[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16713-S16715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     OPENING THE ARCTIC OIL RESERVE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for a number of days I have been 
sharing with my colleagues my observations on the opening of the Arctic 
oil reserve, or ANWR. Briefly, for those Members who are not familiar 
with this, let me just do a quick review. In the Congress and in the 
reconciliation package in both the House and the Senate is the 
authority to initiate a lease-sale in ANWR. There are many 
misconceptions relative to the proposal because a number of people 
believe that the entire area is at risk.
  This area in green, including the yellow area, consists of about 19 
million acres. That is an area the size of the State of South Carolina. 
In 1980, Congress withdrew and set in permanent status the green area, 
consisting of 8 million acres of wilderness, which is shown in green 
and black here, and another 9\1/2\ million acres of refuge, leaving the 
coastal plain for disposition by the Congress.
  This area in red is the area retained by the Eskimo people of the 
village of Kaktovic. You will notice that they have no access out of 
that area other than into the coastal plain which is Federal land. The 
lease-sale we are talking about is a proposal to lease 300,000 acres 
out of this million and a half acres because the other 17 million acres 
has already been withdrawn. So we are talking about a very small area.
  To suggest that the entire area is at risk clearly is a 
misinterpretation of the facts. We log our telephone calls in our 
office, as do most Members of the Senate, because it is important that 
we have public reaction. It is kind of interesting to note that, as 
calls come in relative to my speaking on this issue, there is a 
perception that we in Alaska are initiating an activity that somehow is 
irregular or a departure from what is happening in other States. I can 
only respond to that by suggesting that our State has only been a State 
for 36 years.

[[Page S 16714]]

  As a consequence, we are today establishing our land patterns in this 
huge area of Alaska, which is one-fifth the size of the United States. 
It has 33,000 miles of coastline. Other States were established--such 
as the State of Virginia, nearly 200 years ago, and Washington, Oregon, 
California, 100 years ago. So as a ``new kid on the block,'' so to 
speak, as we attempt to develop resources, whether it be timber, fish, 
oil and gas, or mining, we are trying to take advantage of the science 
and technology that is available today and learn from the mistakes of 
others and balance and develop an economy.
  I do not think many people have a total understanding or an 
appreciation of that. They think that the limited development in Alaska 
is somehow not in keeping with the times. The reality is that we have 
to have natural resources, develop those natural resources. We have a 
job base, and those jobs are high-paying jobs in construction, timber, 
mining, oil and gas. If we do not develop those resources, we simply 
get the materials from other countries, export our jobs overseas and 
export our dollars.
  The significance of developing this area is that geologists tell us 
this is where a major discovery might be made. Because Prudhoe Bay is 
in decline--this area has been producing 25 percent of the total crude 
oil produced in the United States in the last 18 years. As this area 
declines, the question is: Can we, or should we, replace it by bringing 
on line this area, the small footprint here in the coastal plain known 
as ANWR?
  Clearly, we can do it safely. We have been able to develop Prudhoe 
Bay. We have developed an 800-mile pipeline. We had a bad accident with 
the Exxon Valdez vessel, but that is something that had nothing to do 
with a pipeline. It was one of those human failures. The ship went 
aground in a 10\1/2\-mile channel.
  The point I want to make here this morning, Mr. President, is that we 
developed a small field adjacent to Prudhoe Bay 10 years ago. That was 
the 10th largest producing field. History tells us that if the oil is 
here, they can develop it in about 2,000 acres. To get back to some of 
the comments which I think have prompted me to try and give a little 
more explanation as to why Alaska should be attempting to develop its 
energy resources, there are suggestions that somehow we are beholden to 
an oil lobby as a delegation, that we should be giving more concern to 
the environment, that they think we have financial ties to the oil 
companies.

