[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 187 (Monday, November 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17526-S17527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          OIL RESERVES IN ANWR

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, seeing no one wishing to speak, I would 
like to address very briefly the matter that I have spoken of on a 
number of occasions. That is the opening up of the arctic oil reserve 
known as ANWR. And I would like to submit some particular documentation 
that has come into my office in the last few days, but I will be 
specific in my reference.

  As the President and my colleagues are aware, the idea of opening up 
the Arctic oil reserve, or ANWR, is not a new idea. It was left in 1980 
to the Congress to make a determination as to the appropriateness of 
opening up an area in the coastal plain, approximately 1.5 million 
acres out of the 19 million acres which make up ANWR. Approximately 8.5 
million acres of that has already been set aside in a permanent 
wilderness by the 1980 legislation. Another 9.5 million acres has been 
set aside in refuge, leaving approximately 1.5 million acres in the so-
called 1002 area for the disposition of Congress.
  At this time, we are faced with a dilemma as to whether or not, 
indeed, this is in the national interest. It is a similar argument to 
that which prevailed in the seventies when there was question as to 
whether or not the Prudhoe Bay area would be open for exploration and 
development.
  That was over 20 years ago, Mr. President. Prudhoe Bay has been 
producing approximately 25 percent of the total domestic crude oil 
produced in the United States over the last 18 years. Today, Prudhoe 
Bay has declined. The production from that field has dropped from 
approximately 2 million barrels a day to 1.5 million barrels a day. But 
the arguments over whether or not we should open up the Arctic oil 
reserves of ANWR and the arguments that prevailed 20 years ago are 
basically the same: Can we do it safely? What will be the effect on the 
caribou? What will be the effect on the moose and the other animals 
that frequent the area, the bird life and so forth?
  We have seen over the last 18 years of operating the Prudhoe Bay 
field an extraordinary set of events relative to the wildlife. We have 
seen the caribou herds grow from 3,000 to 4,000 animals to the current 
level of approximately 24,000 animals. It has been recognized in the 
oil fields, as in other areas where the caribou frequent that there are 
approximately three detractors and a number of animals that can sustain 
themselves, and those are individually related to the number of wolves 
in an individual area or other predators such as bear, the winter--the 
heavy snows take a toll on the caribou--and, of course, overgrazing is 
also a difficulty. In any event, we have seen the growth of these 
herds, which suggest, indeed, we have the capability to safely manage 
with a reasonable amount of development in an area given time.
  My point is, again, we are reflecting the same arguments that were 
before us in the seventies, applicable today, but we have the proof, we 
have the scientific evidence and we have the redundancy, if you will, 
of recognizing that this population has increased and, with proper 
management, there can be little effect on the animal population 
associated with development in the high Arctic.
  Further, there has always been a question as to the safety relative 
to the advanced technology. We have proven that we can limit the 
footprint dramatically. We have seen an extensive field in Prudhoe Bay 
reduced as new fields have been found, as stepouts of Prudhoe Bay, 
approximately 7 years ago, brought in a field known as Endicott which 
only took in 56 acres of surface land, yet it was the 10th largest 
producing field in North America. Today, it is the 7th largest 
producing field.
  There was another question as to what effect this activity would have 
on the residents, the Eskimo people themselves. I quote from a 
statement, a news release from the North Slope Bureau and the Arctic 
Slope Regional Corporation:

       The Eskimo people are working their way out of Federal 
     dependency. Because of their success, they state they are 
     being opposed at every turn by the Assistant Secretary for 
     Indian Affairs--

  And they named Ada Deer in that regard and suggest she opposes 
successful native American corporations and organizations. She, in 
their opinion, wants them to be dependent on the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. But they indicate that they are well aware of what dependency 
brings: a state that kills self-initiative, that breeds a welfare 
society. They further conclude that they want to follow the American 
way, the old way of independent self-help and individual 
responsibility, family values and sense of community.
  In other words, Mr. President, they want to have the same 
opportunities that other Americans enjoy: jobs for their children, tax 
bases for their communities, running water that other Americans enjoy.
  So as a consequence, as we debate the merits of whether ANWR should 
stay in the reconciliation package, as has been deemed by action taken 
by both the House and the Senate, we are faced with this question of 
national security interests as well.
  Currently, we are importing about 51 percent of our total crude oil. 
Back in 

