[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16557-S16560]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LEASE SALE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there is, in the reconciliation bill 
passed, in both the Senate and the House, an item known as ANWR, the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge lease sale. There have been many views, 
versions, and interpretations of just what this is all about. I think 
it is appropriate that a Representative from Alaska, again, highlight 
the facts concerning this very important issue relative not only to the 
reconciliation package, where it is anticipated to result in a lease 
sale of about $2.6 billion, but its contribution to the national energy 
security interests of our country.
  Mr. President, let me attempt to put the issue in an understandable 
perspective relative to the size of the area that we are concerning 
ourselves with and the actual footprint anticipated.
  First of all, there is a bit of a misnomer associated with ANWR, the 
Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. I hope the Chair can see this chart. 
Perhaps I should put it up a little higher. This does a pretty good job 
of describing the area in question. ANWR itself covers, basically, this 
top area, which is the coastal plain, about 1\1/2\ million acres; there 
is this wilderness area in green here, about 8 million acres. It covers 
the Arctic National Refuge--this portion here, which is in an area that 
is in refuge. That is about 9 million acres. It covers this up in the 
Arctic coastal plain. This is 1.5 million acres. The point is that the 
Refuge is about the size of the State of South Carolina.

[[Page S 16558]]

  When we talk about allowing an oil lease sale, there are a lot of 
misconceptions relative to just what the footprint will be. As I have 
indicated, the wilderness area, the green area, is not in jeopardy. 
That has been put in a wilderness status by Congress permanently, and 
that was initiated back in 1980.
  The area of the refuge, which is the color orange--roughly 9 million 
acres--was also set aside in a permanent refuge in 1980. This area in 
yellow, the small area at the top, consists of 1\1/2\ million acres. 
That is the 1002 area that was left out of the permanent designations 
in 1980 by Congress for Congress to address the appropriateness of 
allowing oil and gas leases in the area.
  So what we have here is, out of the 19 million acres, an area of 1\1/
2\ million acres where the Congress is now making a determination on 
whether or not a lease sale should take place. This little area up 
here, as you see in the red or maroon color, is Kaktovik. That is an 
Eskimo village. The proposal is to lease 300,000 acres out of the 19 
million acres of ANWR. In reality, it is 300,000 acres out of the 
coastal plain, a very small area. People have indicated that the 
Canadian border is right in here--that this area has virtually never 
had a footprint in ANWR. Obviously, that is incorrect. There is an 
Eskimo village. There is a radar site at Barter Island. Two abandoned 
radar sites are along the coast. So there has been a footprint, but it 
has been very negligible.
  Geologists tell us that this is the most likely place in North 
America where a major oil discovery might take place. We really do not 
know whether the oil is there, and you do not know where to look for 
it; and when you look for it, you usually do not find it. When you look 
for it in Alaska and find it, you better find enough because of the 
cost of developing and transporting the oil.
  It is rather curious to note that on this chart we have the area to 
the west, Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay, as most Members know, has been 
supplying this Nation with 25 percent of its total crude oil production 
for the last 18 years. The significance of Prudhoe Bay is that, while 
it has continued to flow at a rate much higher than predicted, and the 
recovery is much higher today, that field is in decline.
  Production has been as high as 2 million barrels a day. Today it is 
down to 1.5 million barrels a day. As a consequence, we are importing 
more oil from overseas sources.
  To give you an idea, Mr. President, and many Members really do not 
reflect on this, but in 1973 we had an oil embargo in this country--the 
Arab oil embargo--and the significant thing at that time, we were 36 
percent dependent on imported oil--36 percent.
  Today, our Nation is just a little over 50 percent dependent on 
imported oil. For those of you who have perhaps forgotten, in 1990 we 
had a war in the Persian Gulf. That was a war over oil. It was also an 
environmental catastrophe in Kuwait. You recall the burning of the 
oilfields.
  Now, earlier this year, our Department of Commerce put out a report 
that said the national energy security interests of the United States 
were as risk as a consequence of our increased dependence on imported 
oil. Several years ago there was a great deal of discussion in the 
Nation relative to the increased dependence on imported oil, and there 
were those who suggested we would have to take steps--positive steps--
to decrease our dependence on imported oil if we ever approach 40 or 45 
percent dependence on imports. Here we are today at 50 percent.
