[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 173 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16638-S16642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ARCTIC OIL RESERVE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday I had an opportunity to take 
some of the Senate's time in the morning to discuss the issue of the 
Arctic oil reserve and ANWR, which are, in effect, one in the minds of 
most people, but in reality there is a significant difference. Let me 
just very briefly review the significance of this area and put it in a 
perspective that I think can perhaps be more easily understood.
  First of all, we have the area in green and the area in yellow and 
the small area in red, representing, in the minds of most Americans, 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is a very, very small piece 
of Alaska, up near the Canadian border that overlooks the Arctic Ocean.
  The significance of this, of course, is that in 1980, Congress acted 
and designated specific land uses. The uses included putting 8 million 
acres in a permanent wilderness. That is the area in green with the 
black slashes. At the same time, they put approximately 9.5 million 
acres in a refuge. This is represented by the green area. These were 
placed in a permanent status.
  However, they left 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for 
designation in the future because of the promise of oil and gas 
discoveries in those particular areas.
  The red area is native land, primarily occupied by a few hundred 
Eskimos in the village of Kaktovik.
  What we have before us is a decision by the Congress on whether or 
not to allow a sale of approximately 300,000 acres in the coastal plain 
to take place. In both the House and Senate reconciliation package, we 
have included the 

[[Page S 16639]]
authorization for the sale. The anticipated lease sale is about $2.6 
billion. That would be split between the Federal Government and the 
State of Alaska on a 50-50 basis.

  What I would like to point out in my description is that the entire 
19 million acres is not in question by any means. It is that 1.5 
million acres would be authorized for the lease sale, and that portion 
that would be utilized in the actual sale would be 300,000 acres.
  What is the footprint? With the advanced technology that we have seen 
in the development of the Prudhoe Bay field, which has been 
contributing about 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in the 
United States for the last 18 years, we have seen significant 
development in lessening the footprint. We had a field called Endicott 
about 7 years ago which came in as the 10th-largest producing field. 
The footprint was 56 acres. Industry tells us that, if we are lucky 
enough to find a major discovery in this area, footprint can be 
produced dramatically. The first comparison was about 12,500 acres, 
which equates to the size of the Dulles International Airport, assuming 
the rest of Virginia were a wilderness. Now they say they can do it in 
about 2,000 acres.
  So what we have here is clearly a manageable footprint. We have the 
technical expertise and the American engineering commitment to do it 
safely.
  So clearly it is good for America. It is good for our national 
security interests. If one concludes for a moment that in 1973 when we 
had the Arab oil embargo we were about 36 percent dependent on foreign 
imports, today we are 50\1/2\ percent dependent on oil exports.
  What about jobs, and what about the economy? If the oil is there, 
this would be the largest single construction activity in North 
America. Probably 80 percent would be union jobs because the skills 
required to develop an oil-field and provide a pipeline over to the 
existing pipeline are such that it would provide a tremendous 
opportunity for skilled workers, and the unions are the only ones that 
have that abundance of skilled workers.
  So from the standpoint of jobs it is estimated that there would be 
somewhere between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs, and virtually every State 
would be affected. So it does have a dramatic impact on the economy. 
Furthermore, it would not require $1 of Federal funding. This lease 
sale would take place with private capital coming from the purchasers 
of the lands, and development would occur from private sector financing 
over an extended period of time.
  There is some suggestion that there are environmental problems. And I 
would be the first to acknowledge that there is a concern over the 
environment--a valid concern. But we have the technical expertise to 
overcome that as evidenced by the development of Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe 
Bay is the best oilfield in the world. You might not like oilfields. 
But the technology, the application, the permitting, and so forth that 
are mandated there clearly point out that it is the exception to all 
oilfields throughout the world relative to its compatibility with the 
ecology and the environment.
  As far as the congressional interest in this sale, the idea of 
generating $1.3 trillion into the Federal Treasury is a significant 
inducement. And as a consequence of that, that in itself merits the 
consideration and support of this body. However, the real value is to 
lessen our dependence on imported oil because Prudhoe Bay is in 
decline. It has been producing about 2 million barrels a day. It is 
down to about 1.5 million barrels a day. As a consequence, by the time 
Prudhoe Bay is in further decline, we will either be importing more oil 
or we will be able to develop some of our domestic reserves. And the 
most promising one in North America is in this 1002 area which I refer 
to as the Arctic oil reserve.
  Where is the base of support for this? I think it is interesting to 
note that we have a letter from former President Bush that I think 
cites very explicitly the concern, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
letter be printed in the Record at this time, Mr. President.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Houston, TX,

