[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 165 (Monday, December 19, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13990-S13995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express great concern 
about the process, about what has been happening as it relates to the 
Defense appropriations bill. I have supported every appropriations bill 
for our troops since coming here to the Senate, and before in the 
House. I am deeply concerned about what I see in terms of abuse of the 
process, abuse of power involved in this debate on a bill that is 
critical for our troops, a bill that without the controversial 
provisions I believe would have overwhelming, positive, if not 
unanimous, support from this Chamber.
  I want to start by reading a portion of a letter from five 
distinguished retired generals from the Marines, the Army, and the 
Navy, that speaks to this in a way that I think we should all be 
listening to. This is a letter to our leaders in the Senate:

       We are very concerned that the FY2006 Defense 
     Appropriations Bill may be further delayed by attaching a 
     controversial non-defense legislative provision to the 
     defense appropriations conference report.
       We know that you share our overarching concern for the 
     welfare and needs of our troops. With 160,000 troops fighting 
     in Iraq, another 18,000 in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands 
     more around the world defending this country, Congress must 
     finish its work and provide them the resources they need to 
     do their job.
       We believe that any effort to attach controversial 
     legislative language authorizing drilling in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge to the defense appropriations 
     conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to 
     provide our troops and their families the resources they need 
     in a timely fashion.

  It goes on from there.
  Mr. President, I would not agree more. I ask unanimous consent that 
the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                December 17, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader,
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Frist and Senator Reid: We are very concerned 
     that the FY2006 Defense Appropriations Bill may be further 
     delayed by attaching a controversial non-defense legislative 
     provision to the defense appropriations conference report.
       We know that you share our overarching concern for the 
     welfare and needs of our troops. With 160,000 troops fighting 
     in Iraq, another 18,000 in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands 
     more around the world defending this country, Congress must 
     finish its work and provide them the resources they need to 
     do their job.
       We believe that any effort to attach controversial 
     legislative language authorizing drilling in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to the defense appropriations 
     conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to 
     provide our troops and their families the resources they need 
     in a timely fashion.
       The passion and energy of the debate about drilling in ANWR 
     is well known, and a testament to vibrant debate in our 
     democracy. But it is not helpful to attach such a 
     controversial non-defense legislative issue to a defense 
     appropriations bill. It only invites delay for our troops as 
     Congress debates an important but controversial non-defense 
     issue on a vital bill providing critical funding for our 
     nation's security.
       We urge you to keep ANWR off the defense appropriations 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Joseph P. Hoar,
                                General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.).
                                                 Anthony C. Zinni,
                                General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.).
                                               Claudia J. Kennedy,
                              Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.)
                                                      Lee F. Gunn,
                                    Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
                                                Stephen A. Cheney,
                      Brigadier General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.).

  Ms. STABENOW. Now is the time--past time. There is no reason for us 
to be here today on this Defense bill. This could have been done. We 
could have made it very clear that the dollars are there--critical 
dollars are there--for our troops, if it were not for an effort to 
subvert the process and the rules of the Senate and the efforts that 
have gone on to put things into this Defense bill that should not be 
there.
  Now, I am one who does not support drilling in ANWR. I have never 
voted for that. There is no relationship, in my mind, to energy 
independence or national security, as we look at the small amount of 
reserves that are there versus the tradeoff in terms of our environment 
and the commitment we have made as it relates to our environment. But 
regardless of that, that deserves a separate debate. We have had that 
debate on the floor of this Senate. We have had it a number of times.
  People have a right to have that debate and to be able to cast their 
votes concerning that issue, but it should not be included in a bill to 
support our troops, the men and women who are serving right now around 
the world. They deserve better than that. We can do better than that. I 
would hope we could clean up this bill, get those provisions out of 
there that have been put in for political purposes because they have 
not been able to pass in other ways, and be able to strictly focus on a 
bill to support our men and women in the armed services.
  What are some of the things in this underlying bill?
  Well, it provides a 3.1-percent across-the-board pay raise for 
military personnel. I support that. I am sure my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle do, as well.
  It provides an increase for basic housing allowance to eliminate out-
of-pocket housing expenses for military personnel. It is critical.
  It provides $142 million for body armor and personal protection 
equipment. How many times have we heard concerns regarding this? This 
$142 million is important. It needs to get passed now. It should not be 
part of a political struggle that has been going on in the Senate, in 
the House, and with the administration.
  The bill would provide $12 million to provide treatment for soldiers 
with head and blast injuries who are returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Again, on the equipment end, it would provide $1.4 billion for the 
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Task Force.
  It provides $170 million for up-armored HMMWVs and another $464 
million for humvee recapitalization.
  It provides $293 million for Army night vision equipment.
  It provides $1 billion to address equipment shortfalls for the Guard 
and Reserve. I can tell you, having talked with so many of our Guard 
and reservists, and having been there when they have left and been 
there when they have come home, we owe them a budget that will address 
the equipment shortfalls.
  We also owe them efforts to support their families and the needs of 
their families as they have been deployed and redeployed and redeployed 
into Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world.
  We are past time to get this done. There is no reason we should see 
the maneuvers going on that have gotten in the way of passing this 
bill.
  There is no reason. I hope they do not succeed. These maneuvers 
should not succeed. I hope we will say no and that we will then pass 
quickly the bill that has been worked on in good faith by so many.

