Floor Statements

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 383. I ask unanimous consent to modify it.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 383 having to do with afterschool activities and ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, deleting finding No. 5 in the amendment.

I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for agreeing to this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I will be very brief in explaining it.

The budget before us assumes a cut of 40 percent in afterschool programs. This is a program that both sides of the aisle have been very involved in crafting, watching the number of children grow in the program.

We know from the FBI the greatest number of juvenile crimes occur after school. We also know mentoring is working in these afterschool programs. We do not want to see 570,000 kids kicked out of the valuable program, so this sense of the Senate simply is actually a plea that it not occur, and at the minimum we provide afterschool slots for the current number of children who are in those programs right now, 1.4 million children.

I ask at this time the amendment be unanimously agreed to.

I ask for a vote on the amendment.

Mr. President, as we pray for all those who are in harm's way, I rise to pay tribute to a Californian who was killed in the Iraqi war.

Marine Corps Cpl Randal Kent Rosacker, age 21, of San Diego, CA, was killed on Sunday, March 23, when he encountered Iraqi troops pretending to surrender. He graduated in 2000 from San Diego's Junipero Serra High School where he was a star baseball player. He joined the Marines at age 18 and was a machine gunner based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. He is survived by his wife, his father--a Navy Master Chief at Naval Station Bremerton his mother and two sisters.

May this beautiful young American rest in peace. May we have a short war. And may we also pray for the wisdom of those who send our young men and women on their mission.

Mr. President, today, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, released documents substantiating evidence of market manipulation during the California electricity crisis.

At the same time, I am stunned that FERC took no action today on ordering the companies that cheated California to pay refunds. Nor did FERC order renegotiation of the long-term electricity contracts that were entered into when prices were artificially inflated. The documents released provide absolute and irrefutable evidence of market manipulation by power generators and wholesale traders during California's electricity crisis. I believe it is long past due to end the discussions and deliberations and time to start sending the refund checks.

FERC should use its authority to order full refunds and order them immediately. To make sure that happens, I am introducing legislation to guarantee that the people of California get back the money they are owed.

When the crisis first began in 2000, I introduced my first bill to order refunds. The bill that I am introducing today would require energy companies to pay full refunds in the minimum amount of $8.9 billion. In addition, my bill requires the FERC to order the renegotiation of long-term contracts.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. We must not let these companies get away with thievery.

Mr. President, today, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, released documents substantiating evidence of market manipulation during the California electricity crisis.

At the same time, I am stunned that FERC took no action today on ordering the companies that cheated California to pay refunds. Nor did FERC order renegotiation of the long-term electricity contracts that were entered into when prices were artificially inflated. The documents released provide absolute and irrefutable evidence of market manipulation by power generators and wholesale traders during California's electricity crisis. I believe it is long past due to end the discussions and deliberations and time to start sending the refund checks.

FERC should use its authority to order full refunds and order them immediately. To make sure that happens, I am introducing legislation to guarantee that the people of California get back the money they are owed.

When the crisis first began in 2000, I introduced my first bill to order refunds. The bill that I am introducing today would require energy companies to pay full refunds in the minimum amount of $8.9 billion. In addition, my bill requires the FERC to order the renegotiation of long-term contracts.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. We must not let these companies get away with thievery.

Mr. President, as we pray for all those who are in harm's way, I rise to pay tribute to nine young Americans who were killed in the Iraqi war. All of them are from California or were based in California.

LT Thomas Mullen Adams, age 27; hometown: La Mesa, CA, was killed Saturday, March 22, in a helicopter accident after takeoff from a ship in the Persian Gulf. He graduated from Grossmont High School in La Mesa in 1993 and graduated from the Naval Academy in 1997. He was a decorated naval flight officer, earning two National Defense Service medals and three Sea Service Deployment Ribbons.

LT Thomas Mullen Adams' family lineage can be traced back to Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams.

CPT Ryan Beaupre, age 30, was attached to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force based in Camp Pendleton, CA. He lived in an apartment in Encinitas, CA, overlooking the Pacific Ocean where he often surfed. He was born in Saint Anne, IL. He was killed on Thursday, March 20, in a helicopter accident in Northern Kuwait, near the Iraqi border.

Mr. President, 2LT Therrel Shane Childers was with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment of the 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton, CA; age 30; hometown: Harrison, MI. He was killed on Friday, March 21 in a firefight with enemy troops in Iraq. He graduated from the Citadel in Charleston, SC, in

2001. He is survived by his parents, Joseph and Judy Childers. He was known to be an active runner and loved the outdoors.

LC 04 Jose Gutierrez--his hometown was Los Angeles, CA. He was born in Guatemala. At age 16, he traveled by himself across Mexico, to California. When he arrived in the United States, he was taken in by Marcelo and Nora Mosquera of Lomita, CA. His sister still lives in Guatemala City, Guatemala. His age was 22. He was killed on Friday, March 21, in a firefight with enemy troops in southern Iraq. He was an infantry rifleman, assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment of the 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton.

Cpl Brian Matthew Kennedy was attached to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force based in Camp Pendleton, CA; age 25; hometown: Glenview, IL. He was killed on Thursday, March 20, in a helicopter accident in Northern Kuwait, near the Iraqi border. He graduated from Glenbrook South High School in Illinois in 1995. He played football and lacrosse during high school. He was also a member of Future Teachers of America and the National Honor Society. He joined the Marines in 1999 and was stationed in Camp Pendleton for 3 years. His father, Mark Kennedy, lives in Houston, TX. His mother, Melissa Derbyshire, lives in Port Clyde, ME.

SSgt Kendall Damon Waterbey joined the Marines in 1992 and was stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA. He was age 29; hometown: Baltimore, MD. He was killed on Thursday, March 20, in a helicopter accident in northern Kuwait, near the Iraqi border. He is married and has a 10 year-old son, Kenneth. His brave son said this about his father:

He had to do what he had to do for our country. I was proud

of him. He's going to stay my hero.

Sgt Michael E. Bitz was from Ventura, CA. He was age 31. He was killed on Sunday, March 23, when he encountered Iraqi troops pretending to surrender. He was assigned to the 2nd Assault Amphibious Battalion, 2nd Marine Division in Camp Lejune, NC.