                                                  October 6, 1995.
     Senator Frank Murkowski,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Frank: I write in enthusiastic support of opening up 
     ANWR for oil exploration and production.
       My support is based on the conviction that we must not 
     continue to become increasingly dependent on foreign oil. A 
     major lesson from Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion of Kuwait 
     is that we must not become totally dependent on foreign oil. 
     Right now we have good and reliable friends in the Middle 
     East, but it is only prudent that we find and develop our own 
     petroleum reserves.
       I am totally convinced that ANWR oil can be developed in an 
     environmentally sound way, and that there will be no damage 
     to the caribou indigenous to the area. I understand that some 
     of the same extreme voices that were heard in the 1970s, 
     voices that predicted the extinction of the caribou, refuse 
     to admit that they were wrong. Indeed, not only are the 
     caribou not extinct, but they have proliferated.
       In addition, as you know better than anyone, the 
     development of ANWR means jobs for American workers. That in 
     itself is a worthy objective. I hope Congress will promptly 
     remove all barriers to ANWR development.
           Sincerely,
                                                      George Bush.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, to highlight the letter dated October 
16 from President Bush, it reads:

       I write in enthusiastic support of opening up ANWR for oil 
     exploration and production.
       My support is based on the conviction that we must not 
     continue to become increasingly dependent on foreign oil. A 
     major lesson from Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion of Kuwait 
     is that we must not become totally dependent on foreign oil. 
     Right now we have good and reliable friends in the Middle 
     East, but it is only prudent that we find and develop our own 
     petroleum reserves.

  The President further states:

       I am totally convinced that ANWR oil can be developed in an 
     environmentally sound way, and that there will be no damage 
     to the caribou indigenous to the area. I understand that some 
     of the same extreme voices that we heard in the 1970's, 
     voices that predicted the extinction of the caribou, refuse 
     to admit that they were wrong. Indeed, not only are the 
     caribou not extinct, but they have proliferated.
       In addition, as you know better than anyone, the 
     development of ANWR means jobs for American workers. That in 
     itself is a worthy objective. I hope Congress will promptly 
     remove all barriers to ANWR development.
           Sincerely,
                                                      George Bush.

  Mr. President, I would like to show very briefly the picture of the 
area that is currently producing near Prudhoe Bay. This gives you some 
idea of the number of caribou which just happen to be in this 
particular shot. You see the pipeline. You see an oil well being 
drilled. That oil well and that derrick will be removed. But clearly 
there is an abundance of caribou. To suggest that the caribou in the 
area of ANWR will be damaged, or depleted, or reduced as a consequence 
of activity just does not bear the essence of reality in the comparison 
that we have had with the central Arctic herd. And as a consequence, 
Mr. President, it is pretty hard to buy the argument that the caribou 
indeed are endangered by this.
  We have had statements and testimony from former Secretary of State 
Larry Eagleburger who indicates that it is in the national security 
interests of our Nation to lessen our dependence on imported oil. He 
points out the reality that we have seen in the Mideast, Iran, Iraq, 
Saddam Hussein, Libya--a situation that is very volatile. It actually 
affects the national security interests of Israel as well, and, if the 
United States becomes more and more dependent on the Mideast sources, 
we are exporting our jobs, exporting our dollars, and it is contrary to 
our national energy security interests.
  I point out, as the Presiding Officer is well aware, that in 1990 we 
fought a war in the Persian Gulf. That, Mr. President, was a war over 
oil. Make no mistake about it. We have had Secretaries of Energy--
Schlesinger, Watkins, Hodel--all very, very concerned about our 
increased dependence on imported oil. As late as just 7 months ago our 
Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Brown, put out a very, very 
interesting and challenging statement that indeed the national energy 
security interests of our Nation are at stake because of our increased 
dependence on imported oil.
  So it is just a matter of time before we are held hostage by the 
situation in the Mideast, a situation that will be advanced as a 
consequence of our increased dependence. 