[[Page S13991]]

  Let me give an example of another piece of legislation where this was 
done. I commend both the distinguished Senator from Virginia and my 
colleague, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senators Warner and 
Levin, who worked through a complicated Defense reauthorization bill. 
There were a lot of similar kinds of issues of extraneous measures 
being placed into that bill, but they worked through it. They kept 
their eye on the primary goal, which was to provide support for our men 
and women who are serving us, who are placed in harm's way, who are 
fighting terrorism, who are fighting to protect our families and our 
country, keep the focus on them, which they did. They have been able to 
produce a bill that is for the troops, for the Department of Defense, 
for the defense of our country, without extraneous measures in the 
legislation. I commend both of them for their leadership. It is an 
example time and again of what these two distinguished Senators have 
been able to do because they kept their focus where it should be--on 
the defense of our country and the support of those who are defending 
us around the globe.
  Compare that to what is in front of us today. Again, these measures 
are worth debating. The other issues that were put into the Defense 
bill deserve debate, have had debate on the floor of the Senate. They 
deserve that debate. They deserve up-or-down votes. But to take the 
excellent work that has been done on the Defense appropriations bill 
and put these together is plain wrong. I hope we will be successful in 
separating these issues so that those of us who strongly support this 
appropriations bill, who strongly support our troops, will have an 
opportunity to, again, hopefully, vote yes unanimously, without the 
debate on other issues such as drilling in ANWR where many of us are 
strongly in opposition to that issue and others that were placed in 
this bill.
  This is an opportunity for us to stand together, as we have done, as 
we will do on Defense reauthorization, as we have done so many times in 
the Senate, standing up on a bipartisan basis for our troops. I hope we 
will be able to do so again at the end of the day when this bill 
finally comes before us. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join with 
me in separating the controversial provisions unrelated to defense from 
this bill and give us the opportunity to support our men and women in 
the manner which they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan has asked a 
great question: Why are we here? And why is this bill before us? We are 
here primarily because, as I went through the process of trying to get 
the Arctic national wildlife area, the coastal plain open for 
exploration and development as was promised in 1980, I ran across a lot 
of things that were involved in this process this year that I, 
incidentally, support.
  I support LIHEAP. There is no question that there is a demand, 
because of the increase in the price of energy, for assistance to those 
people who have to pay more for their heating oil. We tried to deal 
with that in connection with the reconciliation act, and there was a 
billion dollars in that bill for that program. We face a demand from 
the people who believe in it, as I do, that that be increased.
  The provisions of ANWR in this bill, as we go into the process of 
trying to assist people who need assistance, will provide for $2 
billion for LIHEAP. That is $2 billion in 2006 in terms of 
appropriation of moneys now. These funds will be allocated based on 
emergency needs. That emergency will be repaid by funds generated from 
this amendment. Those funds we hope will be generated in 2008.
  Many people oppose declaring emergency after emergency. I agree with 
that. I think the greatest increase in our budget now is interest on 
the national debt once again. We have to stop that increase because as 
it increases, 
it squeezes out programs such as LIHEAP. But we put in here a provision 
to go ahead and help people in 2006 but repay it when the moneys come 
from ANWR.
  If you don't want to vote for ANWR, you are not going to get money 
for 2006 for LIHEAP. People say that is bad. That is the only place 
