up the timber sales, tie up the forest management in knots, this is not a free market scenario.

When Congress passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act, which caused the cancellation of long-term contracts and the closure of the pulp mills in Ketchikan and Sitka, that was not the free market. It was not the free market that eliminated thousands of timber jobs in the State of Alaska. It was about timber politics, plain and simple.

It is not the free market that generates the high costs that the proponents of this amendment complain make the timber sales unprofitable. According to the Society of American Foresters, about 75 percent of the cost associated with timber sales in the Tongass is spent on environmental review, appeals, and litigation. So the remaining 25 percent of that is spent on actual preparation and administration of the sale.

So again, you look at the numbers, and you say, it seems, looking at just the columns, the numbers are higher. But keep in mind, 75 percent of those costs are directly associated with the environmental review, appeals and litigation. So we need to be very clear about what this amendment does. If it is passed, it essentially will enact a roadless rule on the Tongass National Forest. Because the Tongass is currently 95 percent roadless, and because it has stringent environmental standards, the amount of timber that could be harvested from the Tongass would be vastly reduced.

The current 150 million board foot program--and keep in mind, this was formulated after a very extensive scientific consultation, with public participation. It was a process which took 9 years and $13 million to complete this plan. Under this program that again was formulated in this very lengthy process, it would be reduced to 30 to 40 million board feet. This would result in the direct loss of two or more of the mills and loss of about 680 potential jobs.

Now, some of you may be saying: Well, 680 jobs does not seem that significant. In the southeastern part of

the State of Alaska, where our population numbers are few and our unemployment numbers are very high, this is a huge loss. This is a devastating loss. This would truly be nothing more than the latest chapter in the campaign to shut down the Tongass and kill off the timber industry in southeast Alaska.

Now the proponents of this amendment would have us believe that if this amendment fails, then somehow or other there are going to be all these big corporations that stand to gain. But the timber industry in southeast Alaska is not made up of big corporations. It is made up of mom-and-pop businesses. These are owner-operated small businesses run by people such as Steve Seeley, out of Ketchikan; Kirk Dahlstrom, out of Klawock; Butch and Jackie DuRette. These are real people who are contributing to their local economy. These are people who could have cut and run when the timber industry turned sour, but instead they accepted the risk. They stayed around, and they tried to build their businesses. Believe me, these are people who know what the free market is. I know these people, and I am proud to tell you of the good job they do contributing to the economy of southeast Alaska.

So for the good of southeast Alaska, and for the good of sound forest management, I ask my colleagues to look at this amendment, look at it very carefully, look at who it is opposed by. It is opposed by the Nation's professional foresters. It is opposed by working men and women. It is opposed by the National Association of Counties. And it is opposed by our Nation's homebuilders. Let's look carefully at how we manage our forests and make sure we do it right.

One of the contentions you will hear is that the economics in the Tongass do not work. You will hear some numbers thrown around. I think it is important to recognize you would be operating off of a false assumption or a false premise if you were saying that the Forest Service is supposed to be a profit-making venture. As I indicated in those comments made by President Roosevelt some 100 years ago, conservation, in Roosevelt's mind, meant the wise use of forest resources for the greatest good, not necessarily locking them up under glass down in southeastern Alaska.

The question of why the Forest Service does not necessarily make a profit has been studied extensively. There is a think tank in Bozeman, MT, called the Property and Environment Research Center. They did a study in 1995 where they noted that the Forest Service is not expected by its governing law to make a profit. Its operations are governed by extensive environmental review processes that make it difficult to turn a profit.

Again, look at the numbers. Look at what the task, the mission, is in terms of multiple use, and what it is we are asking our foresters to do.

I will speak a little bit about the cost issue because there are those who will suggest this amendment is not being put forward because they are opposed to timber in the Tongass; they just think it is an unreasonable amount of money and that we are subsidizing. Well, we have a breakdown of the various regions across the country from the U.S. Forest Service that delineates the cost per acre of our respective national forests based on State. It sets forth the net acres, the gross receipts, as well as the monetary return per dollar invested.