Cpl Jose A. Garibay was from Orange, CA. He graduated from Newport Harbor High School; age 21. He was killed on Sunday, March 23 when he encountered Iraqi troops pretending to surrender. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Camp Lejune, NC.

Cpl Jorge Gonzalez was from Los Angeles, CA. He was age 20. He was killed on Sunday, March 23 when he encountered Iraqi troops pretending to surrender. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade in Camp Lejune, NC.

Mr. President, may all of these beautiful young people rest in peace. May we have a short war. And may we also pray for the wisdom of those who sent these young people on their mission.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, gasoline prices on average in California are $2.15 per gallon.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA, the cost of crude oil rose 16.4 percent from January 6 to March 3. During the same time period, the average retail price of gasoline rose 27.2 percent.

After seeing the statistics, I do not buy the argument that higher gasoline prices are due solely to higher crude oil prices. I am concerned that oil companies have been pocketing more profits as consumers pay record high gas prices.

I have been advised of news reports that refiners are taking more plants than usual offline for ``routine maintenance.'' This is reminiscent of the electricity crisis when generators took their plants off-line for ``routine maintenance'' at a rate higher than normal. We now know that these generators were holding back electricity to artificially increase the price of electricity.

In response to soaring gas prices across the country and especially in California and in response to potential manipulation, I am introducing legislation to shed light on the situation and hopefully curtail future market manipulation.

My legislation requires the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to automatically investigate the gasoline market for manipulation anytime average gasoline prices increase in any state by 20 percent in a period of 3 months or less and remain at that level for seven days or more.

Market manipulation would include, but is not limited to, collusion or the creation of artificial shortages such as unnecessarily taking refineries off-line. In determining the trigger, the gasoline price used would be the Energy Information Agency's pricing of regular grade gasoline. A report on the FTC's investigation would be due to Congress 14 days after the price trigger.

Under the bill, the FTC would be required within two weeks of issuing the report to hold a public meeting to discuss the findings.

If the findings indicate that there is market manipulation, then the FTC would work with the state's Attorney General to determine the penalties.

If the findings indicate that there is no market manipulation, then the U.S. Department of Energy must officially decide, within two weeks, if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be used in order to ease prices and stabilize supply.

We need to deter market manipulation. Otherwise we risk serious price gouging with no accountability to consumers. My legislation offers a reasonable standard for an investigation and a reasonable time frame in which to complete that investigation. I believe the threat of these investigations and the public light that would be shed on the system will be positive for the consumer.

Mr. President, gasoline prices on average in California are $2.15 per gallon.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA, the cost of crude oil rose 16.4 percent from January 6 to March 3. During the same time period, the average retail price of gasoline rose 27.2 percent.

After seeing the statistics, I do not buy the argument that higher gasoline prices are due solely to higher crude oil prices. I am concerned that oil companies have been pocketing more profits as consumers pay record high gas prices.

I have been advised of news reports that refiners are taking more plants than usual offline for ``routine maintenance.'' This is reminiscent of the electricity crisis when generators took their plants off-line for ``routine maintenance'' at a rate higher than normal. We now know that these generators were holding back electricity to artificially increase the price of electricity.

In response to soaring gas prices across the country and especially in California and in response to potential manipulation, I am introducing legislation to shed light on the situation and hopefully curtail future market manipulation.

My legislation requires the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to automatically investigate the gasoline market for manipulation anytime average gasoline prices increase in any state by 20 percent in a period of 3 months or less and remain at that level for seven days or more.

Market manipulation would include, but is not limited to, collusion or the creation of artificial shortages such as unnecessarily taking refineries off-line. In determining the trigger, the gasoline price used would be the Energy Information Agency's pricing of regular grade gasoline. A report on the FTC's investigation would be due to Congress 14 days after the price trigger.

Under the bill, the FTC would be required within two weeks of issuing the report to hold a public meeting to discuss the findings.

If the findings indicate that there is market manipulation, then the FTC would work with the state's Attorney General to determine the penalties.

If the findings indicate that there is no market manipulation, then the U.S. Department of Energy must officially decide, within two weeks, if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be used in order to ease prices and stabilize supply.

We need to deter market manipulation. Otherwise we risk serious price gouging with no accountability to consumers. My legislation offers a reasonable standard for an investigation and a reasonable time frame in which to complete that investigation. I believe the threat of these investigations and the public light that would be shed on the system will be positive for the consumer.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to require that the Secretary of Defense issue regulations that would prevent a mother and father of minor children from being deployed to a combat zone at the same time.

Under my legislation, the Secretary of Defense would have 15 days to implement this policy by issuing regulations that would include the definition of what comprises a combat zone.

As we wage war against Iraq, it is important that we work to ensure that a child will never have to endure the pain of losing both parents during wartime. Military families sacrifice so much to serve our Nation. We should do everything we can to ensure their children are not orphaned.

I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to require that the Secretary of Defense issue regulations that would prevent a mother and father of minor children from being deployed to a combat zone at the same time.

Under my legislation, the Secretary of Defense would have 15 days to implement this policy by issuing regulations that would include the definition of what comprises a combat zone.

As we wage war against Iraq, it is important that we work to ensure that a child will never have to endure the pain of losing both parents during wartime. Military families sacrifice so much to serve our Nation. We should do everything we can to ensure their children are not orphaned.

I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank my friend for working to accommodate as many Senators who would like to speak. I do not think it is necessary for us to make long speeches--3, 4, 5 minutes--but I do believe it is very important and we have a responsibility to do so. To the extent the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan can work together to add some time, it would be most appreciated.

Mr. President, as military action begins in Iraq, I send my strong support, as a Senator, as a mother, as a grandmother, to our sons and daughters who are carrying out the mission asked of them.

Military personnel from my State of California are a lead contributor in this effort. They include marines from Camp Pendleton and Twentynine Palms, carrier groups from San Diego, and Air Force personnel from Travis Air Force Base.

There are many more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from throughout California serving us today, including 6,100 Guard and reservists who have recently been activated. Thousands of California families are impacted.