  We hear a lot about our trade deficit. We are buying more overseas 
than other nations are buying from the United States. It is interesting 
to look at the makeup of that. Roughly half is our trade deficit with 
Japan. Mr. President, the other half is the cost of imported oil.
  Now, about 25 to 30 years ago when they were contemplating whether to 
open Prudhoe Bay, they made the initial discovery. They had a question 
of how to transport the oil to market. Some may recall the Manhattan, a 
U.S. tanker that had been reinforced to move through the ice through 
the fabled Northwest Passage, taking the oil from Prudhoe Bay, AK, over 
the top of the world, but they found the ice conditions were such it 
was an impractical alternative and proceeded to initiate the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline--an 800-mile pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez.
  It proved to be one of the engineering wonders of the world. It 
withstood bombs. It withstood dynamite. It withstood rifle shots. It 
withstood earthquakes. There was a bad accident in Valdez with the 
Exxon Valdez when it went aground, but certainly it had nothing to do 
with the integrity of the pipeline.
  What we have here is a situation where the arguments used against 
this were very vocal--national preservation, environmental groups said 
this would be a hot pipeline. The oil comes out of the ground hot. You 
were putting the pipeline in permafrost, permanently frozen ground; 
therefore, you will melt the ground from the heat of the pipeline; that 
will cause the pipeline to break.
  What about the animals, the caribou, the moose? Are they going to 
cross the pipeline? You will have an 800-mile fence across Alaska. 
Clearly, that was not the case. The pipeline did not thaw the ground.
  As a matter of fact, many of the moose and caribou feed upon the 
pipeline because there is more vegetation. As the Acting President pro 
tempore from Montana is very much aware, any heat in an area where you 
have vegetation causes the grass to grow. We have the animals browsing 
in the spring on top of the buried pipeline because the grass grows 
more profusely in those areas.
  The point is, the same arguments used against opening up the ANWR, or 
arctic oil reserve, are the same arguments used 25 years ago. They were 
predicting doom. You could not do it safely.
  What about the people of the area? We have the Inupiat Eskimos in 
Point Barrow, Wainwright. The Eskimos were concerned because there was 
a question about their dependence on subsistence. What would happen to 
the caribou? Here is a picture, Mr. President, an actual picture of a 
very small portion of the central Arctic herd. Can you see the caribou? 
There are lots of them. They are all real. There are males and females. 
You see the pipeline in the background, and you see an oil rig under 
drilling. Once this area is drilled, this rig will be removed. Clearly, 
you see they are compatible.
  Now, the Eskimos were fearful this development would harm the caribou 
and their dependence on subsistence. They are, today, advocates of 
opening up the Arctic oil reserve because they have seen for 
themselves, they have satisfied themselves that this activity has 
provided them with another alternative to subsistence. That is, jobs. 
They have jobs in huge areas of northern Alaska where jobs did not 
exist any before. They have a choice of jobs or subsistence.
  Today, Point Barrow--at the top of the world, you can cannot go any 
further north--without a doubt, has the finest schools in the United 
States, without exception. They have indoor recess areas. They have 
been able to do this because they have the taxing capability, they have 
a revenue stream from the oil activities. They have jobs.
  There is a concern being expressed by a group of our Native people in 
Alaska called the Gwich'ins, and this chart shows what this issue is 
all about, involving another caribou herd. The caribou herd that moves 
in this general area of the Porcupine River is called the Porcupine 
caribou, named for the Porcupine River that flows in and out of Canada 
and affects the villages of Arctic Village and Venetie.
  The particular native people in this area are not the Eskimos of the 
North Slope but are very dependent on the Porcupine caribou herd for 
their livelihood and subsistence. This is the line that separates 
Canada from the United States up at the top of the world. This caribou 
herd is about 165,000.
  As far as caribou are concerned, in Alaska we have 34 herds. We have 
about 990,000 caribou in the 34 herds. Two-thirds of the herds are 
increasing in numbers and 15 percent are in decline, and the rest are 
relatively stable. The herds fluctuate.