they could find the money. That is a program I support very much. When 
you look at these other areas, I will be coming back time and again to 
say to people: OK, you oppose ANWR, but where are you going to get the 
money to do some of the things we want?
  We have to stop exporting our money for oil. Every time we buy a 
barrel of oil from offshore, we export jobs. We export money. We can't 
get it back unless we reduce the value of our exports in order to try 
to balance our payments.
  I do believe we have a lot of problems. I will be discussing them 
today. But it is a good question: Why are we here? We are here because 
the Senate passed ANWR in the reconciliation process. The House passed 
the bill as a legislative item. The House insisted that we try to find 
a way to pass the ANWR provision in the Senate without putting it in 
the reconciliation bill. A bipartisan plea came to me from the House to 
put the ANWR provision on the Defense appropriations bill. I had said 
before: You don't want to do that. We have it in reconciliation. Why 
did we put it in the reconciliation bill? Because there has been a 
filibuster. We are not talking about a fair vote; we are talking about 
an assumption by opponents of this that we must have a filibuster every 
time we try to find some way to increase our domestic production of oil 
and gas.
  This is an area that is known as containing the largest single 
structure on the North American Continent from which oil and gas can be 
produced. We want to find a way to bring into production the oil from 
that vast area. A well was drilled there, and it was what we call a 
tight hole. It was agreed at the time it was drilled that the 
information from that drilling would only be provided to the Department 
of Interior and to the companies that drilled it, but it must be 
sealed. No one has ever published the results of that well. But the 
area has been drilled.
  I will say to the Chair that not one of the companies that 
participated in funding that well ever was discouraged from seeking the 
leasing at ANWR. So while they can't publish that it was good, their 
actions over 25 years demonstrate that it was good. The question is, 
Should we produce it? If we produce it, revenue from the bonus bids to 
get the leases will be used to repay what we spend in 2006 for LIHEAP. 
This program is to provide low-income heating assistance. This is a 
very legitimate way to get money for the home energy assistance program 
that is needed right now.
  Another thing that is tied into these funds is emergency 
preparedness. Another thing is equipment for first responders. Again, 
the funds there come from spectrum sales.
  Mr. President, the budget estimated $10 billion for spectrum sales. 
The FCC says it will be $28 billion. I conferred with the Congressional 
Budget Office and said: Look, you have estimated $10 billion, and the 
FCC says $28 billion. I am going to assume it is going to be at least 
$20 billion.
  They said: If you make that assumption, what you are doing in terms 
of spending in the bill, we cannot validate that because we deal with 
total predictability. You deal with probability when you look at that 
second $10 billion.
  I was the author of spectrum originally. Before that, spectrum was 
available through the FCC when it was released by one company. There 
was a lottery to see who got the right to have it. They literally drew 
from a hat. Whoever got that draw out of the hat got a piece of paper 
that entitled them to a license from the FCC worth millions and 
sometimes billions.
  I say: Why do that? Why don't you have an auction for that? When I 
was in the Department of the Interior, we used to do the same thing 
with leases on Federal lands. I convinced them at that time to find a 
way to auction those off. That is why we have the auction for the 
leasing of ANWR. We will get revenues from auction, and the estimated 
revenue by OMB and CBO is $2.5 billion. We know it is going to be at 
least $18 billion. All we are assuming is there is an additional $2.5 
billion involved. As it comes into the Treasury, it is earmarked to pay 
back these emergencies we have declared. I think that is legitimate and 
a way to be fiscally responsible--only if we lease ANWR.

