U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The Cantwell Amendment
Protecting The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge From Oil Exploration
March 16, 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for Senator Cantwell’s amendment to the Budget Resolution protecting the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Senator Cantwell’s amendment aims to strike a controversial provision that effectively paves the way to allowing oil and gas exploration in one of our nation’s most pristine and unique wild places.  This is a common-sense amendment, which upholds the will of the American people in preserving this remote area.  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

There is a strong consensus among all of us here, on both sides of the aisle that decisive steps need to be taken by this Congress to secure our nation’s future energy needs.  We know that energy demand is rising not only in our own country but around the world, especially in nations such as India and China.  We also know that there are grave national security implications for remaining reliant on foreign oil.  And we know first-hand from our constituents, many of whom are struggling to heat their homes this winter, that the price of oil remains disturbingly high. 

Drilling proponents want us to believe that resource exploration in the Arctic Refuge will be a one-stop solution to these critical energy challenges and that by doing so we will be closer to securing our future energy needs.  This insinuation is flat wrong.

Even drilling proponents concede that any recoverable oil that the coastal plain would yield would not reach world markets for at least another 7-12 years.  This will do absolutely nothing to help my constituents who have sticker shock at the gas pump or are seeing record home heating prices today.  Even during peak production, expected around 2025, the amount of oil from the Arctic Refuge would reduce American imports by only around three percent according to the Energy Information Agency. 

On numerous occasions I have come to the Senate floor urging my colleagues to adopt real solutions to our nation’s pressing energy challenges.  We should be increasing the nation’s fuel economy standards, which have remained unchanged for over ten years.  We should also be making a stronger commitment to the development of renewable energy and energy conservation technologies by offering tax incentives to both producers and consumers.  It is mind-boggling to me that drilling proponents have provided so little leadership in forwarding these policy solutions.  Instead they continue to offer the American people a false choice between environmental protection and energy security. 

In another bold move, the Administration has tried to sugarcoat oil development in the Arctic Refuge by massively inflating the projected revenues from anticipated lease sales there.  The Administration claims that lease sales will generate $2.5 billion in revenue in 2007.  To get to that amount, leases would have to sell for between $4,000 and $6,000 per acre.  In comparison, leases on the North Slope of Alaska have averaged only $50 per acre over the last twenty years.  When I questioned Interior Secretary Norton about this discrepancy she could not explain how the Administration got to its $2.5 billion estimate.  What Secretary Norton and the Administration don’t want to acknowledge is that these revenues are disturbingly inflated.  They also don’t want to acknowledge that oil companies have lost interest in drilling in the Refuge.  Only one company is still a member of the lobbying group pushing for this provision in the Budget Resolution.  The fact is that there are other places the oil companies prefer – places where it is cheaper to drill and where the environmental impacts are far less.

So why are we here today?  Opening the Refuge will do nothing to help reduce gas prices.  It will do nothing to make us less dependent on foreign oil.  Most oil companies are not asking for it.  I can certainly tell you that Vermonters do not want to see this special place developed.  In Vermont, we cherish the natural resources of our state.  We cherish the special resources of this country – Yellowstone, Acadia, the Grand Canyon.  I would put the Arctic Refuge on the same level as these national treasures. 

Let me make clear though.  I do not oppose energy development in this country. But not here, not in the Arctic Refuge.  It’s time to put this issue behind us and devote our time to working together on a sustainable, reliable energy supply for the future.