  As the Senator from Montana well understands, they can overgraze 
their particular area and their numbers decline. There can be a 
concentration of predators in an area and numbers decline. There can be 
hard winters and the numbers decline.
  This particular herd is the Porcupine caribou herd--about 152,000 
animals. 

[[Page S 16559]]

 The people that are dependent on this herd are the Gwich'ins, and they 
are in Canada and Alaska. Three quarters of them are in Canada and the 
rest are in the villages of Venetie and Fort Yukon. They are fearful 
they will lose this subsistence dependence as a consequence of activity 
associated with the lease-sale development and hopefully discovery.
  I point out, Mr. President, a footprint is pretty small. The proposed 
lease sale in the Arctic oil reserve--this is a term I use--because it 
differentiates from the 19 million acres of ANWR, the actual area under 
consideration, the 300,000-acre lease sale out of the 1.5 million is 
pretty small in comparison to the entire area.
  But the facts are, these caribou migrate in from Canada, come up into 
this area, and many of them calve. They calve where they calve; not in 
one spot, necessarily. It depends on the winter. Sometimes very few of 
them calve in America. They calve in Canada. But they come out here by 
preference, if they can, because they come to the coastal areas where 
the wind blows and there are fewer flies and mosquitoes and it is just 
a lot more pleasant.
  As a consequence, the question is, can we have development compatible 
with migration?
  If the Prudhoe Bay case is any evidence, we think we can. But what we 
are anxious to do is work with the Gwich'ins on both the Canadian and 
Alaskan side to form an international caribou management system to 
ensure that these animals are not disturbed.
  The theory behind that would be that development, in the sense of 
exploration, drilling and so forth--which occurs in the wintertime, I 
might add--would not take place during the calving time, which is 3 to 
4 weeks during the early summertime. So we can address that adequately. 
But that is one of the major issues that is used to suggest that the 
Porcupine caribou herd is at risk by this development.
  Interestingly enough, these dots on the Canadian side represent sites 
of actual drilling for oil that took place in the 1970's. It is 
interesting to note also that there is a highway here, the Dempster 
Highway in Canada. It goes from near Dawson up to Fort McPherson. These 
caribou in their migration cross that highway. The Canadian Government 
did not see fit to do an environmental impact statement when they built 
that highway on the effect it would have on the caribou. The reality is 
it had very little if any effect, just as any activity in the coastal 
plain will have very little if any effect. We can take steps to ensure 
that it does not have an effect.
  The argument that the Porcupine caribou herd is in jeopardy because 
of this activity is a bogus argument. It is a bogus argument fostered 
by some of the national preservation, environmental groups, that look 
upon this issue as a cause celebre. It generates membership, it is 
idealistic, it generates dollars. The American people cannot see for 
themselves just what kind of a footprint there would be. The American 
people cannot communicate, if you will, with the Eskimo people, as to 
what the advantages have been for them with the associated development 
and employment in their area.
  I might add, for those who are not familiar with this area, because 
of the permafrost in these areas it is almost impossible to have 
underground utilities. So the tradition in these villages is no running 
water. The water is hauled in. There are no sewage facilities. You have 
what you call honey buckets. The honey bucket man comes around two or 
three times a week and you dump your honey bucket in the honey bucket 
wagon. A lot of people do not know that in many parts of rural Alaska 
that is the standard way of life.
  As a consequence of having a tax base, these villages are getting 
running water, they are getting sewage capability, things that we take 
for granted and have never questioned. But if you do not step in 
another man's shoes and appreciate how he lives, you will never know 
what it is like--not to have running water and sewage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a consequence, the merits of this, 
what this means to the people of the area, are significant. The people 
in the area, the Eskimo people, are speaking for themselves and they 
are speaking against the interests as enunciated by the Gwich'ins, who 
are very much opposed to this.
  I visited one of the Gwich'in villages, Arctic Village. I was up 
there in August. I was also in Venetie. I went into the meeting hall in 
Arctic Village and was cordially hosted. They had a big poster, a 
Hollywood poster of the buffalo. The sign under the poster said, 
``Don't let happen to the Porcupine caribou herd what happened to the 
buffalo.'' Mr. President, they were out to shoot the buffalo and that 
is what they did. This activity has nothing to do with going out and 
shooting the Porcupine caribou. The caribou are very adaptable, unless 
you run them down with a snow machine or begin shooting them and so 
forth. So, as a consequence, there is absolutely no suggestion that 
this herd is going to be affected by this activity.
