On the recordApril 5, 2000
I stand in complete support of his amendment, an amendment very similar to the one offered by my colleague, the Senator from California, in the Budget Committee. It should be kept in context that this budget resolution, without the Roth amendment, assumes $1.2 billion in royalties from the sale of oil from drilling in the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge. I want to say to Members of the Senate that the reason we are debating this is because the price of gasoline is increasing in the United States. People are more sensitized to the cost of fuel and energy and the impact it has on businesses, families, and individuals. Those who have been salivating for decades for an opportunity to drill in this wildlife refuge in Alaska have jumped at the chance to assume that we are so consumed by the increase in energy prices that we will cast aside any concern for the environment and the legacy which we should leave to future generations. Senator Roth is right. We should not be drilling in ANWR. We have to consider the fact that on the North Slope, 95 percent is already open to exploration. The 5 percent on the Coastal Plain that we have set aside is to protect what we have identified as a legitimate, important wildlife refuge. Oil companies and their supporters can't wait to drill in that wildlife refuge. I think it is wrong. I think Senator Roth is right, as Senator Boxer was in committee.
Source
govinfo.gov