From my seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have followed the issue of Iraq very closely. And for the past several months, my view was that we should build a worldwide coalition to disarm Iraq, a worldwide coalition that would truly be partners in name, in action, and in cost-sharing. That is why I was so proud to support Senator Levin's resolution to authorize force with the backing of the United Nations. While this amendment was defeated in the Senate, I believe it called attention to the importance of working with a large coalition of allies.

As one who has recently voted twice to give a President--a Republican President and a Democratic President--the right to use force, I believe war should always be the last resort. I voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war against al-Qaida, and for President Clinton to use military force against Slobodan Milosevic.

In this case, in Iraq, I supported intrusive inspections backed by a united coalition as the best way to achieve Iraqi disarmament. While the U.N. inspectors asked to continue their work, that was not to be. So that debate is behind us. I do want to say, the need to work with our allies in postwar Iraq is very important because we want to lift-- we want to lift--the physical burden off the shoulders of our men and women and share that burden. And we want to, of course, try to share the cost burden as well.

Like all Americans, I hope and I pray that hostilities end soon and that casualties are minimal. And like all Americans, I very much hope that democracy in Iraq will take root. Last night, I saw an interview with a young man who is a soldier in the Army, and he was as eloquent on this same point as any statement I had ever heard, eloquent in his simplicity, in expressing his hope for this mission.

Congress is supporting our troops from the minute they went in. I believe one way we can demonstrate that is to ensure that the lives of both parents of dual-military families with small children are not unnecessarily put at risk. I raised this issue with the Secretary of Defense in February, and I am awaiting a response from him. Senator Ben Nelson is also working on this issue as well as other quality-of-life issues for our military. We must be mindful of the impact on a child when both parents are put in harm's way. I believe we can make sure they are not both placed in harm's way. I will work to make sure of that.

I also intend to work to provide additional funding for four important programs.

First, we need to increase funding for impact aid programs to help school districts with military families. Our children of military families need attention now. They must have attention now. And we are not fulfilling our responsibility to our military families if those children do not get help.

Gandhi once said: If there is to be peace in the world, it must begin with the children. So we must never, ever forget the children. We have heard from many military families struggling to pay for daycare and other expenses who have one family member deployed from home. We have heard from them that they are having a very hard time.

Next, I think we need to help with homeland defense. Clearly, everyone has told us--from the CIA to the FBI to Secretary Ridge--that the probability has now greatly increased that we will be facing more problems here at home. That is why I am supporting the Schumer amendment, when we get back to the budget, to reimburse our States for this burden.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Governor of California, pointing out these incredible expenses the States are having because of firefighters and police and emergency workers working overtime.

And last, Mr. President, I hope we will be able to work on the development of a missile defense system for our airplanes, our commercial airplanes, which are facing the danger of shoulder-fired missiles.

Many people throughout California have asked me, what can they do to

support our troops? The Department of Defense has provided some excellent ideas that can be accessed on the official DOD Web site, DefenseLINK. I think it would be good for those who want to do something now to get on that Web site. We have a link on our Web site as well. The ideas are there on how to send a virtual thank-you card to our troops, how to provide them with telephone calling cards. These are things that will make their lives much better.

Mr. President, I ask for 15 seconds, if I might.

Mr. President, let's do everything we can for our troops and everything we can to protect our homeland. And let us all pray for our men and women in uniform, and for their families, and for wisdom for all those who send them forward into battle.

Mr. President, I would like to take this moment to reflect on the exceptional work of Jamil Dada, who will be honored by the Boy Scouts of America's Five Nations District with its 2003 Distinguished Citizen Good Scout of the Year Award on March 21, 2003.

Jamil Dada is exceptionally qualified for this award, with a strong record of serving others in his community in Riverside County and the broader region. His contributions to both local and regional community organizations have made a significant difference to countless Californians.

Mr. Dada's most prominent role is that of chairperson for the Riverside County Workforce Development Board, working to ensure a healthy, well-trained workforce for the county. In addition, Mr. Dada devotes his time as a board member for the Boy Scouts of America Inland Empire Council, the Family Service Association of Western Riverside County, the Magnolia Center Division of the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, the Police Activities League in Moreno Valley, the Planned Giving Advisory Board of UC Riverside, the Riverside Community College Foundation, and the United Way of the Inland Valleys.

In the city of Moreno Valley, he demonstrates his broad capacity for leadership as the vice chairman of the Moreno Valley Chamber of Commerce, the treasurer of the Moreno Valley Substance Abuse Task Force, and vice president of the Community Assistance Program, which provides food to those in need.

Mr. Dada is also an Honorary Commander at March Air Reserve Base, where he serves as vice president of the March Field Air Museum, chairman of the Friends of March Field, and treasurer of the March Air Reserve Base Forum.

It is clear that Jamil Dada is an outstandingly active, concerned citizen, and I am extremely proud to extend my sincere congratulations to him on this much deserved recognition from the Boy Scouts of America Five Nations District.

I send my best wishes for a memorable celebration of Jamil Dada's accomplishments and for his continued success.

Mr. President, I am re-introducing legislation today to name the courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California, as the ``James R. Browning United States Courthouse.''

Judge Browning was appointed to the court by President Kennedy and has spent 40 years as a circuit judge on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For twelve of those years, he served as Chief Judge. As chief judge, Judge Browning reorganized and modernized the administration of the Ninth Circuit. Now, he is on Senior Status.

He is originally from Montana and graduated from Montana State University in 1938 and from Montana University Law School in 1941, achieving the highest scholastic record in his class and serving as editor-in-chief of the law review. Before being appointed to the Court, Judge Browning served in the U.S. Army and worked for Department of Justice and in private practice.

I can think of no more appropriate honor for Judge Browning than to place his name on the courthouse building where he has worked for 40 years.

Mr. President, I am re-introducing legislation today to name the courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California, as the ``James R. Browning United States Courthouse.''

Judge Browning was appointed to the court by President Kennedy and has spent 40 years as a circuit judge on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For twelve of those years, he served as Chief Judge. As chief judge, Judge Browning reorganized and modernized the administration of the Ninth Circuit. Now, he is on Senior Status.

He is originally from Montana and graduated from Montana State University in 1938 and from Montana University Law School in 1941, achieving the highest scholastic record in his class and serving as editor-in-chief of the law review. Before being appointed to the Court, Judge Browning served in the U.S. Army and worked for Department of Justice and in private practice.