If you look at the Tongass, we operate at about $6.05 in terms of cost per acre. As you go through this report across the country, you realize that $6.05 is actually a pretty good deal in terms of how we are operating on a cost-per-acre basis.

Running down through the States--not singling out any particular State, but in several of the California national forests, the cost per acre at Six Rivers National Forest is $27.35. The cost per acre in Plumas, CA, is $35.86; in San Bernardino National Forest, it is $189.20. As to the sponsor of the amendment, if you look at the White Mountain National Forest in the New Hampshire area, their cost per acre is $19.39.

So if we are talking about singling out one national forest in the entire national forest system, and we are saying it is too expensive in the Tongass, and we are not going to allow for any Federal dollars to go toward building roads because we think it is too expensive there, I challenge you: Take a look at what is happening with the operation of our other national forests in terms of our cost per acre and what it means.

Let's look to the monetary return per dollar invested in those national forests in California I made reference to. Their return per dollar invested is 1 percent. That is not a very good return if that is what you are going to base it on.

So again, to single out the Tongass, to single out the State of Alaska and say, ``You are the only one where we, as a Congress, are going to decide how you are going to manage your forests because we are going to tell you that there are no dollars that can go for road- building activity,'' the land management plan that we have spent 9 years and $13 million on is thrown out the window because the Federal Government is going to tell us that our costs are a little bit too high--it is wrong. It is flat out wrong, and it needs to be stopped.

I mentioned those who oppose this amendment. It is important for us to recognize who the professional managers are, the professional foresters, some 16,000 professional foresters across the Nation who oppose this amendment. Our decision, should we adopt the Sununu amendment, would override the judgment of professional foresters. It would render meaningless the Tongass land management plan. We need to think about what it is we are doing should we move forward in support of this amendment.

I want to leave my colleagues with a few facts again about singling out the Tongass for this action in this amendment.

Alaska is a State. We are not a colony. We may have come late into the statehood battle, but we are still a State, and we deserve to be treated as a State. We sought statehood so we could gain control of our resources. But sometimes that goal remains pretty illusive. All we are asking for is that we have the ability to manage our Federal lands responsibly. We can--in conjunction with those professionals, those foresters who are working hard on this plan to make it work--manage the forests to provide for the multiple uses our national forests are tasked to do.

I know people think: Oh, we throw around these Alaska statistics all the time. But I think it is significant in this debate to put this in context. Ninety-four percent of the land in the southeastern part of the State is part of the Tongass National Forest. It is controlled by the Federal Government, the U.S. Forest Service.

In the State of Alaska, we have 54 percent of the Nation's designated wilderness. In one State, our State, we have 54 percent of the entire designated wilderness.

What are we doing with the Tongass National Forest now? Forty percent of that land in the Tongass, some 6.6 million acres, is already off limits to timber development. It is in a wilderness area. It is a national monument. It is a land-use designation II area. It is absolutely, positively off limits. That is 40 percent currently in the Tongass.

Another 56 percent of the Tongass National Forest is off limits to timber under the forest plan--this forest plan that I keep talking about that took 9 years and $13 million that this amendment will essentially kick aside. Fifty-six percent of the Tongass is off limits under that plan.

That leaves 4 percent of the Tongass, or approximately 655,000 acres, out of a total of 17.8 million acres in the Tongass. That 4 percent is what we are talking about that would be available for timber development. Allowing southeast Alaska, allowing people such as Steve Seeley and his sawmill, and Kirk Dahlstrom's sawmill in Klawock, allowing this development in an economy that is already very hard pressed, is not going to spoil the beauty of this incredible national forest--these 17.8 million acres. It is not going to doom any national treasures.

We have a plan we have worked hard to complete. We ask to be allowed to continue that, and to be able to provide for the few jobs we would like to continue in the area for the benefit of those who choose to call it home.