  One woman indicated she felt so strongly about it that she had worked 
to get a moratorium on elephants in Africa and she was going to go to 
work to make sure we got a moratorium not to develop oil in Alaska.
  I would like to think that these people who are obviously very 
interested would have a full understanding of the implications and an 
argument relative to the pros and cons of responsible development.
  With that background, let me just proceed briefly, because I think 
that there is need for some reflection on what Congress intended in 
1980. The name of Senator Scoop Jackson of Washington is familiar to 
all Members of the Congress. He was a beloved and long-time Member of 
this body. It was at his insistence that this area, the 1002 area, be 
left out of the wilderness area and the refuge withdrawals to be setup 
specifically for Congress to address the prospects of oil and gas. That 
was done in 1980, Mr. President.
  As a consequence of that, now is the time for the decision to be 
made, and since it is in the reconciliation package, we look forward to 
discussing the merits.
  One of the most significant considerations is the reality that this 
Nation is now 51 percent dependent on imported oil. That oil comes in 
from the Mideast, and of course we send the dollars and the jobs to the 
Mideast.
  In the last few days we have seen a crisis in the Mideast, a very 
unfortunate situation, but, nevertheless, it proves the frailty of that 
part of the world, and our increased dependence on oil eventually will 
result in some kind of a crisis occurring as we look at Iran, Iraq, 
Libya and their moves toward nationalism.
  It is kind of interesting to reflect on the attitude of some of the 
opinion-makers that have had a responsibility with regard to our 
increasing dependence on imported oil.
  Former President Carter's Energy Secretary Schlesinger has testified 
in support of developing this area, stating that we can develop it 
safely, that we should reduce our dependence on imported oil.
  Some of the Orthodox Jewish organizations in the United States are 
the biggest supporters. They see increased dependence on the Arab 
States as a threat to Israel's security interests. Union support--the 
significance of what this activity would generate for America unions; 
it would be the largest concentration of construction in North America. 
The Teamsters, the laborers, the IBEW, the maritime unions all support 
this. This is a significant job issue.
  It is estimated that the lease sale would bring about $2.6 billion in 
revenue. That revenue, half of which would go to the Federal 
Government, the other half to the State of Alaska, would be raised in 
the private sector of the United States without one cent of Government 
funding.
  Now, there is a suggestion that some Alaskans do not support ANWR, 
some of the Native people in Alaska do not support opening.
  Mr. President, I want to take that fiction and state it factually. 
The Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the native organization in 
our State, voted two to one in favor of opening the area. I think it is 
unfortunate that the Secretary of the Interior, as he represents and 
has an obligation to represent all the Native people of our State, has 
chosen to represent a very small segment, the Gwich'ins, representing 
about 1 percent of the Native people in Alaska. The Gwich'ins are 
fearful that the Porcupine caribou will somehow be at stake. The 
justification for that is not supported by any evidence as I will show 
in the next chart.
  This happens to be a picture taken of Prudhoe Bay which shows the oil 
pipeline, shows a well being drilled, and it shows a number of caribou, 
pointing out the reality that the caribou are very adaptable.
  To suggest that the porcupine caribou cannot be managed by a joint 
management team of the Gwich'ins, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
and the State department of fish and game is not based on any factual 
evidence by any means.
  That herd is about 165,000. Most of the animals, about 4,000, are 
taken by the Canadian Gwich'ins on the Canadian side and 400 by the 
Alaskan Gwich'ins.
  The point is, as we look at the development of this area, there are 
huge areas of wilderness and refuge that will be protected forever, and 
that the Alaska delegation stands behind them. Again, the footprint is 
.1 of 1 percent of the area, about 2,000 to 3,000 acres at the maximum.
  Let me just talk a little bit more about the caribou because it has a 
warm and cuddly aspect to it, as it should. The caribou range over vast 
areas and their range is dependent on basically three factors. One is 
predators. If there are a number of predators, or the predators are at 
an all-time high, like the wolf, obviously it will have an effect on 
the young caribou. The winter kill is a consequence of a tough winter, 
resulting in a decline of the herd. There is overgrazing, which will 
also cause a decline in the herd.
  As a consequence, it is fair to say of the approximately 34 herds in 
Alaska, two-thirds of them are on an increase, about 10 percent are on 
a decline, and the rest of them are stagnant but cyclical, as many of 
the ranging land animals in the wild.
  Now, we also have a presumption by the Secretary of the Interior that 
he is protecting our future by blocking access to opening up this area. 
I suggest the Secretary of Interior is actually gambling with our 
future.
  We sent troops to the Persian Gulf. We recall the gas lines in the 
1970's. We are exporting our dollars and jobs. We are making less 
environmentally conscious nations produce oil.
  Another fiction is this is a battle between rich and greedy oil 
companies and poor and saintly environmental groups. I want to talk 
about some of the environmental groups tomorrow, Mr. President. 
Environmentalism in the United States is big business. There is nothing 
wrong with it. We 