[[Page S 16640]]

  As far as support for this, I think it is paramount to note that in 
my State of Alaska--I think we have a larger chart here of the State.
  The people of the Arctic are primarily the Eskimo people, and they 
frequent the area of Barrow, Wainwright, Kaktovik. They are nomadic in 
a sense traditionally. They live a subsistence lifestyle, but as a 
consequence of the development of Prudhoe Bay, an alternative lifestyle 
has been available to the people of the Arctic, and that lifestyle has 
provided them with a tax base. That tax base has provided them with 
additional necessities of life that you and I take for granted: running 
water and sewage disposal, as compared to the honey buckets which they 
previously had--an indoor bucket, and as a consequence the honey bucket 
man comes around once in a while.
  Here is a map of the State of Alaska. Where we are talking about is 
these areas in the very, very far north. If you look at the map, you 
will see the Arctic Circle moving across here, so we are north of the 
Arctic Circle. It is truly a hostile environment. It has its own unique 
beauty, but living there in a land of permafrost where it is virtually 
impossible to dig because of the frozen ground, the opportunity for 
utilities as we know them, running water and sewage, simply do not 
exist. By providing the opportunity for jobs, for a tax base, these 
people now have a standard of living that is much superior to what they 
previously had. They have an opportunity for jobs if they want them. 
There is job training available. There is transportation available to 
the Prudhoe oilfields.
  So my point is that the Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the 
organization that speaks with virtually one voice for Alaska's Native 
community, has come out in support of opening up the Arctic oil reserve 
for competitive lease sale. There is one group of Natives, the 
Gwich'ins, that continue to object to opening that up. And this is a 
relatively small group. Most of the Gwich'ins are in Canada, the area 
of the Arctic villages of Venetie and Fort Yukon. There are 300 to 400.
  Unfortunately, efforts to try to address their concerns of the 
Porcupine caribou herd have been offset by extreme efforts by America's 
environmental community focused on the argument that, indeed, in their 
opinion their livelihood--the Porcupine caribou--is at risk. The 
proposal is to mandate that no exploration occur during the time that 
those caribou migrate from Canada into the area. They calve in the 
general area, calve in an 8-million-acre area, but there would be 
activity to ensure that there would be no harm to the caribou occurring 
at that time.
  As the picture that I showed you earlier shows, we have a very, very 
healthy herd in the Central Arctic. What happens to the caribou herds 
is rather interesting. We have 34 herds in Alaska, about 990,000 
caribou. About three-quarters of them are increasing, about 10 percent 
are in decline, another 15, 20 percent are stagnant. But as anyone 
knows who observes the tendency of animals that graze, if some of them 
overgraze the area, they decline. If there are too many predators, they 
decline. If there are hard winters, they decline. So they are 
continually going up and down. But we have had an excellent experience 
with our caribou, and to suggest that the Porcupine herd would be in 
jeopardy is just not based on any sound scientific fact.
  There is opposition to this by others than the Gwich'ins. We 
continually see rhetoric by the environmental communities. We have 
recently seen the USGS develop some new figures relative to what the 
reserves might be. Nobody knows what the reserves are going to be until 
you drill, because when you look for oil, you do not usually find it. 
We had an oil sale out here off Prudhoe Bay called Mukluk. The oil 
industry assumed that there was going to be a great reserve found 
there. The bids went up over $1 billion. Several companies, one of 
which is no longer in business, bet the farm on the lease sale. They 
drilled. They did not find oil. The oil had been there eons ago, but it 
is gone now.
  So the Secretary of the Interior has come up with figures that show a 
substantial reduction in reserves over the figures that were previously 