With that, Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Alaska is here. As

well, we are joined by our colleague from Oregon. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to several of the remarks raised by my colleague from New Hampshire. I start off my comments by stating very clearly it was certainly not my intention, nor do I believe it was the intention of Senator Stevens, to question motives or to imply somehow our colleague is an environmental extremist.

If, in fact, that was perceived from the remarks, that the Senator from New Hampshire falls in that category, again from my perspective that was not my intention, and I certainly would not want him to think that I have put him in that category of those who, as the Senator from Oregon indicated, are engaged in ``professional environmental conflict,'' I think was the terminology he used.

I do wish to speak very briefly to a couple of the issues. The Senator from New Hampshire indicated that he was not, through his amendment, proposing any addition of wilderness designation. He stated that was not his intent. I understand that is not the intent. However, the practical effect, if we were to withhold any Federal dollars, any opportunity for Federal revenues to come in and help with the road building in that area, that would be the practical effect in the Tongass. It would put off limits those areas to any harvesting of the timber. If we cannot build a road in there, the harvesting will not happen.

As the Senator from Oregon mentioned, we are dealing with an incredible land mass. The acreage in the Tongass is 17.8 million acres. As has been said many times this evening, the area we are talking about that would be available for development is a small fraction of that. Just 4 percent of that would be available for any form of development, but still, if one is not able to put a road in, if they are not able to access the area, the harvesting does not happen, and in effect what is being created is an off-limits area, off-limits to development, off- limits to recreational use, off-limits to pretty much anything.

I was born in the Tongass. I was born in Ketchikan. At the time that I was born, Ketchikan was a very thriving timber community. The Tongass is not a place where one just goes to take a walk. It is an old growth forest that is as tangled and deep a forest as one can possibly imagine.

So those who would say, We want to make sure we have access to the Tongass for recreational purposes, the way that one is able to access for recreational purposes is through the roads that have been built as we have harvested in certain areas. My family goes out there and we want to use the area for hunting, but we do not go off the beaten track because it cannot be accessed. The animals are not in the areas that have not been cleared, to a certain extent. So for those who will engage in the multiple use of the Tongass, these roads are significant.

The statement was made that those of us who are in opposition to this amendment are saying that this really is not about the fiscal issue. I guess I have to just stop on that one and say, okay, if we really are looking at this from a cost perspective and we are looking to minimize the extent of Federal dollars going out and to be as cost efficient as we possibly can, why are we just looking at the Tongass alone? If what we are really talking about is to get those efficiencies, to make sure we do not have unnecessary subsidies, then tell me why this is just about one national forest in 1 State out of all of the 50 States. Because we are not going to balance the budget on what is happening in the Tongass in terms of the dollars that go out there.

I wish to speak just a little bit to the dollars. My colleague has indicated that the Tongass spent $49 million on its logging program and the logging roads in 2004. The total budget to operate the Tongassis is $49 million. In fact, the timber program on the Tongass cost $22.5 million. He has also indicated that the timber revenues on the Tongass in 2004 were $800,000. In fact, the timber revenues were nearly $2 million. So it is important to make sure we are using the right numbers.

Let us just look at what that $49 million buys us. Is this all about roads? No, it is not. Now, the road maintenance is an aspect of that, but it is also for bridge and road construction unrelated to timber harvesting, other engineering projects. The work that the Forest Service does in the Tongasssupports subsistence harvest, the fish and wildlife, basically keeping the grocery store open for thousands of rural Alaskans.

Senator Stevens mentioned the fish culverts that are inserted to allow for the fish passage. We build those so fish can get to where they need to get. It is one of those things we do to make sure we are caring for the environment and are good stewards.

We developed an invasive species strategy to help prevent the nonnative plants from coming in and taking over, as we are seeing in some parts of the lower 48.

Basically, the bottom line is these dollars that are going out are not all directed at road building. They are dollars spent on recreation, visitor service, heritage, wilderness, minerals, vegetation, watershed, subsistence, wildlife, fish habitat, fire suppression, and land acquisition. And administrative costs are included in there, as well. So when we look to the Tongass and those costs, we must put it into perspective.