I can think of no more appropriate honor for Judge Browning than to place his name on the courthouse building where he has worked for 40 years.

Mr. President, at this point, I will yield to four people in sequence: Senator Bingaman, 10 minutes; Senator Durbin, 5 minutes; Senator Murray, 5 minutes; Senator Stabenow 5 minutes. That will be the total of our speakers and then we will be happy to yield an equivalent amount of time to the other side, if that will be acceptable. These Senators would like to give their short statements and then go back to their committees.

Twenty-five minutes.

As I understand it, I control 41 minutes of time. Is that correct? Instead of just standing here and speaking myself about this amendment, I have suggested we allow it to go in this sequence and then back to my colleagues on the other side, just for the sake of my colleagues' schedule.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to a real leader on this issue, Senator Bingaman, the top Democrat on the Energy Committee.

Will the Senator yield his remaining time for a question?

I wonder if the Senator had seen this chart which shows by the year 2030 how much energy is yielded by these various factors. This would be how much energy we would get from the Arctic Refuge production, 2.38 billion barrels of oil. If we just put better tires on our cars, it would result in better fuel economy, we would save more energy.

If we just closed the SUV loophole, meaning we got those SUVs up to the same mileage as cars, we would save 10 billion barrels. And, by the way, if we did fuel economy, as my friend suggested, up to 35 miles per gallon, which is very modest, look at what it would save: 18 billion barrels. Here is what the Arctic gets us, and we destroy a region that looks like this, instead of going this way.

Mr. President, I am going to take 1 extra minute off the bill, if I might, to simply send to the desk a letter from Jimmy Carter, former President Jimmy Carter. Last night it was implied by several colleagues--I have their words actually--I will not go through them now--that President Carter supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Just to quote from a little bit of his letter, he says:

We can have the untouched sublime wilderness. Or we can

have oil field development. But we cannot have both.

Opening the coastal plain for oil exploration and

development would be, despite all the much-vaunted

technological promises, severely damaging to wildlife and the

ecosystem. And it is inherently fatal to the wilderness

qualities of this matchless example of America's natural

heritage.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

I now yield 5 minutes to Senator Patty Murray who has also been a tremendous voice for the environment here in the Senate.

Will the Senator yield her remaining time?

I say to my friend, I appreciate her raising the issue of the safety here because in the Prudhoe Bay oil field and the Trans- Alaska we have seen an average 423 spills annually on the North Slope since 1996, and that is according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Over 1.7 million gallons of 40 different substances, from acid to waste oil, have been spilled during routine operations from 1996 to 2002. There were 2,958 spills, commonly diesel, crude oil, and hydraulic oil.

My friend is right. Maybe years ago they would have been worse spills, but the fact is there are terrible spills now.

I see that my colleague's time is up. I thank the Senator for participating.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Stabenow from Michigan.

Mr. President, I ask we take 10 minutes off our side of the resolution.

Mr. President I will speak a couple of minutes about the general budget, and then turn to the ANWR Alaska refuge amendment that is pending that I hope will prevail in a vote in a few years.

I ask unanimous consent Senators Corzine and Clinton be added as cosponsors to my ANWR amendment.

Mr. President, I will talk about this budget overall because I listened to my colleague talk about it in a way that, frankly, is stunning because I remember when Republicans wanted a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Now they are embracing a budget that has deficits as far as the eye can see. If you like deficits as far as the eye can see, you will love this budget and you should vote for it because that is what you are getting.

I will after I am finished, as I listened to my friend talk for quite a few moments.

If you embrace the idea that deficits are a good thing for the country, red ink is a good thing for this country, you will love this budget; go ahead and vote for it and that is fine and we will talk about it when we go home.

If you like the idea that we should ignore an enormous cost that is staring us in the face as our beautiful men and women are standing on the brink of war, if you think this budget should ignore those costs, then you should vote for this budget because this is an Alice-in- Wonderland-type of budget.

The whole country is focused on what is about to happen--but not in this budget. I have seen comments made by friends of mine from the other body on the other side of the aisle that said hurry up and get this through before we have to deal with the costs of the war.

When I hear Senator Frist say let's push this through fast, that, in my opinion, ties the knot here. The other side wants to get this done very quickly even though it has no costs for the war. The first person who said the war will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion was Larry Lindsey, and as we know, he was shown the door.

Vote for this budget if you think we should ignore the costs of the war. Vote for this budget if you love deficits. If you like breaking promises to our children on No Child Left Behind, cutting afterschool programs and the like, vote for this budget because that is what you are doing.

The President posed for pictures with Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller--No Child Left Behind--and then he fails to fund it.

He is going to kick 50,000 California kids out of afterschool programs, unless we fix it. All through the country, he is going to kick 500,000 to 700,000 kids out of afterschool programs, including kids in New Hampshire and all over our great Nation.

Our kids deserve more than that. If you like the fact that No Child Left Behind is not funded fully, vote for the budget. If you want to cut environmental enforcement, vote for the budget. If you want to fund the highways and transit at a lower level than what we need, vote for the budget.

Especially vote for the budget if you want to give tax breaks to people who earn more than $1 million a year because they will get back $87,000 a year. Definitely vote for this budget if your heart bleeds for those folks who make more than $1 million a year because that is the centerpiece of this budget.

I hope we can change it. We are going to try to change it. We have a few brave souls on the other side of the aisle who agree with us. I don't know how it will turn out. But when I hear people talk about why our country is in so much economic trouble, it started 2 years ago. We lost 2 million jobs because we abandoned fiscal responsibility, we abandoned investment in job-producing investments, we abandoned the principles that led us to the greatest economic recovery in generations. But if you don't want to go back to those good days and stick with these bad days, vote for this budget.

On my time that is remaining, I want to say how excited I am that we actually may pass the Alaska wildlife amendment.

What we have here on this chart is a very simple visual of what we will save from various scenarios on imported oil. I had, yesterday, the percentages.