put together by USGS showing a higher reserve. The point is nobody 
knows.
  Then there has been suggestion that the State of Alaska is not going 
to share this revenue. Well, we can reflect on the rhetoric. We can 
discuss the merits of whether or not a major portion of this area of 
ANWR will be damaged, and clearly, as I have pointed out, it will not.
  Some people say that ANWR would only produce 3.5 billion barrels of 
oil. Somebody has equated that to a 6-month supply so why open this 
area for such a small amount. In reality, Prudhoe Bay was a supply that 
was anticipated to be, what, 200 days or thereabouts? The significance 
of that comparison is that Prudhoe Bay has been supplying the Nation 
with 25 percent of its total crude oil production for the last 18 
years. So when you put forth an example that suggests it is only going 
to be a 6-month supply, you are assuming that there is going to be no 
further oil development anywhere in the United States as far as 
production; you are going to shut them all down, and therefore this 
becomes a 600-day supply. That is a bogus argument.
  We have seen from the USGS a quick turnaround on a study that was 
requested by the Secretary of the Interior. The rather interesting 
thing was that that study was done by the California USGS people. They 
did not include the extended experience that was accumulated over many, 
many years by USGS personnel in Alaska. These were people who were 
trained in Arctic evaluation. Why they were not included is something 
that we are all a little concerned about. The Secretary of the Interior 
has yet to explain it. As a matter of fact, we anticipate having a 
hearing into that because it is inexcusable that the Secretary would 
not use his best expertise to get an evaluation, the best evaluation 
available.
  The rhetoric concerning the habitat is rather interesting to reflect 
on. As I have said very briefly, there is no evidence that the wildlife 
would be harmed. That means we do not have any scientific justification 
to suggest we cannot open the area safely. I have indicated that the 
Porcupine caribou herd, which is the herd in question, has experienced 
a vast movement in numbers. In 1972, there were about 100,000 in the 
herd; in 1989, 178,000; I think today about 160,000 or thereabouts.
  Some suggest, well, what about the polar bear in this area? They den 
in this area. People who know the polar bear know that they do not den 
on land; they den at sea. If you are a caucasian U.S. citizen, you 
cannot hunt polar bear. If you are a Native, you can take polar bear 
for subsistence. Very few of them are taken. But you can go over to 
Canada and hire a guide and go out and shoot a polar bear. It might 
cost you $10,000.
  So when you talk about conservation of the polar bear, why, charity 
begins at home. We do not allow in the United States the taking of 
polar bear by caucasians. You can take them if you are a Native for 
subsistence only. So I get a little frustrated by my Canadian friends 
when they give their opinion relative to protecting the caribou. They 
are very happy to take a $10,000 bill from a hunter to go out and get a 
polar bear trophy.
  We talk about wolves. We talk about bear. We talk about geese. There 
are increasing numbers. There is no suggestion that there is any 
decline in the wild animal population of the area, nor would there be 
any significant reduction as a consequence of any development.
  Some say that this is the only place in the United States where the 
Arctic is protected. Well, there are 450,000 acres of the coastal 
plain--this area up here. It is already set aside in wilderness. There 
are over 1,000 miles of Arctic coastline in Alaska. Very, very little 
of that area is disturbed. And the production would be concentrated in 
one area, I think Kaktovik, where there is a small village, a few 
hundred Eskimos.
  There is a radar site. There are two other abandoned radar sites. You 
would not know, Mr. President, one area from the other along that 
coast, that plain, because it is so flat and it is so much the same.
  Some suggest there is no need for the oil, we have a lot of oil in 
the world, we can rely further on Russia. Well, as I have said earlier, 
we have heard from President Bush, Secretary Eagleburger, Secretary 
Schlesinger. We are now 