I spent a few minutes in my previous remarks looking at the costs per acre on other national forests across the 50 States, what is the dollar return on

your investment if we are trying to make that connection. These are important to recognize. What is very important to recognize is the Tongass is not so way out of whack in terms of its management and its costs that it should be sending off signals and red flags. In fact, my colleague from Alaska has indicated the Tongass has been singled out and has been declared the best managed national forest in the system. That ought to count for something.

For my colleagues who are saying this is simply a fiscal issue and we need to look at it from the numbers perspective, let's look at it from the numbers perspective. Let's use the right numbers, but let's also recognize there is something terribly wrong with an amendment that pulls one national forest out of all of our national forests and says: There is too much going to you; we have to shut it off.

Folks, that is not right. It is not fair. I certainly hope my colleagues, when we have an opportunity to take this up in the Senate, vote down this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is it not the offeror of the amendment who places in order the amendments that are called up and lays the other amendments aside?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1015 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 1019.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized in support of the amendment.

Mr. President, we just heard a good observation about the increase in spending, but it is important for the American people to understand, we did ramp up homeland security. We did ramp up defense. Let me read the increases in spending that have occurred in other areas since 2001: legislative branch, 40 percent; judiciary, 40 percent; Agriculture, 25.7 percent; Defense, 55 percent; Education, 109 percent; Energy, 48 percent; Health and Human Services, 53.1 percent; Homeland Security, 153 percent; Housing and Urban Development, 38.2 percent; Justice, 22.7 percent; Labor, Health, and Human Services, 57 percent; Department of State, 74 percent; Transportation, 40 percent; Veterans Affairs, 44.5 percent; General Services Administration, 404 percent; National Science Foundation, 61 percent. The average has been almost 39 percent in the last 4 years. Outside of homeland security and defense, the increase in spending by the Congress has been almost 30 percent.

I come to the floor of the Senate to talk about the spending problems. I also want the American people to understand what is happening to us presently. This chart represents the on-budget Federal deficit. It is not the games that we play in Washington. This is the true amount of money we are going to spend that we don't have, that we are actually going to borrow money to pay for. As you can see, this year it is going to be $544 billion. That is $544 billion that we are going to ask our children and grandchildren to pay back. There is no question that we have some belt-tightening to do. There is no question that the authors of this appropriations bill have done some of that in the bill.

The amendment I wish to focus on presently is an amendment that reduces funding for land acquisition within the bill by $121.2 million, from $154 million, for a total of $32.8 million.

The reasoning behind this amendment is, there is $92 million in reserve accounts right now to buy land that had not been spent this year. The committee put forward another $154 million. Buying land to preserve our scenic heritage, natural wildlife areas, is a good goal. The problem is, do we need to do it now when we are in a time of war, when we are borrowing from our children's future to be able to accomplish that? Is now the time to spend money on it? If not, is there another need? Is there a priority on which we should be spending?

I would say that we need to have another priority. The current bill provides funding for land acquisition through four separate programs: $12.3 million for the Bureau of Land Management, $40.8 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $56 million for the National Park Service, and $44.9 million for the Forest Service. Within the amendment, land acquisition funding for both the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service is eliminated, while funding for both Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service is reduced by $32 million.

According to OMB and staff estimates, the estimated amount of unobligated balances for Federal land acquisition at the end of the current fiscal year will be $92 million. OMB estimates that BLM will have $28 million in unobligated balances. In contrast, the bill provides an additional $12.3 million for BLM. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is set to receive almost $41 million, will have an estimated $32 million in unobligated balances at the end of this year, according to OMB.

Of the $121.2 million savings produced, $60 million in this amendment is transferred to a special diabetes program for Indians, and $61.2 million is transferred to the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program. Both programs are with the Indian Health Service. Why is that important? There are some important things about diabetes with Native Americans that need to be recognized.

The question is, Do we spend money on land or do we spend money to improve the people's lives that need us the most? We have a real crisis in health care in Indian Country.

