[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16841-S16844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ARCTIC OIL RESERVE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to continue a series of 
presentations I have made in this body concerning the opening of the 
Arctic oil reserve in ANWR.
  Before I make a reference to the specifics, let me show you a map and 
share with you an observation relative to this huge landmass of Alaska, 
which is one-fifth the size of the United States. In the Arctic region, 
above the Arctic Circle facing the Arctic Ocean, we have a resident 
population of Eskimos. The primary area where they are concentrated is 
in Barrow. It moves down to Wainwright, Icy Cape, Point Lay, Kaktovik, 
over to the Canadian border.
  They are a nomadic people that to a large degree depend on 
subsistence for a lifestyle, but as a consequence of the oil discovery 
in Prudhoe Bay, they now have a tax base. They now have jobs. They are 
beginning to generate sewer and water facilities in the larger 
villages. This is brought about only because of the reality of having a 
tax base and activity in their area.
  If I may share with you, Mr. President, the issue of opening up the 
Arctic oil reserve of ANWR for a quick review, it involves Congress 
taking action on authorizing the lease-sale of 300,000 acres out of the 
19 million acres of ANWR. That is a pretty small footprint. Most of 
ANWR, about 17 million acres, has been set aside in perpetuity by 
Congress in either wilderness or refuge. That is evidenced by the area 
in green. Congress set aside the yellow area in 1980 for a 
determination at a later time, whether to allow oil and gas leasing. 
The area in red is the small Eskimo village of Kaktovik. This is 
located on the map in this far corner of Alaska near the Canadian 
border.
  The reality is that Prudhoe Bay, which is the largest oil field in 
North America and has been producing about 25 percent of the total 
crude oil produced in the United States for the last 18 years, is now 
in decline. As a consequence, geologists tell us this is the most 
likely area for a major oil discovery to be found. 

[[Page S 16842]]

  This happens to be Federal land. As a consequence, only the Federal 
Government can authorize opening it. Both the House and Senate, in the 
reconciliation package, have included a proposal to allow the lease-
sale. It is anticipated the lease-sale will bring about $2.6 billion, 
funded strictly by the oil companies who would bid on these Federal 
leases. This would provide the largest employment, the largest 
concentration of new jobs that we can identify in North America, some 
250,000 to 700,000 jobs over the anticipated life of the field.
  Is it needed? Certainly it is needed, because the Prudhoe field is in 
decline, from about 2 million barrels a day to about 1.5 million 
barrels a day. When Prudhoe Bay was found and opened, we were about 34 
percent dependent on imported oil. Today we are 51.4 percent dependent 
on imported oil. Much of that oil comes from the Mideast, so we are 
becoming more and more dependent on the Mideast. We are relying, 
obviously, on governments that have shown some instability--Iran, Iraq, 
Libya. It is still very much of a hot spot from the standpoint of 
stability. Yet, we are sending our dollars and sending our jobs 
overseas when we could be developing our own resources. The question 
is, can we do it safely? And the answer clearly is yes.
  The problems that we have associated with opening this are emotional 
arguments from America's environmental community. Let me show you an ad 
that appeared in the Washington Post. It appeared in the Roll Call. 
This is an ad by the Indian Gaming Association. It shows a little 
native girl whose future could be affected by an act of Congress. The 
headline is, ``Don't Tax Her Opportunity To Get Off Welfare.''
  The same situation applies to the Alaska Natives and the exploration 
in this area. As we look at Alaska and the large area, the idea of oil 
exploration in this very, very small area is the only identified job 
opportunity for the Eskimo people in the Arctic.
  What about rural Alaska? It is an area that probably has about the 
highest unemployment of anywhere in the United States. Rural sanitation 
was virtually unknown until a few years ago. There are a few villages 
that have running water. Most of them still have honey buckets instead 
of indoor plumbing.
  What we have here is a case of wealthy environmental and preservation 
organizations that are opposed to opening up this area to create jobs 
for Alaska's Eskimo and Native people. The Eskimo people want jobs. 
They want to have a future. They want to have an opportunity to educate 
their children. They live in a harsh climate. Without exception, 
virtually the entire Eskimo population of Alaska supports opening this 
area.