[[Page S 16641]]
moving toward a 60- to 70-percent dependence on the Middle East. Too 
much dependence lets others manipulate us.
  What about Russian oil? Well, we have seen in Russia a series of 
environmental disasters, the Komi oilspill. The environmental record is 
absolutely unacceptable and in an unstable political situation. We have 
seen American companies go over there, and the infrastructure is so 
difficult to penetrate many of them are wondering if they made good 
investments.
  Let me go back to USGS, which is the agency that has the obligation 
to make forecast predictions with regard to oil and gas in areas 
throughout the United States on public land.
  As I indicated, we are going to have a hearing on November 8. But in 
1987 the Interior Department took several years to complete the 
evaluation based on its estimate of what the reserves were. And we saw 
a few weeks ago the Department of the Interior come out in 3 days, 
almost with a back-of-the-envelope study, a study, as I have indicated, 
where it did not involve the arctic experts they had in Alaska. It was 
done in California. It was timed to coincide with the committee, the 
Energy Committee's ANWR votes.
  Let me tell you what some of the career scientists over at the USGS 
have to say about the Interior study.
  This came from a lifelong Federal geology professional.

       It is all too obvious that this latest ANWR reevaluation is 
     a rather blatantly self-serving exercise in politically 
     directed pseudoscience, a disgrace to the agency and the 
     personnel involved.

  And from a current USGS employee in Alaska:

       Who is ever going to believe our numbers anymore if we 
     start producing back-of-the-envelope assessments every time 
     the Secretary of the Interior snaps his fingers at us? The 
     Secretary and our director seem dead set on destroying our 
     reputation and destroying the geological division as an 
     organization in pursuit of short-term goals.

  Finally, Mr. President, there has been discussion that somehow the 
State of Alaska is going to renege on this deal, that the 50-50 split 
somehow is going to be changed as a consequence of State action against 
the Federal Government. Well, that is a red herring, Mr. President.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
our Governor and a letter from the president of our State senate and 
the speaker of our State house.
  I am going to just read a portion of those letters.
  This is from Drue Pearce, State president, and Gail Phillips. And I 
would ask they be included in the Record, as well as that of Governor 
Knowles. Both these letters are dated October 17.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Alaska State Legislature,

                                     Juneau, AK, October 17, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Gingrich: On behalf of the Alaska State 
     Legislature, we would like to thank you for taking the time 
     to meet with us during our recent visits to Washington, D.C. 
     and for your support of oil and gas leasing in ANWR.
       As the Republican leaders of the state Senate and House, we 
     would like to state our unqualified support for current 
     congressional plans to allow oil and gas development on the 
     coastal plain of ANWR and to share lease revenues 50-50 
     between the state and federal governments.
       We are aware that some House Republicans have expressed 
     concern about this revenue sharing in light of Alaska's right 
     under its statehood compact to receive 90% of revenues from 
     oil and gas leases on federal lands.
       Governor Tony Knowles announced on September 28th before 
     the National Press Club that he backs the 50-50 state-federal 
     split of ANWR lease revenues as proposed in the budget 
     reconciliation act. He is on record saying he will introduce 
     legislation to change the statehood compact to provide a 50-
     50 revenue split for ANWR lease revenues.
       As the U.S. House and Senate works to complete action on 
     the budget reconciliation act, Members of Congress should 
     know that we will do everything in our power to ensure that 
     such a bill passes the Alaska State Legislature and becomes 
     law.
           Sincerely,
     Drue Pearce,
       Senate President.
     Gail Phillips,
       House Speaker.
                                                                    ____