The causes are many, but one controllable factor is the delivery of federally funded health care services. Quality of care is severely impacted by poor oversight, lack of competitive forces, and the serious lack of funding prioritization. My amendment addresses the latter. There are 107,000 Native Americans that suffer from diabetes.

We were in the midst of talking about whether we buy land or take care of diabetes with native Americans. That is what this amendment does. It is obvious we are not going to be able to trim the spending in this bill, but it certainly is not obvious that we cannot reprioritize.

Let me give some facts and figures on Native American diabetes compared with diabetes in every other group in this country. The national U.S. population rate for diabetes is 6.3 percent. For Native Americans between 45 and 74 years of age, it is 45 percent, 7 times the national average. The most extensively studied, the Pima Indians, an estimated 50 percent of that population suffers from type II diabetes.

Native Americans who have diabetes suffer from increased rates of kidney failure, amputations, blindness, heart disease, and stroke. End stage renal disease in Native Americans with diabetes is six times higher than any other group in this country. Diabetic retinopathy, i.e., blindness from diabetes, occurs in 24 percent of Native Americans who have diabetes. Only 2 to 4 percent of the diabetes in the Native Americans is type I; 98 percent of it is type II diabetes.

Alcohol and substance abuse is where the other half of this money goes. Nineteen percent of Native American youth age 12 to 17 are consuming alcohol at an alarming rate, headed for addiction; 12.8 percent of the young 12 to 17-year-olds engage in binge drinking. That is five or more drinks, weekly. HHS estimates that 7.6 percent of Native Americans over the age of 26 are classified as heavy alcohol users. American Indians are five times more likely to die of alcohol- related causes than other groups and they face significant increases in carcinoma of the liver and chronic diseases such as psoriasis.

Mortality rates from alcohol and substance abuse are seven times higher in Native American populations than in the general population.

This amendment does not cut funding. It simply moves money from land to people, moves money from the purposes of why we are here to care for those who cannot care for themselves. I would say in Oklahoma, it is very evident to see the underfunding for the Indian Health Service, the number of true full-blooded Native Americans who cannot receive care that was promised under treaty to get the care they need for their diabetes, for alcohol abuse, and other substance abuse.

This is a simple amendment. I understand a budget point of order is going to be raised against it because it spends money faster than the land acquisitions do. I plan on moving to waive that point of order, but I would say to my friends on the committee, and I would say to the people of America, should we be buying more land when we cannot afford it? And if we are going to spend the money anyway, should we not be spending that on something that is going to increase the quality of life and increase the health care of those who are least fortunate in our society?

I would also ask, having looked at this and then refer to the increased spending since 2001, how many Americans have received a 39- percent pay increase since 2001? That is how much Federal Government spending, discretionary spending--that is not Medicare, that is not Social Security, that is not Medicaid, but discretionary spending--has risen. It is time for us to tighten our belt. This is one way to move the priorities back to where they should be in terms of caring for real people, not land.

The other point that I would make is when we buy land it costs us twice. No. 1, it takes it off the tax rolls which decreases the amount of income coming to the States, local communities, and municipalities. But No. 2, it markedly increases costs to care for that land. With $92 million unspent from last year, we are going to spend another $40 million to $50 million to maintain that land and close the purchase.

With that, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee and thank him for the time to allow me to present my case.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

There is no question a significant amount of money is being spent on these two programs, but when you compare it to every other group in this country, what you see is about $1 compared to $3 for everybody else in terms of diabetes. You cannot very well square that when there is six times the rate of end-stage renal disease in Native Americans. That is an important point because if you can prevent end-stage renal disease, you save $50,000 per year per person in not having them on dialysis, as well as the fact it is a miserable life being on dialysis.