  What does the issue consist of? Some have said, ``Well, it is big 
oil.'' I would suggest that we reflect for a moment and recognize that 
the big business associated with this issue is really the big business 
of America's environmental community. Where do these people live? 
Washington, DC; New York; Boston. They take indoor plumbing for 
granted. They oppose ANWR. Today a number of them are meeting down at 
the White House with the administration on this and a number of other 
environmental issues.
  It has been suggested that this is going to harm the Arctic and harm 
the Eskimo and native way of life. The Eskimo people would not do 
anything to harm their environment. They want safe oil development 
because they want better lives. And, clearly, as I have indicated, 
because of our increased imports of foreign oil, America needs the oil.
  Many of the professional environmentalists have never been up to the 
Arctic oil reserve of ANWR and have never been up to this part of 
Alaska. They do not really care about the Eskimos' or Natives' future. 
Some of them have been up and have shared some of the unique 
experiences in some of this area. It is a very expensive operation. It 
takes about a $5,000 bill to charter an aircraft and hire the comforts 
of life that are necessary to enjoy and experience the wilderness.
  But make no mistake, we are talking about a very small footprint--
authorizing 300,000 acres out of 19 million acres. And industry says, 
if the oil is there, they can develop it within 2,000 acres.
  Mr. President, if you have ever been out to Dulles International 
Airport, that complex is 12,500 acres. If you compare the huge area of 
ANWR, it is about the size of the State of South Carolina. We are only 
talking about 2,000 acres, if the oil is there.
  Who are these professional environmental groups? Why do they focus on 
an issue way up in North America that most Americans cannot see? It is 
far away. It is costly to get there. The answer is these organizations 
need a cause. A cause gives them dollars. A cause gives them 
membership.
  Mr. President, they are now big business. The environmental 
movement's income, salaries, contributions, and investment patterns are 
extraordinary. I would like to share a report from the Center for the 
Defense Free Enterprise that gives us all an opportunity to review some 
of the executive salaries, expense accounts, the huge incomes, the big 
investment portfolios, the big offices, and the staff. The report says 
that the environmental movement is arguably the richest and most 
powerful pressure center in America.
  So just what kind of people make up the professional environmental 
establishment? They are certainly better off than the Native people of 
Alaska. Let me share some of the executive compensations, just a few 
that are listed here.
  The Nature Conservancy, John Sawhill, president and chief executive, 
salary $185,000, benefits $17,118; National Wildlife Federation, Jay 
Hair, executive director, salary, benefits, expense account, roughly 
$300,000; World Wildlife Fund, Kathryn Fuller, executive director, 
salary, $185,000, total with benefits, $201,650; and on down the line. 
Over here is the Environmental Defense Fund, Fred Krupp, executive 
director, salary, $193,000, with benefits $210,000. That is big 
business.
  These 12 groups I have listed here have a net worth--not just in 
thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but $1.03 billion. Their combined 
revenue for 1 year was $633 million. Their 4-year lobbying expenses 
were $32 million. This is big business.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tables entitled 
``Executive Compensation'' and ``Environmental Organization Incomes'' 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                                 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION                                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Expense               
               Organization                          Executive                      Title                Salary      Benefits     account       Total   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature Conservancy...................  John Sawhill................  President and Chief             $185,000      $17,118         None  ...........
