[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15702-S15703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments 
to speak on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  In their budget reconciliation package, Republican budget planners 
have mandated the oil exploration and drilling of the fragile coastal 
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This 125-mile stretch is 
the last protected area of the 1,100-mile Alaskan coastline. It is home 
to many precious species including caribou, polar bears, golden eagles, 
and grizzly bears.
  We have all seen the devastation wreaked by the drilling of the North 
Slope of Alaska and Prudhoe Bay. Before oil was discovered in the North 
Slope, it was part of the largest intact wilderness in the United 
States. The oil development of the North Slope has resulted in hundreds 
of open waste pits containing millions of gallons of oil industry waste 
and the destruction of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. There is 
no reason to believe that the drilling of the coastal plain would 
produce any less devastating effects. The damage caused by the 
construction of oil rigs, roads, and pipelines and the inevitable oil 
and chemical spills are simply not worth the assumed revenues of this 
short term private gain induced pillaging.
  As stewards of our few remaining wildlife refuges, I believe that we 
have an obligation to protect them and the animals that seek shelter 
within them.
  Mr. President, I also ask that an editorial by Jessica Mathews, which 
appeared in the Washington Post on October 23, 1995, be printed in the 
Record.
  The article follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 23, 1995]

                        Lusting After Black Gold

                          (By Jessica Mathews)

       Alaskans think they have a terrible financial problem. To 
     solve it they propose to ruin the last protected fragment of 
     the arctic coastal plain--part of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)--by opening it to oil drilling.
       Here's the problem. Alaska has no state income tax, no 
     sales tax and the lowest fuel taxes in the nation. It has the 
     highest per-capita income from the federal government of any 
     state. State spending is twice the national average. And it 
     has an $18 billion savings account, the Permanent Fund, that 
     provides an annual Christmas-in-September check of a little 
     less than $1,000 for every man, woman and child. You might 
     think of it as Saudi Alaska.
       Here's the bad news. The North Slope oil revenues that 
     underwrite this easy living are drying up, and the state now 
     has a half-billion-dollar deficit that's heading skyward.
       One can still think offhand of about 49 governors who would 
     love to have a fiscal problem like Alaska's. Solutions leap 
     to the mind. Impose a small sales tax. Raise the fuel tax a 
     bit. Cut the most egregious spending frills. Use some of the 
     income from the oil-funded savings account for the purpose 
     for which it was created instead of as a universal bonus 
     entitlement. Alaskans have a different answer. Drill ANWR--
     and hope that puts off the day of reckoning for a few more 
     years.
       In an unguarded moment of honesty, Alaska's congressional 
     delegation--Sens. Ted Stevens (R) and Frank Murkowski (R) and 
     Rep. Don Young (R)--made the linkage explicit in a recent 
     letter to constituents. The relevant passage says, in full: 
     ``Oil revenue funds about 85 percent of the state's budget, 
     but Prudhoe Bay is in decline. The administration is 
     threatening to veto legislation to open the coastal plain.''
       The other arguments for drilling in the refuge range from 
     flimsy to specious. For years, a favorite has been that it 
     would enhance national security by reducing the country's oil 
     import dependence. That won't wash anymore since Congress and 
     the administration have agreed to lift the 22-year-old ban on 
     exporting Alaskan oil. If we need to reduce oil imports, why 
     export our own?
       The best came Presidents Reagan and Bush could make for 
     opening ANWR was that 

[[Page S15703]]

     chances were one in two that its production would rise in a 
     few years to 4 percent of U.S. oil use, dropping to one 
     percent five years later and less thereafter. Not 
     surprisingly, Congress didn't find that a compelling reason 
     to make an irreversible sacrifice of the wilderness. If in 
     some presently unimaginable future the nation absolutely 
     required ANWR's oil it would still be there for the taking.
       Since then, the U.S. Geological Survey has slashed the 
     expected find by more than half. An offshore well drilled in 
     one of the most promising areas was a bust. Another hit oil 
     but not in developable quantity, though the company, Atlantic 
     Richfield, is still enthusiastic.
       Meanwhile, the expected market in which ANWR oil would have 
     to compete, has turned from tight to squishy. Projected oil 
     prices for the year 2000 are down from $38 to $19 per barrel. 
     That turns the industry's five-year-old projection, which it 
     is now shamelessly recycling, of 700,000 jobs created 
     nationwide, from highly unlikely to laughable.
       The last-resort claim is that drilling won't make much 
     difference to this narrow plain that is the biologically 
     crucial part--the birthing, denning, feeding and nursery 
     ground--of a much larger, fragle and unique arctic ecosystem. 
     But no matter how environmentally sensitive the effort, 400 
     miles of roads, 11 production facilities, four airstrips, two 
     ports, massive gravel mining and housing for several 
     thousand, plus associated emissions and toxic wastes are not 
     what most peole expect of wilderness. Neither will the plants 
     and animals.
       What's left? A short-term fix that might or might not 
     prolong the oil-welfare state. Not much there to arouse 
     support, even in Washington. So the state's powerful 
     congressional delegation, whose members chair both the House 
     and Senate Natural Resources Committees, came up with a 
     sweetener. They propose to give half of the hoped-for leasing 
     revenue to Washington, which helps make the numbers work in 
     the Republicans' deficit-reduction plan. If Congress counts 
     on the money, however, it is playing a chump's game. The 
     state has promised to sue for any split less than the 90 
     percent it believes is guaranteed by its Statehood Act.
       Alaska's congressmen want the name of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge changed to the Arctic Oil Reserve. It's 
     revealing that what's gone is not just wildlife, but the 
     national interest as well. Until Congress acts, they 
     unilaterally have adopted a new acronym, AOR. If the ANWR 
     proposal does pass, the delegation has a lot more to follow, 
     including develop in the Tongass National Forest and turning 
     back 70 million acres of federal lands to the state.
       Instead, Congress should give the ANWR proposal the 
     treatment it deserves. In the spirit of adopting new acronyms 
     it could send along a message as well: GRA. Get Real, Alaska. 
     The rest of us would trade for your troubles. Face the real 
     choices now--ANWR isn't the answer.

                          ____________________