We see that while ANWR would reduce our reliance on imported oil by 2 percent, if we just did better tires on our cars, which would lead to better fuel economy, we could save 4.3 percent of imported oil. If we closed the SUV loophole and just had the SUVs get the same mileage as cars, we would save 16 percent on the amount of oil we have to import. If we increased our fuel economy by 13--to 35 miles per gallon--which the automobile people say is absolutely possible; we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 43 percent.

The alternative is this reduction of dependence on foreign oil by 2 percent. By the way, this wouldn't happen for 8 or 10 years. For everybody who says it is going to happen sooner, that is not what the proof is. The science tells us it will take 8 to 10 years to get it up and running.

This is the alternative, drilling in this God-given area.

I will give the remainder of my time to Senator Conrad. We are talking about a place that looks like this. Yes, in the winter it is icy. Yes, in the winter there is not much--it doesn't look as beautiful as this, but I don't look as good as I looked when I was young, so that happens sometimes. But the bottom line is, it is a beautiful place.

Here are some other beautiful pictures. We will show you some of the wildlife that we have, this beautiful bird which is the whimbrel--quite beautiful. It is my chart bird, I call it. That is a beautiful example of what we are trying to save.

I will yield the remainder of my time on the resolution to Senator Conrad and hope my colleagues on both sides will support the amendment.

I have been to Alaska and I am going back. I haven't been to the 1002 area, but my chief environmental legislative aide took my place on a trip that, unfortunately, I had to cancel 6 months ago, and just said it was absolutely exquisite.

As my friend knows, we have hundreds of wildlife refuges. I have been to a few. I haven't been to them all. But this is God's gift and whether--

Yes, I stated that clearly in the debate. The last time I was asked this question, people said these photos were----

Mr. President, I ask to take 5 minutes off the resolution to respond to the Senator from New Mexico. I believe I might pause here for a unanimous consent request. Mr. President, I ask Senator Nickles, is that correct? Does the Senator wish that I wait while he propounds a unanimous consent request?

As long as it does not come off my time. I would like to reserve the 5 minutes off the resolution.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico spoke with tremendous conviction about why he wants to drill in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. He said he had no hard feelings for those people who felt differently, but he said a number of things that deserve to be rebutted, and I am going to do that.

I certainly believe that whether one has an area that looks like this--and my colleagues said this is not a photograph of the area that would be drilled, but they are completely incorrect. This has been mapped. We have exactly where this is on the back of the photograph. It is right in the heart of the refuge. We had this picture last year, which then-Senator Frank Murkowski said was not taken in the refuge area. We had the head of Fish and Wildlife in Alaska phone in, irate, and essentially

say, yes, this is exactly where they want to drill, where the caribou are roaming.

So let's get that right. I am not going to stand up in front of pictures that do not apply to make my case. That is ridiculous. I would not do that. That is wrong. It is not a fair way to debate. I want to debate on the merit.

I also have never, ever said in this debate--and I spoke last night, as well as this morning--that people on the other side are doing this because they get campaign contributions from oil and gas companies and other economic interests. I will not do that. I have more respect than that. But, of course, my colleague from New Mexico says the only reason we are fighting for this is that we get contributions from a few environmental organizations. Hogwash. I would like to line up the campaign contributions of the environmental organizations versus the campaign contributions of big oil and gas companies.

Let's just cut it out. The Senate should be above that. I speak from my heart when I say there is an inconsistency with setting aside this beautiful acreage and then saying, oh, well, now we need to drill.

I received a call this morning from former Representative John Seiberling. Last night, his picture was held up by Senator Stevens. Senator Stevens said there was a deal cut in 1980 to allow oil drilling. Obviously, I was not in that meeting. The fact is I came to the Congress in 1982, so I missed that by 2 years.

Representative Seiberling phoned us this morning. He was the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands. He was in that picture, and he said there was no deal to open the Alaska Wildlife Reserve to exploration. So I want to state that for the record, just as last night I talked about the letter from President Jimmy Carter who said he is totally opposed to this drilling, even though he, too, was referred to as being part of this so-called deal.

I also want to show a footprint of the New Jersey Turnpike. Now, my colleagues are going to say: Well, Senator Boxer, what does that have to do with anything? The fact is, this is the same size footprint that the opposition is saying would be the footprint of the oil field that would be allowed in this refuge.

I say to my friends, the way Senator Domenici posed it, he had a great big chart and a little dot. Well, what goes on when you drill for oil is not a little dot. That is so obvious; it is kind of silly. If we even take the footprint that they talk about, the 2,000 acres, that is the footprint the size of the New Jersey Turnpike, and I say to anyone who has some common sense, no one would say that what happens on the New Jersey Turnpike does not have an impact on the surrounding community.

I also say to my friend, because he opposes me in a lot of areas-- this is my friend from New Mexico. I served on the Budget Committee for years. I have tremendous respect for him, but we disagree. I, with just as much fervor as he, will say to my colleagues today I want them to look at the footprint for offshore oil drilling off the coast of California. It will look really small if the whole coastline is taken into account, but my people in California know it is destructive. How do we know that? We have seen it. We have seen what happens when oil spills. We know that no matter what technology is promised, accidents occur. We have certainly experienced that in Alaska given what has happened in the past from spills, and I put that in the Record before.

We know the USGS analysis says that oil in the refuge is scattered in many different areas. It would require multiple fields across the Coastal Plain, 250 miles of roads, 100 miles of pipeline.

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

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

I will take the time from the amendment.

That will leave 1 minute, and I will reserve that.

I say to my friend from North Dakota, the Senator from New Mexico had an hour speech and I believe I need to rebut it. We know from USGS we are talking 250 miles of roads, 100 miles of pipeline, airfields, gravel pits, power lines, waste facilities, and other structures. We are talking about this, not coming from the side of those who believe this pristine area ought to be left alone, but from the USGS survey.

John Seiberling says no deal was cut in 1980; Senator Stevens sees it a different way. People can take away different meanings. But I mention that in the Record. When we hear President Carter's name as being part of a deal, and he writes a letter and says he does not want to see drilling here, we ought to set the record straight.

This is a fair debate. But it ought to be based on the facts as the people who were in the room saw it. Senator Stevens laid out how he felt. John Seiberling phoned and left his phone number. I am sure if Senator Stevens would like to chat with him, that would be fine with him.