                                              State of Alaska,

                                     Juneau, AK, October 17, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: During my recent visit to 
     Washington, D.C., it became clear to me that a central issue 
     in the debate related to oil development in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is the allocation of the 
     revenue between the State of Alaska and the federal 
     government. Accordingly, I am writing to you to reiterate my 
     position on this issue.
       By your legislation, and that of Congressman Young, you 
     have concluded that fifty percent of the revenues of ANWR 
     should be used to reduce the Federal budget in order to 
     accomplish Congressional approval.
       The state is entitled to receive ninety percent of oil and 
     gas revenues generated from federal lands in Alaska. 
     According to your reports, Congressional action is highly 
     unlikely unless Congress sees some direct benefit to the 
     federal budget. In addition to all of the other strong 
     arguments in support of opening ANWR, it has been made clear 
     to us that a fifty-fifty split of the revenue is necessary to 
     attain favorable Congressional action. I support your 
     strategy to split the revenues evenly between the state and 
     federal governments.
       If there is federal enactment of the fifty-fifty revenue 
     split, it would constitute an amendment of the Alaska 
     Statehood Act. According to the Alaska Department of Law, an 
     amendment to the Statehood Act requires state concurrence. 
     This concurrence must occur through the enactment of a bill 
     by the Alaska Legislature and approval by the Governor.
       Therefore, I will introduce and pursue legislation to 
     accept such a change if Congress adopts a fifty-fifty revenue 
     split. In this way, Alaska's elected officials in Juneau will 
     have a full opportunity to debate the merits of agreeing to 
     any modification of the ninety-ten revenue formula.
       I firmly believe any amendment of the ninety-ten revenue 
     split should apply to ANWR only. I will continue to insist, 
     by way of the statehood compact lawsuit, that Alaska receive 
     its full entitlement on the development of other federal 
     lands in Alaska.
       The State of Alaska stands ready to assist you in attaining 
     Congressional approval of opening ANWR.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tony Knowles,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  The first is from Drue Pearce, senate president and Gail Phillips, 
house speaker.

       As the Republican leaders of the State Senate and House, we 
     would like to state our unqualified support for [the] current 
     congressional plans to allow oil and gas development on the 
     coastal plain of ANWR and to share lease revenues 50-50 
     between the State and Federal Governments.

  Further:

       Governor Tony Knowles announced on September 28 before the 
     National Press Club that he [supports] the 50-50 State-
     Federal split of ANWR lease revenues as proposed in the 
     budget reconciliation act. He is [further] on record saying 
     he will introduce legislation to change the statehood compact 
     to provide [for] a 50-50 revenue split for ANWR lease 
     revenues.

  Further, Mr. President, a letter from the Governor.

       . . . it has been made clear to us that a fifty-fifty split 
     of the revenues is necessary . . .
       Therefore, I will introduce and pursue legislation to 
     accept such a change if Congress adopts a fifty-fifty revenue 
     split. In this way, Alaska's elected officials in Juneau will 
     have a full opportunity to debate the merits of agreeing to 
     any modification . . .

  So, Mr. President, for the record, you have a commitment from the 
State of Alaska relative to the revenue sharing. And, Mr. President, 
our word is good.
  Now, in conclusion, let me just point out one of the disturbing 
things that is occurring on this issue. And I find it difficult to 
bring this to the attention of the body, but for a period of time the 
Secretary of the Interior has chosen to represent one segment of the 
issue, and that is the segment fostered by and supported in conjunction 
with the Gwich'in people, with the backing of the preservationists and 
environmental groups in this Nation.
  The disturbing feature is that now we have a Secretary who is not 
representing the majority of Alaska's Native people. On the other hand, 
he is representing a small minority. Somewhere less than 10 percent.
  As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Native people of Alaska, 
the Eskimo people of Alaska, who have lived for generations on a 
subsistence lifestyle have gone through an extraordinary transition. 
Previous to the welfare system, to the food stamps, these proud people 
were dependent on hunting, fishing for their subsistence. As a 
consequence of that dependence, they generated a small amount of cash 
from trapping, fishing, for the necessities of life, gasoline for their 
outboard motors, their snow machines, rifles, 