So the point is that there are increases. I will recognize that. I still say how in the world can we justify buying land when we are stealing $541 billion from our grandchildren? And No. 2 is why not people instead of land? That is a legitimate question, especially in an underserved segment of our population that needs the dollars that will make a tremendous difference. I would just ask the Senator, can't we come to an agreement that a portion of this money should be moved to solve this very tragic problem that affects and afflicts Native Americans at a higher rate than any other group in this country?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I plan, in a moment, to move to waive the point of order, but before I do that I think every American ought to be asking the question this is $544 billion which we are going into the market and borrowing on budget this year, $544 billion that our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay back at a minimum of 6 percent interest every year. So we are going to pay back about $2 trillion on this $544 billion. That is going to be about $70,000 apiece that we are going to wrangle their future with. And the question is, Should we be buying more land if we are going to put our kids in debt?

Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order.

I do. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The question the American people have to ask themselves is, if we are going into hock and we are going to put this kind of lien on our kids, should we be taking money off tax rolls? Should we be spending more money to maintain the land? Or if, in fact, we are going to do this, should we not see an outcome that reduces our cost by reducing insulin dependence type 2, by reducing dialysis? I believe the choice is very clear, that we ought to be taking care of those who need us the most and not add land that is going to add cost. In fact we should, invest in those people where we are going to decrease the cost of the Indian Health Service. With that, I yield the floor.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I had to be absent from the

Senate today, and I missed votes beginning with the motion to

waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 1019,

offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn. I had to

miss the votes in order to travel to Charlotte, NC, to

participate in a Base Realignment and Closing, BRAC,

Commission Regional Hearing at Central Piedmont Community

College. I am not absent from the Senate on days when we have

votes without good reason.

This afternoon there was nowhere more important for me to

be than at the BRAC Regional Hearing, which is part of the

process whereby the fate of the 130th Air National Guard

Wing, based in Charleston, WV, will be decided. I believe it

is a crucial part of my duty as a United States Senator from

West Virginia to protect the 130th. While I respect the

difficult work done by members of the BRAC Commission, and

understand that their preliminary recommendations were made

in a good faith effort to improve the efficiency and efficacy

of our armed services. However, I believe that gutting the

130th is wrong and I must make every effort to oppose it.

The 130th plays an important role in our national security,

as well as the security of

the greater Washington area. It has also provided hundreds of

National Guard personnel who responded to the call of duty in

Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In addition to 340 full-time

Guard members, the 130th employs 201 federal technicians, and

more than 80 active guards. The State of West Virginia also

employs more than 50 State employees whose jobs depend on the

continued presence of the 130th. At a time when enlistments

and retention for both our National Guard units and regular

Army are suffering, the 130th had 96 percent reenlistment,

fifth in the nation. Every single job in West Virginia is

sacred to me, and as these jobs also protect my home State

and are a vital part of our military family and national

security, I believe very strongly that they should not be

cut.

With regard to the amendment by Senator Coburn, I believe

he made very persuasive arguments about problems in Indian

Country of diabetes and drug and alcohol addiction. When you

consider that Native Americans from the ages of 45-74 have a

rate of diabetes roughly seven times the rate for all

Americans, and that drug and alcohol addiction is rampant, I

believe most of our colleagues would feel that all that can

be done to help the Indian Health Service--IHS--combat these

plagues should be done.

However, we are in a time of severe fiscal constraints, and

I commend the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for

successfully completing the difficult task of meeting so many

priorities as best they could. The underlying bill contains

about $100 million in appropriated funds for diabetes

programs under the IHS, and there are more than $150 million

available in mandatory spending in other programs targeted at

the same problem. Similarly, the bill funds alcohol and drug

abuse programs at $145.3 million. Senator Coburn would have

shifted additional funding to those important causes by

transferring funds to be appropriated for land acquisition.

The bill contains only about $154 million for Federal land

acquisition. While IHS diabetes and drug treatment programs

surely could have benefited from an extra infusion of cash,

it was also important to fund the land acquisition program at

a reasonable level.

I will support efforts to adequately fund all programs of

the Indian Health Service, and while I would have opposed the

Coburn amendment, I commend him for his obvious and careful

attention to this matter.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1003. I would like to be recognized to speak on that amendment.