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

I am sorry, I have 60 seconds left to rebut an hour-long tirade by someone on the other side who said the reason we are preserving the Arctic is because we received campaign contributions.

I print in the Record the facts, a letter from Jimmy Carter who opposes drilling in this area. He talks about it very eloquently.

John Seiberling, then-chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks, was in the picture that my friend from Alaska held up last night, and has said absolutely there was no deal cut to drill in this area. It is important we set that record straight.

I correct that. He was not in the picture, but in the meetings that led to the picture. He was the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands.

Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a very important document put together by the Alaska Wilderness League. In it there are comments of the National Research Counsel on the cumulative environmental effects of oil and gas activities on Alaska's North Slope. We keep hearing there is no problem, no problem at all, but there are newspaper reports that say the local people who live up there claim there is a problem with the caribou herds. They are going elsewhere, away from the drilling.

Madam President, it is very important everyone vote. This is a close vote. I don't think this should be in a budget resolution. It is very obvious what the proponents of drilling want to do. They want to get this into

reconciliation so those who have deep, strong feelings will not be able to talk at length about it, to stop it. I hope we stop it today.

I reserve 1 minute for closing debate.

I yield myself 5 minutes.

I ask the Senator from Alaska, is it OK upon my completion of 5 minutes that Senator Feingold address the Senate for 5 minutes, and then we would turn it back to the time of the Senator from Alaska? Is that all right with the Senator?

Madam President, let's be clear. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is open for drilling. That is a fact. We are talking about the last 5 percent. The debate is whether that should be opened as well.

Clearly, this is going to be a very close vote. I have great respect for the Senators from Alaska, but I would welcome it if they wanted to help preserve the environment in my State.

As far as jobs are concerned, there was a report done by the Joint Economic Committee on March 14, 2002. They issued a report that said there would be 65,000 jobs nationwide by 2020, an employment gain of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. workforce, and CRS--that is the Congressional Research Service--Report No. R.S. 21030, October 1, 2001, said under the most likely scenario, full development in the Arctic would result in 60,000 jobs.

I am not one to say 60,000 jobs are no jobs--that is a lot of jobs-- but the more than 2 million jobs we have seen go down the drain in the last 2 years, that is a bigger debate.

I also want to make the point that for those of us in California who defend and protect our coastline from oil companies every day of the week, we made a choice. Yes, we know there would be jobs developed there, but it would destroy that coastline and have the potential for horrific accidents and problems because we have experienced those.

So I say to my friends from Alaska, I hope they will understand the people in this country who support keeping this 5 percent of the North Slope in its pristine environment are doing so because we think it is good for the soul of this country, and we believe there are more jobs to be created through other means.

The reason I have this photograph--and it was challenged not by my colleagues from Alaska at all but by others--this is clearly in the development area--and also by Secretary Norton, who is quoted in the newspaper as saying the image of flat white nothingness is what one sees the majority of the year. This is the reason I felt compelled--and I was glad to see my colleague from Alaska say she agrees, it is magnificent, and I wish every Member could have the chance to take a look at this beautiful book, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land. It is a photographic journey by this incredible photographer through all the seasons. Some of the most beautiful scenes are in the winter. I know my colleagues cannot see this, but it shows the birds and the snow and all the rest. It is quite beautiful.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe Secretary Norton looks at this and comes away with another point of view, and I respect that. I just do not happen to agree with it.

In April--I think it is April 10--there will be an exhibit opened at the Smithsonian on the Mall which will show these photographs, and more. So I hope people will take a chance to look at it, because it is quite breathtaking to see.

I want to reiterate that I printed in the Record last night a letter from the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council. They have asked me to make a point of this letter they have written, in which they say:

We urge you to reject . . . any other proposals to

authorize oil exploration and development of the birthplace

and nursery of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, the coastal plain

and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

They talk about they support the Gwich'ins to seek permanent protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I know the Gwich'in people are here. I also know there are other tribal people here as well, and I say that I have met with them many times and have been touched and moved with their testimony. They are very proud the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council that represents 187 tribes is with them, and they asked me specifically to put this letter into the Record.

Let me finish by saying the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a beautiful Web site and they say on it:

The Arctic refuge is among the most complete, pristine and

undisturbed ecosystems on Earth . . . a combination of

habitats, climate and geography unmatched by any other

northern conservation area.

This is a quote from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is very clearly the point of view of most people, and I hope that we would honor this God-given treasure today and vote to strip this language from the bill and take a stand in favor of keeping this area pristine.

I look forward to the remarks of Senator Feingold.

Madam President, I am finding the source for the comment I made that Senator Stevens took issue with that the 5 percent of the North Slope was available for drilling. That comment was made by the Interior Secretary to the Senate in the committee. That statement was made in 1995. I am putting my hands on the exact words.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut who has been a real leader in this fight, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Parliamentary inquiry: Could you tell me how much time remains on the Senator from Alaska's side and how much on my side?

I ask the Senator, what is your preference? Senator Chafee would like to speak, but if you would like to take some time?

I was just asking my colleague if he preferred Senator Domenici to go since he just spoke.

I yield 5 minutes for Senator Chafee. I want to say he is a leader on this issue, and he is one of six Republicans who signed a letter saying don't deal with this issue in the context of a budget resolution. I look forward to hearing his 5 minutes.

Madam President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the Senator.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on each side, please?

I would like to retain my time to close debate, if it is all right with the Senator from Alaska.

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.

I yield an additional 1 minute.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

I would like to be told when I have a minute left.

We are reaching the end of a tough debate. It is a very close vote, no doubt about it. The Vice President, I understand, is on his way over in case it is a tie vote. I want to pick up on something Senator Nickles said when he kind of cast aspersions on those who live outside of the State of Alaska and are speaking up in favor of this Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Let me be clear. I come from a State that has millions of acres of wilderness, thousands and thousands of acres of beautiful Federal land. We are very proud of it. We have forests, desert, wetlands, and the rest, including Yosemite National Park. Let me be clear. I welcome the support of my colleagues. I don't shun it. I welcome them to help me preserve those acres for the people of California and the people of the country and, indeed, the people of the world. In our State, we consider these treasures not only to be God-given resources, but we look at them as God-given resources that we, the people of this planet, have to protect.