  The Eskimos have invited the Gwich'ins to come up to Barrow, at their 
expense, to see for themselves what the alternative advantages are for 
jobs, tax base, and so forth. Unfortunately, there are tremendous 
pressures by the environmental groups that are funding, through the 
Gwich'in Steering Committee, ads in the New York Times and other 
efforts in opposition to this. We have also seen, unfortunately, the 
Secretary of the Interior, who is very much opposed to this 
development, side with the Gwich'ins.
  The Gwich'ins are a relatively small population in Alaska, somewhere 
in the area of 400 to 500 people at most. Most of the Gwich'ins live in 
Canada. Of course, Canada is a competitor of the United States, a 
competitor to Alaska in the sense that Canada supplies a lot of energy 
to the world, a lot of energy to the United States. So the official 
position of the Canadian Government is very much opposed to the 
development of energy in Alaska because they see us as a competitor 
against their market which provides energy into the United States--gas, 
oil from Alberta, and so forth. As far as the Porcupine caribou herd 
and the dependence on that, about 300 to 400 animals are taken each 
year by the Alaskan Gwich'in people, about 4,000 by the Canadian 
Gwich'in people.
  So, this is the environmental issue: Whether or not this area can be 
opened safely without harming the Porcupine caribou herd and the 
Gwich'in people.
  To suggest that American technology and ingenuity cannot open up this 
area and do it safely is really selling short America. This pipeline 
was one of the construction wonders of the world. Prudhoe Bay is the 
best oilfield in the world. You may not like oilfields, but it is the 
best. The environmental oversight, permitting requirements are higher 
than anywhere else in the world. It is suggested by industry that they 
can have a very small footprint in this coastal plain, if allowed to 
initiate drilling. People have said, ``Senator, you are from Alaska. 
Obviously you have a position on this issue. How do you know that? How 
do you know that footprint is going to be small?''
  About 8 years ago we came out and found another field adjacent to 
Prudhoe Bay called Endicott. That came on production as the 10th 
largest producing field in the United States, at about 110,000 barrels 
a day. Today it is the seventh largest at nearly 130,000 a day. They 
put a little island offshore here. And the footprint is 56 acres--56 
acres.

  Mr. President, this area is 19 million acres, as I said. The coastal 
plain up here is 1.5 million acres. We are talking about a 300,000-acre 
lease sale. Industry tells us now that their footprint, if the oil is 
there, can be as little as 2,000 acres. Four or five years ago industry 
said our footprint might be 12,500 acres. Do you know what 12,500 acres 
is? It is like the Dulles International Airport complex if the rest of 
the State of Virginia were a wilderness.
  Remember, this area we are talking about is as big as the State of 
South Carolina. So to suggest that this footprint is going to 
jeopardize the coastal plain, is going to jeopardize the porcupine 
caribou herd, is absolutely a fabrication of reality.
  This is an important issue for the Nation just as Prudhoe Bay was 
because Prudhoe Bay has been contributing 25 percent of the total crude 
oil produced 

[[Page S 16560]]

in the United States for the last 18 years. It is in decline. What do 
we replace it with? More imported oil? Export more jobs? And $57 
billion dollars is the cost of imported oil. We have an opportunity, 
and the opportunity is now because this issue is in the reconciliation 
package.
  There has been tremendous pressure on the White House on this issue. 
But not once has the White House addressed the national security 
interests. What has happened in the Mideast, Mr. President? What has 
happened with Libya, our friend Qadhafi? We all know Saddam Hussein, 
Iraq, and what is going on in Iran today, and the threat against 
Israel's national security. The Mideast is going to have a crisis. It 
is just a matter of time. We have heard from a number of statesmen. 
Larry Eagleburger, former Secretary of State, Schlesinger--many, many 
others saying do not put your eggs in one basket. That Middle East 
situation is going to explode, and our increased dependence on that 
market is going to result in the United States being held hostage 
because of our increased dependency on imported oil.