[[Page S13992]]

  Those who want to take ANWR out of the bill are taking out funding 
for the things that flow from it and flow from an additional assumption 
that the receipts from spectrum are going to be more than estimated by 
CBO. I am going to be back again and again.
  We have been involved in this debate for a long time. Every time I 
come here I remember my departed friends, Senators Jackson and Tongass. 
As an old friend of mine says, I get ``puddled up'' a little. They were 
on the other side of the aisle, but we worked for the common good and 
we got a commitment that 1\1/2\ million acres of Alaska would remain 
open for oil and gas development. As they took the Carter bill through 
the Senate that withdrew 105 million acres of my State's land--my State 
has 365 million acres. This 105 million acres is roughly the size of 
California. All of that is not open for oil and gas development. It is 
not open for hardly anything. We have national parks, wildlife refuge, 
wilderness areas, and a whole series of classified types of programs 
where the public land laws don't apply.
  But the one area where the Mineral Leasing Act law still applies 
subject to an act of Congress to proceed is the 1\1/2\ million acres on 
the Arctic Plain. There is unquestioned money coming in from this 
auction, Mr. President. It will be big. Our oil industry is now 
developing throughout the world. The great, dynamic, young President of 
ConocoPhilips is in Moscow negotiating with the Russians today to get 
Russian oil for the United States. In 1980, we could not have even 
dreamed that we would have a chief executive officer of an American oil 
company in Moscow negotiating to get oil from Russia. We had just come 
through the embargoes of the 1970s, when the imports into the United 
States of oil from Arab countries was barred by an embargo.
  We are at the point now where we are dependent upon foreign oil for 
almost 60 percent of our total needs for petroleum. What we are saying 
is why don't we do what we know should be done? Congress passed this 
bill in 1995. Both Houses voted for it. It was an amendment that went 
to President Clinton, and he vetoed the bill.
  Mr. President, I believe we have a real problem in terms of our 
domestic production. Let me say this. Production from Prudhoe Bay, the 
area that brought in the great amount of production for the United 
States, averaged 1.6 million barrels a day in 1988, and it was down to 
381,000 barrels this year. That pipeline is designed to carry 2.1 
million barrels a day, and it did for a little while. It is down to 
381,000 barrels. North Slope production has dropped from 2.1 million 
barrels a day to 916,000 barrels a day. The production is expected to 
drop even further during this period ahead of us.
  The way to fill that pipeline back up is to complete exploration and 
development of that part of the Arctic Plain left open for development 
by my friends, Senators Jackson and Tongass after a long period of 
debate. I do believe there is a lot to be said about this bill. In 
2004, our trade deficit was $651.52 billion; 25 percent of that, one-
quarter--really 25.5--came from the importation of oil. People talk 
about our trade deficit. That is $166 billion in 2004. The reason we 
continue to be importing more oil is because we are producing less at 
home. We have doubled our energy imports since 1999. We have an 
insatiable demand for energy.