I am interested in Senator Domenici's presentation. It was well done. He has a big chart and he has a dot on the chart. He says: Look at this, it is a dot on this chart. Well, if you go up into space and you look at the Earth, it looks like a little marble. Does that

mean we should not care about what happens on God's Earth?

So I think we are getting to the point at which we have to make a choice. Do we want to change the policy and go into this beautiful refuge or do we want to look at other ways to get more energy--I underscore, much more energy?

Look, if we just close the loopholes on SUVs--by the way, I represent a lot of soccer moms and let me tell you, they want their SUVs, and they want to get better fuel economy from them. I live in a community where almost every other car is big because I live in suburbia. They want to have the option to drive those cars and not have to spend $100 every time they fill up the tank. If we were just to close that SUV loophole, we would save, by 2030, 10 billion barrels of oil. This is what we are talking about. That is far more than you would get out of the Arctic. If you moved up the fuel economy just to 35 miles a gallon--listen to this--we would be 43 percent less dependent upon foreign oil. With ANWR, it is 2 percent.

Vote for the Boxer amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, this is a country of laws, not men. This is a country that treasures its God-given gifts--from the mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans white with foam. God bless America, my home sweet home.

This isn't about us being here for 2 years, or 6 years, or 10 years, or 20, or even 50. We will be gone. But we need to think about the future. We can do more for our troops were we just to increase fuel economy. We will save far more doing that than by drilling in a pristine area that has wildlife that looks like this picture.

Madam President, I hope we will stand with the environment and vote for the Boxer amendment.

I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I would first like to thank Senator Murray for this critical amendment to deliver on the promise we made to the Nation's children by fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act.

It has been over 1 year since the approval of the No Child Left Behind Act. But we are not fulfilling the promise made in that law and are, in fact, leaving millions of kids behind. The Nation has made little progress toward improving the quality of our children's education. In fact, we have taken a huge step backward by actually cutting funding for the education reform law that was enacted.

The Murray amendment will not only alleviate the fiscal crisis in our schools so that they can provide a high-quality education for our children, but it will provide funding to keep our children safe in afterschool programs.

As the author with Senator Ensign of the bipartisan afterschool program that President Bush signed into law as part of the No Child Left Behind Act, I want to emphasize how important the Federal afterschool program is to children and families across America. Dozens of respected, independent studies tell us that afterschool programs keep children safe, reduce crime and drug use, and improve academic performance.

However, despite strong evidence that keeping children safe after school can reduce juvenile crime and prevent children from engaging in risky behaviors, the administration's budget for fiscal year 2004 slashes Federal funding for afterschool programs by 40 percent.

This unprecedented cut would result in over 81,000 children in California and almost 600,000 children nationally being pushed out onto the streets after school. Furthermore, by not fully funding afterschool programs at the level that we promised in the No Child Left Behind Act, we will be leaving over a million more children not just behind, but home alone.

We cannot afford to neglect our commitment to our Nation's children. The time for rhetoric has passed and now it is time to act. It is time to fully fund afterschool programs and the entire No Child Left Behind Act.

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

I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, it is a great honor for me to offer this amendment. I hope very much that Members on both sides will support it. The amendment is very simple. It strikes the reconciliation instructions given to the Energy Committee that will lead to oil drilling in a pristine place in America, a God-given gift, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

We are striking, in essence, the instructions, and that will in essence say, no, we will not have drilling in this pristine area.

There are so many Members on both sides of the aisle that want to speak on this tonight, I will give a little instruction as to the beauty of the refuge, and then I will yield to my colleagues as they come over, and get back to the stream of my four-part argument.

In light of the world situation, we need to see something beautiful. This is something quite beautiful. I will show some beautiful photographs from the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. This is Wild Sweet Pea and Marsh Creek in the coastal plain. It speaks volumes to what God has given us.

This picture on the plain shows the caribou and beautiful mountains with the water in front. The last time we debated this issue, I showed this photograph and one of my colleagues from Alaska said this is not where it is going to happen. We quickly called to Alaska and had their wildlife people confirm that is a fact.

Let me show more of the wildlife. This is a magnificent bird, the chart

bird. This unbelievable photograph shows a polar bear reflected in the water. Cast your eyes on this. This is pretty extraordinary. One cannot paint anything quite as magnificent as what God has created. The musk oxen is seen running through this area. The next photograph shows the porcupine caribou swimming. These are pretty extraordinary photographs.

This gives Members an idea of what we are trying to save and why we ask colleagues from both sides of the aisle to please support us in striking this instruction from the budget.

I first make an argument about process. After I do that, I am going to yield to my colleague from Connecticut for up to 10 minutes.

This debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, though it is coming in the evening at 6 p.m., is a very important debate. It is a very important environmental issue. If you look at some of the polling data from every one of our States, people believe very strongly that this place should be preserved, as it was when it was given to us.

The fact we are discussing it as an amendment to the budget bill is, it seems to me, inappropriate. It deserves to have much more debate. It deserves to have much more consideration. It deserves to have much more public input. It deserves to have much more time. But this is the hand we are dealt. We are dealt a hand where, without even mentioning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge except in one line, it really is kind of snuck into this budget resolution.

But be that as it may, the result is the same. We then move forward under reconciliation and we could not stop it except if we were able to get the majority vote. We could not really filibuster it.

I want to have printed in the Record a letter on this point from Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, and there are four others on this. I will read their names: Susan Collins, John McCain, Mike DeWine, Peter Fitzgerald. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

They make this point I think quite eloquently. They say:

Because the opening of the Arctic refuge to drilling raises

a host of policy concerns including serious environmental

ramifications, we do not believe the issue should be injected

into the budget process.

I have to applaud my Republican friends who wrote this letter. Such an important issue about such a place involving such beauty should not be the subject of a little amendment here dealing with reconciliation. We need to have much more serious debate.

I will close this part of my statement in this way. In 1960, when President Eisenhower set aside 8.9 million acres to form the original Arctic Range, his Secretary of the Interior noted that the area was:

one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas

in North America, a wilderness experience not duplicated

elsewhere.