                                                                          Executive.                                                                    
National Wildlife Federation.............  Jay Hair....................  Executive Director.........      242,060       34,155      $23,661     $299,876
World Wildlife Fund......................  Kathryn Fuller..............  Executive Director.........      185,000       16,650         None      201,650
Greenpeace Fund..........................  Barbara Dudley..............  Executive Director Acting..       65,000         None         None       65,000
    Greenpeace Inc.......................  Stephen D'Esposito..........  Executive Director.........       82,882         None         None       82,882
Sierra Club..............................  Carl Pope...................  Executive Director.........       77,142         None         None       77,142
    Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.......  Vawter Parker...............  Executive Director.........      106,507       10,650         None      117,157
National Audubon Society.................  Peter A. A. Berle...........  President..................      178,000       21,285         None      199,285
Environmental Defense Fund...............  Fred Krupp..................  Executive Director.........      193,558       17,216         None      210,774
Natural Resources Defense Council........  John H. Adams...............  Executive Director.........      145,526       13,214         None      158,740
Wilderness Society.......................  Karin Sheldon...............  Acting President...........       90,896       22,724         None      113,620
National Parks & Conservation Assn.......  Paul C. Pritchard...........  President..................      185,531       26,123         None      211,654
Friends of the Earth.....................  Jane Perkins................  President..................       74,104        2,812         None       76,916
Izaak Walton League of America...........  Maitland Sharpe.............  Executive Director.........       76,052        5,617         None       81,699
                                                                                                     ---------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................  ............................  ...........................    1,887,258      187,564       23,661   2,098,483 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.                                                                                                      

  

[[Page S 16843]]


                                       ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION INCOMES                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Organization                      Revenue          Expenses          Assets       Fund balances 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature Conservancy (fiscal 1993).......     $278,497,634      $219,284,534     $915,664,531     $855,115,125
National Wildlife Federation (1993)........       82,816,324        83,574,187       52,891,144       13,223,554
World Wildlife Fund (fiscal 1993)..........       60,791,945        54,663,771       52,496,808       39,460,024
    Greenpeace Fund, Inc. (1992)...........       11,411,050         7,912,459       25,047,761       23,947,953
    (combined different years).............      (48,777,308)  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Greenpeace Inc. (1993).................       37,366,258        38,586,239        5,847,221       <5,696,375
Sierra Club (1992).........................       41,716,044        39,801,921       22,674,244       14,891,959
    Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (1993)..        9,539,684         9,646,214        9,561,782        5,901,690
National Audubon Society (fiscal 1992).....       40,081,591        36,022,327       92,723,132       61,281,060
Environmental Defense Fund (fiscal 1992)...       17,394,230        16,712,134       11,935,950        5,279,329
Natural Resources..........................  ................  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Defense Council (fiscal year 1993).....       20,496,829        17,683,883       30,061,269       11,718,666
Wilderness Society (fiscal 1993)...........       16,093,764        16,480,668       10,332,183        4,191,419
National Parks & Conservation Assn. (1993).       12,304,124        11,534,183        3,530,881          769,941
Friends of the Earth (1993)................        2,467,775         2,382,772          694,386         <120,759
Izaak Walton League of America (1992)......        2,036,838         2,074,694        1,362,975          414,309
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total................................      633,014,090       556,359,986    1,234,824,267    1,030,377,841
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.                                                              

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. These environmental organizations obviously make a 
tremendous contribution to America in many regards. But, as far as 
their efforts against the Eskimo people in my State, it is not a fair 
fight. How does this $1 billion fund with account balances and assets 
stack up with the Eskimo and Native people, the 7,500 Eskimo people of 
the North Slope, and their opportunities for a job, a lifestyle, an 
education, and a future for their children?
  Mr. President, this list shows that the environmental community in 
America is bigger than many of our corporations. This group has indoor 
plumbing. This group has opportunities for their children and running 
water. They do not have to put up with honey buckets. It is not wrong 
to stand up for what you believe in, but it is wrong to have a double 
standard. The national environmental establishment operates under a 
double standard.
  Let us look at some of the practices. They block safe development of 
the Arctic oil reserve of ANWR. But many of them have gone ahead and 
developed their own resources. John Roush of the Wilderness Society cut 
massive timber; clearcut on his land in Montana next to some prime 
Forest Service land. That is his own business, and it is fine. But it 
is a double standard here, if they do not practice what they preach.
  Bill Arthur, Sierra Club, Northwest representative clearcut land in 
eastern Washington. That is fine. It is his business. He has a right to 
do it.
  George Atiyeh of the National Audubon Society's TV show ``Rage Over 
Trees'' cut trees on land in the Willamette National Forest drainage 
that he supposedly wanted to protect near Opal Creek. The National 
Audubon Society allowed 37 wells to pump gas from the Paul J. Rainey 
sanctuary in Louisiana, $25 million in revenues; allowed grazing, gas 
leases in the Bernard Baker Refuge in Michigan; timber cutting at 
Silver Bluff Plantation sanctuary.
  Well, Mr. President, I do not criticize that. But I do criticize 
their objections to allowing the Eskimo and Native people of Alaska to 
have an opportunity to participate in jobs in an area that they are 
going to protect. Environmental groups continue to generate funding to 
lobby these and other efforts that are certainly contrary to the 
interests of the individual people.
