[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Page 28502]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  ANWR

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past year, and on more 
occasions than I'd like to remember, I have talked about the abuse of 
process that proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge have resorted 
to in their attempts to pass an unpopular and misguided measure. Sadly, 
the Senate faces the very same issue today. Let me unequivocally state 
that talk of attaching an extraneous and obviously controversial 
provision regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the 
Department of Defense appropriations conference report--a provision 
that was not included in either the House or Senate version of the 
bill--is flat out irresponsible and should be rejected.
  This last-ditch effort to attach the Arctic Refuge drilling provision 
to the Department of Defense appropriations bill--or any other bill 
that is a ``must pass'' before we adjourn for the year--really reflects 
poorly on this body. And, what does it mean for greater mischief down 
the line? That whenever we can't move an unpopular proposal through the 
regular legislative process, there's no need to worry: you just attach 
it to an important funding bill? Is this the precedent that we, members 
of both parties, want to set? I sincerely hope not.
  Let me be very clear: I would prefer to be talking about setting a 
new path for our country's energy policy--a path that reduces our use 
of fossil fuels while favoring renewable sources of energy. 
Unfortunately, some of my colleagues are dead set on looking to the 
past, instead of to the future, for our sources of energy and are even 
willing to go so far as to use the bill that funds our men and women in 
uniform as a vehicle for their controversial measure. I am deeply 
disappointed by this latest move.
  I strongly urge any of my colleagues who are currently trying to add 
language to the Defense appropriations bill, or any other bill we need 
to consider in the coming days, that would open up the Arctic Refuge to 
oil and gas development, to reconsider those efforts. Continuing down 
that path, the path of circumventing established legislative processes 
to move measures that can't pass on their own merits, is an 
irresponsible abuse of the rules under which we operate that should be 
rejected out of hand.

                          ____________________