  Mr. President, this would be the largest single job producer in North 
America. It would not cost the Federal Government 1 cent. There is no 
subsidy. There is no appropriation. The private sector will bid this in 
at an estimated bidding price to the Federal Government, the State of 
Alaska, at $2.6 billion.
  In addition, there is approximately $80 million or more that is 
anticipated as a revenue stream to be contributed to refuge maintenance 
in our national parks and refuges. And as a consequence of the 
increased need for these facilities, I would like to do see more 
funding put in for our parks and other areas.
  I appreciate the extension of time. Let me just make a couple of more 
points because I do not see other Members who wish to speak at this 
time.
  There is some suggestion that this is going to have an effect on the 
polar bear. Anyone in Alaska can tell you the polar bear do not den in 
ANWR. They do not on land. They den at sea on the Arctic ice. You talk 
about the polar bear. We do not allow the polar bear to be hunted by 
Caucasians. You cannot take a polar bear in Alaska unless you are a 
Native. You can only take it for subsistence. You cannot take a hunter 
out for hire. In Canada, you can take a $10,000 bill, and you can go 
out and shoot a polar bear; anybody.
  So we are taking care of our polar bear. We are taking care of our 
renewable resources.
  So the environmental community is selling America short on our 
technology. And I would look forward to an extended debate on the 
factual realities associated with this issue because what we have seen 
is rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric; no factual 
information of any kind.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be happy to yield for a question without 
losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Alaska.
  I wanted to ask the Senator. In the committee I had an amendment 
which said that if we go forward with oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge 
there ought to be at least an environmental impact statement that is 
filed. Can the Senator explain why he disagrees with that? I know in 
fact we have not had one since 1987. Much has changed since then, and 
the Secretary stated that an environmental impact statement will be 
necessary for each new lease sale. This is certainly a new lease sale. 
Even if you are for drilling in ANWR, I think there is a big argument 
against it. It is not rhetoric. Why will the Senator at least not be 
willing to go forward with environmental impact statement?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. As the Senator from Minnesota knows, there are 
different views. The Senator is coming from the point of view of an 
obstructionist. We had an environmental impact statement prepared for 
the first lease sale. The application of updating that is certainly 
appropriate. But to suggest we have to go back and start the process 
over means you are simply putting it off, and as a consequence we will 
simply import more oil from overseas.
  So this is just another obstructionist proposal because we have 
already had an adequate EIS. If you are going to bury this thing, then 
you have to take the responsibility for it.
  The Senator from Alaska simply is fed up with these arguments that 
have no foundation. They are simply obstructionist views, and as a 
consequence it is not relevant.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair, and wish the President a good day.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, time is 
set aside for Mr. Hatch to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder whether the Senator from Utah would be 
willing to give me 2 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I need the full 15 minutes.
  I will be happy to yield 1 minute. I yield a minute to the Senator 
from Minnesota
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Alaska that I would have 
been pleased to go on with this debate. I think the national 
environmental law requires an environmental impact statement. It is not 
obstructionism to say so. I think for the vast majority of the people 
in the country, First, they do not believe on environmental grounds, or 
on energy grounds, that we need to do oil drilling which could threaten 
the pristine wilderness area, a real treasure for this Nation; and, 
Second, I think people believe, if you are going to go forward with it, 
you at least ought to be willing to file an environmental impact 
statement so we can know what in the world it is going to do. We had 
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. A lot has happened since 1987. That is not, 
I say to my colleague, obstructionism for me to come to the floor and 
to make that clear.
  I thank the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the environmental impact statement was 
completed in 1987, and it took 5 years to complete. There were full 
public hearings and extensive studies. The record speaks for itself.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. This would have been an interesting debate for me too. I 
have to say that with the debate around here this has been studied, and 
it has been unbelievable. We had all the same bizarre and extreme 
claims with regard to the caribou up there, and now we have more 
caribou and more wildlife than ever before. Alaska is just such a vast 
place. Maybe it is time we started thinking about the country, and 
about how we can stay independent and have national security.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think my colleague should give me a minute to 
respond.
  Mr. HATCH. I would like to finish my other statement. I would like to 
shift. I just had to make that comment because I hear this all the 
time, and I get kind of tired of it.

                          ____________________