  I agree that we should develop alternative sources, but meanwhile we 
have to meet the demand, which is enormous. We are importing now, in 
September of this year, 9 million barrels a day, at an average cost of 
$55 per barrel. We spent $495 million a day--almost a half billion 
dollars a day is going out of the country to buy oil. For every barrel 
of oil we import, we send that $55 abroad. If that $55 was spent in the 
United States, changing hands several times in our economy, as the 
people who work and develop and produce that oil pay for goods and 
services, it would generate tax revenue. One of the reasons our tax 
revenue is not going up as predicted is we are importing more oil.
  For every $1 billion we spend to develop domestic resources, we 
create 12,500 jobs. That means in 2003 we lost over 1.3 million jobs by 
importing oil rather than producing it here. The public lands of the 
United States have been closed to oil and gas exploration. This area 
left open to oil and gas exploration in Alaska has been denied access 
for the oil and gas industry. We have had a 75-percent increase in the 
price of gasoline during this period. Why? The total cost of oil is now 
determined by foreign producers, not by competition with domestic 
producers.
  By developing the resources on the coastal plain, we could create 
between 700,000 and a million American jobs, and we would put $60 
million back into the U.S. economy every day that we produce and send 
that oil south in the oil pipeline.
  I do believe there is every reason to be here today. There is every 
reason to say let's vote; let's vote on the conference report. That 
conference report ought to be approved. It has money for Defense and 
for Katrina, in terms of the disaster area; it has the money for the 
avian flu, and particularly the liability provisions that are necessary 
to make that work.
  Mr. President, I think we should think twice about this and people 
saying something is wrong here. We have repeatedly at times in the past 
challenged the ruling of the Chair. We did it really in terms of very 
controversial subjects in terms of the FedEX bill and in terms of the 
aviation bill in 1996. We are not trying to do something that has never 
been done. I have heard some Senators accuse me of breaking the rules. 
I am here because of the rules, Mr. President. I am here because we are 
using the rules to try to achieve the passage of this very vital 
measure for our national defense because it has been filibustered. We 
did pass it in connection with the Reconciliation Act this year, and I 
believe we ought to recognize that there is no question about our need 
to develop and produce in this area.
  I don't want to keep going. I could go all month about ANWR. I have 
been dealing with it for 25 years. I don't even need any notes to keep 
going for a day. The point is if anybody else wants to speak, I will be 
glad to yield to them.
  This is a very vital subject, as far as I am concerned. The necessity 
for it is linked to national defense, there is no question about it.
  This bill contains $446.7 billion for the Department of Defense. It 
includes $50 billion to sustain contingency operations for Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It has a 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for 
military personnel.
  My colleague and I, my great friend and cochairman from Hawaii, 
Senator Inouye, managed this bill. There is no question we did our best 
within the amount of money allowed to take care of the essential needs 
for the Department of Defense. Without this bill, the Department of 
Defense has to continue to defer spending, freeze contracts, postpone 
repair projects, and delay hiring. It is currently operating under a 
continuing resolution. I opposed a continuing resolution. I said, no, 
let's pass this bill, in July. I said when we came back in September, 
let's pass this bill.
  It has been delayed. Why? Because of so many demands on the Congress 
coming out of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. We have been 
immersed in trying to solve the problems that came out of those 
monstrous disasters.
  I do believe that if the Senate votes not to take this conference 
report, we will need a new conference. We will have to appoint new 
conferees, and the process will start from the beginning. The important 
thing is, unless ANWR is back in there, there is not money for LIHEAP, 
there is not money for first responders, there is not money for 
interoperability, there is not the money for the various items we have 
been able to find ways to pay for because of the development of ANWR.
  I predict we can quickly get at it if we have to, as I said, but if 
we vote to do it, and we can vote today--we can vote for both this and 
the reconciliation process today--this bill could be on the President's 
desk tonight. It is right there. It is on the desk. It can be voted on. 
We are ready to vote. The reason we sat through last night was they 
would not let us vote.
  I do think we should understand that the failure to vote on this bill 
is a failure to respond to the needs of the country. My staff and I 
have worked many days on this. We have worked long hours, as I told my 
group at home. We have burned the midnight oil on this one. We examined 
the needs when I

[[Page S13993]]

went down to New Orleans with our Commerce Committee. We examined the 
needs in hearings of our Department of Defense Subcommittee. We 
examined the needs in terms of the Commerce Committee. Senator Inouye 
and I heard about the needs of first responders and the need for 
interoperability equipment for them. This bill gives it to them. It 
responds to their needs.
  It doesn't pay all of them right away, but it says: Look, you can get 
the money you need to start this, but as the money starts coming in 
from ANWR and spectrum, you will be able to proceed with the programs 
you need to have funded.
  This is a serious issue. Our national security depends upon a 
reliable supply of oil that is not subject to the whims of a foreign 
country or adversaries.
  The fuel used by the Department of Defense is delivered today 
primarily through the Trans-Alaska pipeline system, and much of it is 
refined in our State right now. Jet fuel in our State used by the 
Department of Defense includes 52 million gallons per year at Elmendorf 
and other places, 21 million gallons per year in Eielson, 3.5 million 
gallons of JP5 used by the Coast Guard. A total of 76.5 million gallons 
a year comes from current production of oil in Alaska.
  The Alaska pipeline amendment, as I said before, was not filibustered 
because there was complete agreement in the Senate. Not one person 
suggested that pipeline amendment should be delayed. It was a close 
vote. The Vice President broke the tie on the Trans-Alaska pipeline. No 
one realizes it, but at the time, it was predicted there was to be 1 
billion barrels of oil produced from that area. We have produced 14 
billion barrels already.
  Overall the Department of Defense uses 4.62 billion gallons of oil a 
year. In Iraq alone, the total amount predicted to be consumed per year 
is 5.76 billion gallons. And yet we are almost totally dependent now on 
foreign sources. It is not right.
  Let me quote from my good friend Senator Jackson, then chairman of 
the Energy Committee, when he addressed the Senate on the pipeline. 
Senator Jackson said:

       The pipeline involves a national security issue. There is 
     no serious question today that it is urgently needed in the 
     national interest to start the North Slope oil flowing to 
     markets.