[[Page S 16715]]
should recognize it simply for what it is.
  Now, the oil industry is big business in the United States. It 
provides jobs. It provides our Nation with energy security, as well.
  We should not kid ourselves. The battle here is in many aspects 
between the very rich national environmental lobbyists and some of our 
poor Alaska Native people who want alternative lifestyles. They want to 
have running water. They want to have sewage disposal rather than honey 
buckets. They want to have jobs. They want to relieve themselves of the 
dependence on welfare. They are being deprived of these opportunities 
by the suggestion that we cannot open up this area safely.
  Sometimes we see a double standard, a standard that suggests that 
this idealistic election of not allowing responsible development--there 
is no consideration of the human element, there is no consideration of 
the people that live in the area of what they feel they should have is 
a right to a job, a right to a good education, a right to have a future 
for their children, other than welfare.
  As a consequence, Mr. President, there is one overwhelming fact in 
this debate. All Americans stand to benefit from ANWR 
exploration. Those benefits are: Jobs, as I have already outlined; 
security, by eliminating the necessity of our increased dependence on 
imported oil, which is already 51 percent. We can do it without any 
significant harm to the environment, using our technology, our 
engineering skills, our can-do capability. And one other item that this 
body spends a lot of time and effort on, and that is the concern over 
the deficit, balance of payments. In other words, the fact we are 
buying more overseas than people are buying from us.

  What is that deficit made up of? Nearly $56 billion, half of it, is 
the price of imported oil. The other half is our trade imbalance with 
Japan. So, here we have, in this particular issue, responsibly opening 
up this area in our State with a very small footprint, utilizing our 
technological capability, an opportunity to address some concerns that 
we all have--jobs, national security, the ability to develop this in 
harmony with the environment, and an opportunity to balance the budget.
  I was also considering the merits of two articles that appeared in 
the Wall Street Journal and New York Times on October 27. They both 
concern themselves with the increase in the price of oil, to show you 
how fragile the world of oil is relative to any crisis that exists 
throughout the world. We have seen crises in the Mideast in the last 
few days, but we are also seeing one in Russia. ``Concerns About 
Yeltsin's Health Help To Push Oil Prices Higher.'' ``Prices of Oil 
Futures Jump on Report of Yeltsin Having Health Problems.'' Clearly, 
the former Soviet Union has a tremendous capability to produce oil. On 
the other hand, their infrastructure is such it is not a very 
attractive market.
  Finally, let me just comment on one point relative to the people of 
the area, because the people of the area are so often left out of any 
equation that affects the environment or the ecology.
  The people of Kaktovik, the people of Point Barrow, the Eskimo 
people, these are people working their way out of Federal dependency. 
Because of our success, we are now opposed, seemingly at every turn, 
by, among others, a Secretary for Indian Affairs, Ada Deer. She now has 
gone on record as opposing successful Native corporations and 
organizations that are developing the resources in our State. She wants 
us to go back, and our people to go back, and be dependent on the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs. But, as we have seen, dependency brings 
despondence, it brings a dependence, it kills self-initiative, it 
breeds a welfare society. Alaska's Native and Eskimo people want to 
follow the American way, the way of independence, the way of self-help, 
individual responsibility, family values, a sense of community. Yet we 
are seeing spokespersons, including the Secretary of the Interior and 
Ada Deer, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, actively opposing 
this development in the area where these people live.
  This is a tragic day, in a sense, for the nearly 8,000 Eskimo people, 
because this is the first time any Secretary of the Interior has 
rejected his trust responsibility to pursue the naked political 
objectives of those opposed to the interests of Native Americans. It 
seems like the Secretary is almost penalizing hard work and success. On 
one hand they champion dependency, welfare and allegiance to an 
incompetent Bureau of Indian Affairs. Then, on the other, they put 
commercial fundraising interests of environmental organization over 
those of the Eskimo people who need help, who need this opportunity.
  So, we see an administration, now, that opposes opening the coastal 
plain. Yet they are actively selling OCS oil and gas leases in the 
Arctic Ocean adjacent to the coastal plain. They say that is OK, that 
is all right. Secretary Babbitt and the others have their priorities 
backwards. Oil development on the land is safe. Oil development in the 
isolated wind-driven reaches of the ocean is risky; it can be 
hazardous.
  Mr. President, I see my time is up. I thank the Chair. I appreciate 
the indulgence of my colleagues. Tomorrow, or the first opportunity I 
can get time in morning business, I intend to comment at some length on 
the issue of environmentalism as big business in the United States, 
what it consists of, who it involves, what salaries are being paid, and 
a list of the assets of the various organizations so the public can 
understand the other side of the issue. On one side we have big 
business and oil. On the other side we have big business and the 
environmental community.
  I thank the Chair and wish the Chair a good day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________