  So who are these environmental preservation groups? Many of them are 
Clinton administration officials who used to work or hold positions 
with these national pressure groups.
  Let us take a look at some of the people in the administration today, 
and where they came from.
  The budget director, Alice Rivlin, associated formerly with the 
Wilderness Society; Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, League of 
Conservation Voters; John Leshy, Solicitor at the Department of the 
Interior, National Resource Defense Council; Bonnie Cohen, Assistant 
Secretary of the Interior, Sierra Club; Brooks Yeager, Director of the 
International Office of Political Analysis, Sierra Club; George 
Frampton, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Wilderness 
Society; Donald Barry, Deputy Assistant for Fish and Wildlife, World 
Wildlife Fund; Destry Jarvis, Assistant Director of National Park 
Service, formerly National Park and Conservation Association; Rafe 
Pomerance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Environmental Action; 
Lois Schiffer, assistant Attorney General, League of Conservation 
Voters.
  I could go on and on and on, Mr. President. All I am suggesting to 
you is, obviously, these people in the administration are in 
policymaking positions, and they have their own point of view, which is 
prevailing certainly in the administration's attitude toward allowing 
development--not just in ANWR, in the Arctic oil reserve, but on 
grazing issues, on mining issues, on timber issues, and virtually every 
issue relative to development of resources on public lands--is opposed 
by the administration. And the rationale is clear. These people are in 
positions of making policy, and the environmental community is very 
supportive of most of their efforts and causes.
  As a consequence, when the people in the area like the Eskimo and 
Native people in my State of Alaska are not given the consideration 
relative to their obligation to protect their own land, to protect the 
resources, the caribou and others, it is clearly not a fair fight.
  Let me show you a picture, Mr. President, of the caribou wandering 
around the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. What you can see here are lots and 
lots of caribou. You can see the oil pipeline. You can see an oil rig 
under development. Once that well is drilled, that rig is gone, the 
caribou are still there, and the pipeline is still there. So there is a 
compatibility.
  The conclusion, Mr. President, is that this first ad that I showed 
you--this is the ad that says, ``Do not tax our opportunity to get off 
welfare.'' This focuses our attention on the plight of some of the 
poorest people in America.
  That includes many of the Eskimo people who live on the Arctic Ocean. 
Like the rest of us, they want jobs. They want education. They want a 
better way of life. In Alaska, my State, the Natives voted in favor of 
this development.
  What about the rest of America? All America would stand to benefit by 
this. It would be the largest concentration of jobs. Most of these 
would be union jobs. It would relieve our dependence on imported oil. 
There is no way that one can make a case that this would have any 
detrimental effect on the environment. We have proven this in opening 
up Prudhoe Bay.
  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that we cannot open up 
this area safely. The same arguments that prevailed in 1970 against 
opening up Prudhoe Bay are the arguments that are being used today to 
try to stop opening up the Arctic oil reserve.
  Today we have the advanced technology. We have a greater capability, 
and we can do it safely. So when you see the young girl in the 
advertisement, think of the natives in Alaska and tell Secretary Bruce 
Babbitt and some of the high-priced environmental army that he has to 
think twice before blocking ANWR.
  As I have indicated, this is not a case of big oil. The Eskimo people 
are in a survival fight, as are the other Native residents of Alaska, 
to try and offset the tremendous momentum that the environmental 
community has in objecting to the opening of this area.
  Do not sell American ingenuity short. We have heard the arguments 
before on Prudhoe Bay. We can open it up safely given the opportunity.
  I am going to read into the Record a short account from the North 
Slope 

[[Page S 16844]]
Borough and the Arctic Slope Regional Corp. This is the concentration 
of the 7,500 Inupiat Eskimo people who live on the North Slope of 
Alaska. A few days ago they called Secretary Babbitt's participation in 
a press conference here in Washington where he proposed objecting to 
opening ANWR as a shameful disgrace to his office.
  Those are harsh words, Mr. President, but the Eskimo people attempted 
to remind the Secretary that he has a legal duty to serve as a trustee 
for all Native Americans, and the Eskimo people think he has violated 
that duty as a trustee and a fiduciary to the Eskimo people. He has 
done so by joining a small minority, which is 1 percent, I might add, 
of Alaska's native people who are opposed to opening up the Arctic oil 
reserve.