I would like to call the attention of the Members to page 8 of the report language on the Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 2006. No. 7 is entitled, ``Report Language.'' I think it is important that we understand what this says. It says:

Any limitation, any directive or any earmarking contained

in either the House or Senate report which is not

contradicted by the other report, nor specifically denied in

the conference report, shall be considered as having been

approved by both Houses of Congress.

Mr. President, I do not have objection to that other than the fact that the American people, when the report comes out of conference, will have no way to measure the earmarks, the directives, and other things in that bill without that inclusion. This amendment requires that any limitation, directive, or earmarking be included in the conference report. This amendment is about sunshine so that if you get the conference report you can actually tell what is earmarked, what is directed, what is limited by the language that individual Senators have placed in the bill. I do not expect this amendment to pass. I understand that. But I think in one of the steps of us ever getting to the point where we do not leave this heritage of tremendous debt to our children, sunshine has to come in. And when we pass a bill out of conference, the conference report ought to say what is in there, just like it does when we have a conference bill on the Senate side or a conference bill on the House side.

The current report language actually abdicates our authority in looking at what the House earmarks or what the House limits as a body. We do not get a chance to look at that because it is not in the report language coming out of conference. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to vote on everything that is in that bill and have knowledge of everything that is in that bill. The only way a Senator will be able to know that is to take the House language in their report, filter through the Senate language, and figure out what is and what is not included.

This amendment requires that all provisions must be included in the conference report. It allows both the Senate and the House the opportunity to vote on all provisions, as opposed to only those which happen to pass through their respective Chambers.

I believe the American people expect us to do that. I believe this body was, in fact, intended to look at what the

House does. I believe the conference report ought to share what the House has limited, directed or earmarked for the benefit of individual Members or individual States, cities or otherwise.

So with that, I yield to the Senator from Montana and ask that he would support this amendment. It is a simple change. It is a change for open and more transparent Government. It is my belief that it is something we ought to consider.

Mr. President, I think we are in a time when we can take the time to make sure the American public knows what is in the bills. As a matter of fact, I think it is wrong if we do not take the time. I read almost every bill. I am one of the few Senators who do. I can tell you that I will struggle through a House bill and then have to subtract out the conference bill to find out what was deleted from the House bill to be able to know what is and what is not there.

That is not sunshine for the American people. It is barely any sunshine for a Senator. I restate, the fact is, we ought to make it easy for the American people to find out where we are spending the money. A conference report that does not make it easy, does not direct where the money is directed, where the earmarks are, where the limitations are, is less than what the American people deserve.

This is a simple request. It will not add that much time. It is all printed out. In the conference, you all know what you are going to agree to and what you are not going to agree to. It is taking one computer screen: You punch ``copy,'' and it goes into the report.

So I would beg to differ with the chairman. I love him dearly. I think he is a great man. But I think the American people deserve to know what is in every report that comes out of here in terms of spending so they can make an evaluation: Are we doing the right thing mortgaging the future of our kids? Is it legitimate?

But to pass a conference report that does not give that pathway to them, for them to see and make that judgment, I think is wrong.

I think it will help us as the Senate, as we look at what the other body does, to put that in that report. I believe anything less than that says we do have something to hide. We may not have anything to hide. But not being very transparent and very clear about what the limitations, earmarks, and directives are in a bill is something less than what the American people deserve.

I ask the chairman again to reconsider his opposition to this amendment.

But the point is, don't the American people need to see that 20 percent? Shouldn't they be able to see that 20 percent?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Do you believe the average American can get on a computer, after this bill comes through conference, and see where all the money is spent?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1002 of the Interior appropriations bill be withdrawn.

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

Mr. President, the point I wish to make is the American people deserve to have sunshine on everything we do. The conference report would not adequately reflect the earmarks in the House, the directives in the House, or the limitations in the House. We are going to be voting on the bill without the knowledge of what those limitations or earmarks are.

I would like to turn for a second to the Senator from Arizona.