As you can see, nothing has changed about that description. It remains a special place, richer in wildlife than perhaps any other part of the country.

I say to my Republican friends, it was a Republican President who said let's preserve this place forever. It seems sad that the Republican President now is saying let's simply turn our back on this legacy. I hope Republicans and Democrats will join together. I think we have a good chance to do it and stand up tonight during debate and tomorrow when we have this vote, and make the case that this is a special place that deserves protection.

There is not enough oil in it to make a whit of difference, which I will get into later. Let's do the right thing here.

I am very pleased Senator Lieberman is here. He has taken a tremendous leadership role on this issue. It is my delight to yield him 10 minutes, or if he needs more time, I am happy to yield that as well.

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

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

I just want to thank my colleague once again for continuing to speak out from his heart on an issue that is on everyone's mind. I remember so well standing with my friend on this issue and coming to the floor in October and laying out a number of questions. How much would this war cost, I was asking in October. How long do we plan to stay in Iraq? Who would bear the combat risk with us? Who was going to pick up the bill? Are there any other countries, and what would they pay? And what is the impact of this war on terrorism here at home? Are we prepared?

It seems to me amazing--the question I have for my friend is--that here we are debating the budget for this year and everyone knows exactly what is going to happen because the President has been very open about it. We are going in there. I say to my friend, does he have one more answer today than he had those 5 months ago, in October? Does he have one more answer to those economic questions or those very important questions that were raised at that time than he had 5 months ago?

I thank my friend. I certainly will continue to ask.

I believe under the previous order Senator Kerry gets the floor; is that correct?

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

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

Mr. President, I say to my friend, if he does not mind yielding to me for an answer, we were very brief on this side. I spoke about 7 minutes. Several speakers spoke for 10 minutes.

All I am trying to do is get Senator Durbin into the debate. Senator Stevens may well want to go on for an hour or so. We just do not know. We are just trying to work Senator Durbin in at some point.

Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I will not be speaking long at all. I just want to put a few things in the Record and wrap up my comments for tonight. It will probably take me 10 minutes--maybe a little longer--and that will be it for me. I know Senator Murkowski and Senator Alexander would like to speak. I see Senator Cantwell is in the Chamber.

Let me put a few things in the Record.

The first thing I want to have printed in the Record is a letter from the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 187 Alaskan tribes. They oppose drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would also like to have printed in the Record an editorial that was published just yesterday in the Los Angeles Times. I think it said it very well. I would like to read part of it, and then I will have it printed in the Record. The first thing they do is call attention to the Fish and Wildlife Service. They have a Web site. And the Web site says:

The Arctic refuge is among the most complete, pristine and

undisturbed ecosystems on Earth . . . a combination of

habitats, climate and geography unmatched by any other

northern conservation area. . . .

And they say:

The refuge will no longer be complete, pristine or

undisturbed if President Bush and [Secretary Gale] Norton

have their way.

And they point out that Secretary Norton showed a slide and said:

This image of flat, white nothingness is what you would see

the majority of the year.

The LA Times makes the point that it is really an interesting situation. As a matter of fact, the headline is: ``A Curious Commemoration.'' It says:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proudly celebrating

the 100th anniversary of the national wildlife refuge system,

which it manages.

Then it just points out how ironic it is that Secretary Norton calls it an ``image of flat, white nothingness.''

I want to put that in Record. I think it is a good editorial. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in closing my remarks, I have shown the beauty of the wildlife refuge. Now I want to talk about the yield from the wildlife refuge when you compare it to what you could gain in energy with some very simple things we could do.

For example, better tires: We are talking about a 4.3 percent reduction in dependence on foreign oil if we could just get that out of tires. And this chart shows, in the billions of barrels, what could be saved in the same period of time.

Also, if you close the SUV loophole, look at how many billions of barrels you save by 2030. These are all by the year 2030. If we just said that cars would average 35 miles per gallon, look at the fuel economy we would save if that occurred by the year 2013. So by

the year 2030, look at this: We could do so much more for our country without giving up one bit of our quality of life, just getting the SUVs to have the same fuel economy as our autos. Every 6 years, you would actually have another ANWR field.

So for people to say we have to drill, we have to drill, we have to drill, I just would tell them, these are just a few ideas that some of us have on how we can avoid drilling in a place that looks like this chart shows, a place that President Eisenhower chose to save.

So I really think, if you look at the several arguments I have laid out--first, the fact is, this is not the way to go about debating the Arctic Wildlife Refuge: a little bit of a sentence in the big budget. That is not right. It deserves a lot more discussion.

This is a God-given, this God-given land. This is precious, and it deserves more debate than we are going to be able to give it tonight and a little bit in the morning. So it makes no sense. It is a magnificent area.

Second, we can get the equivalent way more--way more--than what you could get in the Arctic, by doing some very simple conservation. Just to take this SUV loophole: saying that they get the same mileage as cars, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 16 percent. This reduces it by 2 percent. Let's do it by 16 percent.

If we increase the CAFE, the corporate average fuel economy, to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2013, by the year 2030--listen to this; this will really get you excited if you are listening to this debate-- we could cut back on the importation of foreign oil by 43 percent.

So when anyone tells you, we have to drill in a place that looks like--you know what I want to show you, those beautiful pink flowers; here it is--that looks like this, yes, not every month of the year-- Washington does not look so great right now, but in a couple of months it is going to look good.

I don't think we want to bring the oil cranes on to the Capitol Grounds, although it kind of looks something like that right now.

I will close by showing some of the wildlife to my friend from Washington. These are so magnificent.

I ask unanimous consent that she be given 10 minutes upon completion of my remarks.

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

I close the debate the way I started it and leave it to my good friend to wrap things up. This is what we are talking about. No one could make this up: The polar bear; the muskoxen. Look at this; this is called the chart bird, so we have it on a chart. Quite extraordinary, isn't it? I say to my friends, think about what you are about to do here. Don't have this on your conscience when you could just raise fuel economy and have 10 ANWRs, 20 ANWRs, because when you save this, you save it over and over again.

I hope my amendment will pass. I am very proud that Senators Chafee and Snowe are on the amendment and other Republicans because this is not about politics, this is about saving a God-given gift. That is the way I see it.

I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their patience.