  That is the Democratic Senator from Washington, chairman of the 
Energy Committee at the time.

  People today challenge my statement that oil is a national security 
issue. He said that at the time of the debate on the oil pipeline 
amendment in 1973. He said, I repeat:

       This involves a national security issue. There is no 
     serious question today that it is urgently needed in the 
     national interest to start North Slope oil flowing to 
     markets.

  This area known as ANWR is the balance of the North Slope production 
area, and it should be available for production.
  I have a lot of other issues to mention. At the very least, we ought 
to compare our situation. In 1973, when the oil embargo took place, we 
imported one-third of our oil, our petroleum. Now we import 60 percent. 
Without ANWR, by 2025, we will import 70 percent of our oil. We will be 
more than two-thirds dependent upon foreign sources for oil.
  What will we do in times of need? I remember those lines in the 
seventies. Some of us remember them well. I remember rationing in World 
War II. Are we going to go to a system of rationing? Our foreign 
imports are not that secure, no matter what anybody says.
  Senator Hutchison is on the floor, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
Defense appropriations bill, in favor of Katrina and Rita supplemental 
help. This is such an important piece of legislation. This is a bill 
that has already passed the House. It only lacks Senate approval to go 
to the President and give the Defense Department the appropriations it 
needs to do the job we are asking them to do. It will also help the 
people on the gulf coast who have been waiting for the signal that they 
will have some relief.
  I start by talking about the defense part of this bill and say that 
it would be unthinkable not to pass the Defense appropriations that we 
must have to stay in an orderly way, going into the next year, with the 
priorities we have set for this fiscal year. Continuing resolutions are 
last year's priorities. So it is essential for Congress to act.
  I have heard some on the floor say: ANWR is a big surprise. ANWR is 
hiding the ball. Putting ANWR in this bill is somehow thwarting the 
will of the Senate. The opposite is true. The Senate has voted in favor 
of ANWR. The House and the Senate have voted in favor of ANWR.
  If we were putting something in a conference report that had never 
passed the Senate, that would be one thing. ANWR has been adopted by 
the Senate. Those who would hold up this bill are thwarting the will of 
the majority. I do believe we have a national security issue and an 
economic viability issue for our country if we put our heads in the 
sand and say, well, we know there is a shortage of energy, we know the 
price of gasoline has gone up almost a dollar--it went up almost $2 
after the hurricanes hit for a short period of time, but thanks to the 
leadership of the President, who took very swift action opening the 
reserves, we were able to bring the price back down, but we know there 
is an energy shortage in the world. We know there are various reasons 
for that because there are more consumers now, because the economies of 
China and India and other places are now using more energy.
  So if we are a country that is looking out toward the future, if we 
are a country that is going to make sure we have economic viability, we 
must take the steps to assure that we have energy supplies from our own 
resources in order to meet this challenge, and that means that we look 
for new sources of energy. It means we do research for renewable 
sources of energy. It means we highlight conservation and give tax 
credits for all of these items that would add to our energy stability, 
and yes, it also means we provide more opportunity to drill for the 
basic energy providers for our country, and that is oil and gas.
  For some of those whom I have heard debating, to say, Oh, yes, we 
have an energy crisis in this country, but we should not drill on the 
east coast and we should not drill on the west coast and now we should 
not drill within 200 miles of Florida and we should not open up ANWR, 
is irresponsible. We should be looking to open up our own resources so 
that we are not dependent on foreign countries for our energy needs, 
and we should do it by opening up ANWR, which is the largest domestic 
resource we have. Approval for this has been passed by a majority of 
the Senate and a majority of the House time and time again. The will of 
the majority is being thwarted again, because we are looking to the 
future.
  Let us take another argument that could be made. Maybe the people who 
live around ANWR or in whose State ANWR is do not want it. Are we 
forcing something on them by allowing this drilling? Oh, no. The people 
of Alaska have said time and time again they do want to drill in ANWR. 
They want to drill in ANWR because they know it will be done in an 
environmentally safe way. They know that the area which would be 
drilled is an area about the size of Washington National Airport in 
ANWR, which is an area the size of the State of South Carolina. The 
people of Alaska know that. They know it will not hurt the environment 
of their own State. They know it will provide jobs for their people. 
They know it will provide quality education for their children and 
small business opportunities for the people who live there and would 
come there to add to the economy of Alaska. So the people of Alaska who 
would feel the direct impact of drilling in this very small area want 
ANWR to be drilled because they know what it will do for the economy of 
their home State of Alaska. So we have the capability to drill in a 
very small area.
  By the way, it is grassland. There are no trees in this part of ANWR. 
Sometimes I see the pictures on television against drilling in ANWR, 
and it looks like a pristine forest. There are no trees in this area. 
It is a grassland. In fact, there will be drilling when everything is 
iced over anyway. The roads will be ice roads that will melt in the 
summer, when there will not be drilling, so there will be no footprint. 
So I cannot think of anything more environmentally safe, and I think it 
is very