[[Page S 16642]]
shells, and over an extended period of time, when food stamps came in, 
where they qualified. So there was a transition. After food stamps came 
in they did not have to depend to the same extent on subsistence.
  I am reminded, I might say by my staff, I said that the Secretary was 
representing about 10 percent of Alaska's Native people. I am told 
Gwich'ins consist of about 1 percent of the Native people. So, it is 
even smaller. But my point is, in this transition of the Native people 
of our State, as a consequence of food stamps, they have become less 
dependent on subsistence. Subsistence played a vital role, but they did 
not have the total dependence. So, as a consequence, trapping was 
reduced and a little later we began to expand the welfare system.
  So, today in Alaska we have a significant portion of our rural 
residents, most of them Native residents, dependent on subsistence and 
welfare. Now we are going to cut welfare. Welfare is going to be 
reduced. We all know that. The BIA, that plays a major role in the 
lives of many of Alaska's Native people, is going to be cut. Now, these 
people want jobs. They want jobs at home. These are good-paying jobs 
associated with resource development, oil and gas. So 99 percent of 
America's Native people, I should say 99 percent of Alaska's Native 
people, support, through their Federation of Natives, or thereabouts, 
opening this area. We have job training capabilities in Alaska.
  We have a Job Corps center. We have a good experience of utilizing 
some of our Native people in Prudhoe Bay. But here is a long-term job 
opportunity. And the Secretary of the Interior has taken a position 
against a majority of Alaska's Native people in favor of that 1 
percent, the Gwich'ins people who oppose opening up this area for 
competitive leasing. The justification for that is going to have to be 
the Secretary explaining to the Native people of Alaska why he has 
chosen to represent this minority.
  Mr. President, I am going to be talking further next week on some 
aspects that I feel are important to this body. I think what we will do 
the first of the week is to go into some of the fact and fiction, 
because America's environmental community has found this issue to be 
very attractive in raising funding-generated membership.
  I was in one Senator's office the other day. The Sierra Club had 
evidently contracted with one of our Nation's communications firms. The 
way it worked is that the Sierra Club provided the communications firm 
with telephone numbers of people who were members of the Sierra Club in 
that particular State.
  They were able to dial in simultaneously, two calls in one. They 
would phone a Mr. Brown in the State of Arkansas and say, ``Mr. Brown, 
we have the Senator's office on the line. We would like you to express 
your opinion about the possible drilling in the Arctic oil reserve 
which would ruin this area and wipe out the animals in the area.'' 
Immediately, the call would come in--Mr. Brown would be on the phone--
to the Senator's office and be able to log in a call.
  This is a pretty significant effort. It costs a lot of money. We do 
not have those capabilities to explain our side of the story. What we 
do have is 18 years of experience producing oil from Prudhoe Bay. Where 
would this Nation be today without that oil, that 25 percent? We would 
be even more dependent on the Persian Gulf.
  We have the finest oilfield in the world in Prudhoe Bay, and we are 
proud of that. We built an expertise in the Arctic with our geologists, 
with our USGS personnel showing that we can open this area safely, we 
can do it compatibly with the environment and the ecology, as evidenced 
by this picture of the caribou flourishing in Prudhoe Bay. The same set 
of circumstances can happen in ANWR.
  So we have the can-do spirit. The only difference is today we have 
nearly 20 years of experience. We can make the footprints smaller. We 
can provide more jobs in this Nation. We can reduce our national 
security exposure to more dependence on the Mideast. We can provide for 
the largest single identification of jobs in the United States which 
will help our unions, help our economy, and, lastly, Mr. President, 
what it will do is it will address our balance of payment deficits. 
Half the balance of payment deficit is the price of imported oil.
  I want to thank the President for his attention, and I wish he and my 
colleagues a good day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________