  It is rather interesting to note who funds the Gwich'ins. It is the 
Sierra Club and the environmental groups that put ads in the New York 
Times, and so forth, and inhibit, if you will, through fear tactics 
such as I observed when I was in one of the Gwich'in villages, an 
Arctic village this summer, a big, slick, Hollywood picture of the 
Buffalo in the tribal house. Underneath it, it said: ``Don't let happen 
to the Porcupine caribou herd what happened to the buffalo.'' 
Obviously, we were out to shoot the buffalo years and years ago when 
the buffalo became extinct on the ranges of the Western United States.
  That is not the case with oil exploration, and we can protect the 
Porcupine caribou herd without a doubt, just as we have seen the 
tremendous growth of the central Arctic herd. Before oil, that herd was 
about 4,000 animals. Today there are about 20,000 animals.
  Let me go on with that statement.
  Furthermore, the Eskimos indicate that Alaska's 90,000 Aleut, Indian 
and Eskimo people support opening the coastal plain to oil and gas 
leasing. In a vote of the Alaska Federation of Natives in their 
delegation meeting, they voted 2 to 1 in support of creating jobs 
through development.
  They further state that the Inupiat Eskimo people who reside on the 
Arctic Ocean of Alaska favor virtually unanimously opening the coastal 
plain. They indicate that they have lived with the oil industry for 25 
years. The North Slope oil development is safe. It is compatible with 
the caribou and wildlife, and oil development has given them jobs, a 
tax base for essential public services and an economic opportunity for 
all Alaska's native people.
  They further state that, properly regulated, North Slope oil 
development is fully compatible with the caribou, the birds, the fish, 
and the wildlife on which the people depend. This is the Eskimo people 
speaking, Mr. President.
  They further state--and I think this is probably most significant as 
we reflect on the ad that I referred to earlier: ``Don't tax her 
opportunity to get off welfare''--the Eskimo people are trying 
desperately to work their way out of Federal dependency. And because of 
their success, they now find themselves opposed at nearly every turn by 
the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Ada Deer, who spoke in 
Anchorage at the convention. She opposes successful native American 
corporations and organizations. One concludes she wants the Eskimo 
people to be dependent--not independent but dependent--on the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
  The Eskimos indicate that dependence kills self-initiative; it breeds 
a welfare society. They want to follow the American way, the way of 
independence, self-help, individual responsibility, family values, 
sense of community. This is what the Eskimo people of the Arctic want. 
They want this opportunity. Yet, the environmental community suggests 
that it is the wrong thing to do because the environmental community is 
trying to scare America saying we cannot open it safely.
  The Eskimos indicate that it is a tragic day for the 7,500 Inupiat 
Eskimo people. It is the first time, they say, that the Secretary of 
the Interior has rejected his trust responsibilities to pursue the 
naked political objectives of those who are opposed to the interests of 
native Americans.
  They indicate that the Secretary of Interior and his administration 
penalize hard work, penalize success. They want to champion dependency, 
welfare and allegiance to an incompetent Bureau of Indian Affairs. They 
put the commercial fund-raising interests of environmental 
organizations over those of the 7,500 Eskimo people who need help.
  Secretary Babbitt, and, unfortunately, this administration, seem to 
oppose opening the coastal plain on the one hand, yet they are actively 
selling OCS oil and gas leases in the Arctic Ocean adjacent to the 
coastal plain. Well, they simply have it backwards. Oil development 
onshore is safe. Oil development in the isolated Arctic wind-driven 
waters of the ocean is risky. It is hazardous. So as a consequence the 
word of the Eskimo people is the word of the people who live in the 
area, who have a commitment to care for the animals of the area, and a 
realization based on their experience that this area can be opened 
safely if they are given the opportunity, and that is all they ask.
  So I would encourage my colleagues, do not sell American technology, 
ingenuity, or the people of the area short as we consider opening up 
the Arctic oil reserves in ANWR. We can do it safely. And it is in the 
national interest, as well as the interest of the Eskimo people, all 
the Native people of Alaska, and my State of Alaska as well.

                          ____________________