[[Page S13994]]

important for the future of the economy of Alaska and more importantly 
for the future security of our country because economic security is 
national security.
  Can one imagine an economic downturn when we have had so many crises 
in our country in the last 5 years, starting with 9/11, a war on 
terror, an insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan, which is on its way to 
self-governance, and then there is Katrina and Rita, a tsunami and an 
earthquake in Pakistan, and we are trying to help all of the people 
affected by these tragedies? An economic downturn--it would be 
irresponsible for us to allow it to happen if we have any control, and 
ANWR is part of establishing our economic security by assuring that we 
will have energy no matter what else happens, whether it is a hurricane 
or whether it is a foreign country that provides a good source for us 
of oil and gas that all of a sudden says: Well, we are not going to 
provide that anymore, or if we do, it is going to be at such a price 
that it will affect your economy.
  We are over 50 percent dependent on foreign sources for our energy 
needs today in America, and that is not a sign of the strongest Nation 
on Earth. So to say that ANWR is a surprise is wrong. To say that it 
has blind-sided the minority in this body is wrong. The Senate has 
passed ANWR before. We have passed it this year, and it is time that we 
get this bill to the President.
  In the supplemental appropriations for the victims of Katrina and 
Rita, it is so important that we have accomplished the first real help 
that goes not only directly to the people but also to begin the 
infrastructure improvements where the gulf coast has been ravaged. One 
of the things I have tried to do in this bill is to ensure that where 
the evacuees have gone, the money will also go. This is hurricane 
assistance like we have never seen before.
  In a normal hurricane, there are maybe 2 or 3 months of significant 
displacement, and there is a lot of cleanup and a lot of rebuilding, 
but most people are back in their area after a few weeks. Katrina so 
devastated Louisiana and Mississippi that people have had to flee with 
absolutely nothing, and they have had to stay in other States, get jobs 
if they can, get housing where they can, and educate their children. So 
that has meant that States such as Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, 
and Tennessee have paid a large part of the expense of the taking care 
of the people displaced by this hurricane, rather than the burden being 
on those States actually hit by the hurricane.
  So we have had to rethink the model for how to provide this 
assistance and how we meet the needs of today. My home State of Texas, 
I think it is well known, has taken in the range of 400,000 
evacuees. We have in the range of more than 40,000 in our school 
systems. We have had almost no reimbursement for the education of these 
children. We have had to repair schools that were closed so they can 
reopen. We have had to add temporary facilities. We have had to hire 
teachers and also try to welcome these children in so they would be 
able to function in the classroom. This has taken huge resources, tens 
of millions of dollars from our State.

  I passed a bill in September that would have allowed the per-pupil 
cost of educating these students to be reimbursed, which would have 
especially helped these States which have taken large numbers. Texas 
has taken the most, but other States, relative to their populations, 
are in much the same situation. These are hits on education systems 
that they cannot absorb. Yet the bill I passed in the Senate in 
September never passed the House. Finally, last night, in this 
supplemental appropriations bill we have addressed the needs of these 
children in the way I had asked in September that they be helped. We 
are giving the help to these school systems that have taken in these 
children.
  Our school districts and our States have been footing the bill for 
these added education expenses since the children came over--in 
desolation, frankly--right after that level-5 hurricane hit the gulf 
coast of America.
  To think this bill would be held up because there are people on the 
other side who want to thwart the majority that has passed ANWR and 
would hold up our Defense Appropriations bill and our supplemental 
appropriation for the victims of Katrina and Rita. I hope those who 
would thwart this bill would reconsider.
  In this bill, we have money for the education of the students, which 
has been a priority for me. It also includes money for repairs and 
dredging of waterways in the hurricane-affected States; plus, of 
course, money to start rebuilding the levees in New Orleans; grants for 
the Department of Labor for displaced workers; social services block 
grants; Head Start money for children displaced by the hurricanes; 
community development block grants in the hurricane-affected States, 
which includes Texas. Texas has spent just about all of its community 
development block grant money, much of it for hurricane assistance, so 
we will look forward to replenishing some of that which was needed 
before the hurricane. It has money for highway, road, and bridge 
repairs, and for State and local law enforcement assistance. I can tell 
you, having toured in Houston, Austin, and Dallas, the convention 
centers where evacuees were being held, there was a lot of overtime 
money for the law enforcement personnel, and that needs to be 
reimbursed because those police departments and sheriffs departments 
are not able to absorb that. There is money from the Small Business 
Administration for disaster loans and money for manufacturing extension 
centers.
  There is an offset for all of this added money because there are many 
people in our country who believe that spending more money and adding 
to our deficit is not the responsible thing to do. So there is a 1-
percent across-the-board cut in discretionary spending. Veterans are 
exempt from this. Obviously exempt from this would be salaries of our 
military and civilian personnel. There will be no cuts in veterans 
health care. That is something I talked to Senator Cochran about on 
Sunday, to make sure we did not cut into the veterans health benefits, 
because we had just put in an added $1.2 billion because there were 
more calls on the veterans health care programs. I certainly didn't 
want to get into a hole in that department.
  We have offset this supplemental expenditure with an across-the-board 
cut in the discretionary spending and other areas so we do not add to 
the deficit.
  In addition, in this conference report, we have ensured that avian 
flu vaccines will be available in this country. Again, we are looking 
out for something that we see happening in another part of the world 
and are trying to protect our citizens if somehow avian flu does come 
to our shores.
  The LIHEAP money we have passed on this floor has an added amount of 
$2 billion for home heating assistance. That is very important in 
certain places in our country where heating assistance is needed. We 
all know the cost of energy is going to be very high this winter.
  There are border security improvements. I come from a State that is 
very concerned about the security of our borders. I went with the 
majority leader just 2 months ago on a helicopter tour of the border, 
where we saw the footprints that were very fresh in the fields in 
Mexico, that walk right into the Rio Grande River, knowing those were 
illegal aliens who had just come into our country. We went to one of 
the border stations where we saw illegal aliens being processed. They 
were not from Mexico, they were from other countries. So the funds for 
increased border security are in this bill. This is something that is 
important to the security of our country.
  I hope we will be able to pass this bill without being thwarted by 
the minority. We will have more than a majority if we are forced to 
cloture. I do not know if we will have 60 votes, but it will be the 
majority of the Senate speaking on these important issues: the 
Department of Defense appropriations and the Katrina and Rita 
supplemental appropriation which will get people the help they need in 
important areas such as education, debris cleanup, medical treatment, 
and reimbursement. It has provided for other areas of emergency needs 
such as the avian flu vaccine, LIHEAP assistance, border security 
improvements--things that we have worked on all year in the Senate and 
which have the support of a majority of this body.
  This is not the time to be held up on procedural motions that would 
require

[[Page S13995]]

60 votes when the majority should be able to go forward on policies 
that have been set in the Senate all year. The Senate has passed ANWR. 
The Senate has passed Katrina- and Rita-related supplemental 
appropriations. The Senate always passes the Department of Defense 
appropriations. It would be unthinkable not to be able to do that 
before we leave for the year, to fulfill our responsibility. I hope we 
can come together at a time when we should show our country this unity.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for not to exceed 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2145 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.

                          ____________________