[[Page S 17527]]
1973, we were importing 34 percent. Obviously, we are sending our jobs 
and dollars overseas and the justification of that, in my mind, is very 
questionable. If the oil is there, and volumes would have to be, it is 
estimated it would create 257,000 jobs associated with the life of the 
field. This would be the largest single jobs producer that we can 
identify in North America today.
  So, as a consequence, if we add up the attitude of the Eskimo people 
who see this as an opportunity for stimulating their own economic 
livelihood, the national energy security interests of our Nation, the 
tremendous number of jobs, the realization that we have been able to 
develop safely oil and gas in the Arctic, as evidenced at Prudhoe Bay, 
there is no good reason why this administration should not support 
opening up ANWR to drilling.
  It is anticipated that the lease sale would bring in approximately 
$2.6 billion. That would be split 50 percent to the Federal Government 
and 50 percent to the State of Alaska. As a consequence of that, it 
would give our engineers, our scientists, our technical people a great 
challenge to address new technology to make the footprint even smaller.
  It has been estimated that if the oil is there, the development 
scenario can be accomplished in an area of less than 3,000 acres. The 
first estimate of this given a couple years ago was approximately 
12,500 acres. Sometimes it is difficult to generate a comparison, but 
if one looks at the Dulles International Airport complex, that is about 
12,500 acres, and a comparison would be if the State of Virginia was a 
wilderness. That is, I think, the picture that we can best use as an 
analogy to try to describe the vast distances associated with the 
Arctic and the realization that the footprint would be very, very 
insignificant.
  Finally, Mr. President, I refer to an editorial in Nation's Business 
in November 1995. It is entitled ``How Energy Policy and the Budget 
Intertwine.'' It reads:

       Consider a situation in which the central government holds 
     direct ownership of properties containing most of the 
     resources critical to economic growth. It also controls 
     access to vast additional areas holding still more of those 
     resources.
       This central government has adopted policies that in effect 
     block the country's citizens from using such materials even 
     as their availability from other sources declines.
       The nation fitting this description is the United States. 
     The federal government owns one-third of the lands that hold 
     most of the remaining reserves of oil, natural gas, timber, 
     low-sulfur coal, gold, silver, other minerals, and timber. In 
     addition, our government controls the outer continental shelf 
     (OCS), the undersea area extending from three to 100 miles 
     off the East, Gulf, and West coasts.
       Federal lands, notably the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
     (ANWR), and areas under federal jurisdiction, notably the 
     OCS, contain vast reserves of oil and natural gas. But 
     national policy has been to keep those resources locked up, 
     and the nation's dependence on imports continues to grow as 
     domestic production declines.
       The United States now relies on imports for more than half 
     of the crude oil it consumes, and much of that comes from 
     countries with long records of political instability. Within 
     20 years, imports will represent 60 percent of domestic 
     consumption. Given such dependence, even a slight drop in the 
     supply from overseas could inflict severe economic harm.
       The consequences of excessive reliance on imports were 
     starkly demonstrated in the 1970s, when foreign manipulation 
     of supplies and prices caused economic disruptions that 
     continued into the next decade.
       There are, however, grounds for optimism that the nation 
     will not be held hostage to political events in the oil-
     exporting nations. Congress is considering legislation to 
     permit exploration for oil and natural gas in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge and development of sites deemed 
     productive. With a membership far more attuned to economic 
     realities than its predecessors, this Congress might be the 
     one that adopts the rational energy policies the country has 
     long needed.
       Environmentalists are predictably sounding alarms that ANWR 
     development would destroy vast areas of pristine natural 
     beauty. The facts show otherwise. The refuge consists of 19 
     million acres, and the development ``footprint''--the 
     visible results of development--would affect 15,000 acres, 
     one-twelfth of 1 percent.
       Oil exploration and production activity would be limited to 
     the coastal plain area, which is by no means a pristine 
     sanctuary but contains, among other things, abandoned 
     military bases. Even then, the footprint would affect only 1 
     percent of the designated coastal area.
       Advances in oil-production technology, such as horizontal 
     drilling, would further minimize the environmental impact. 
     Horizontal drilling, with pipes stemming underground from a 
     single pad, sharply reduces the number of traditional oil 
     rigs needed to produce from a wide area.
       Given the economic necessity of developing the nation's oil 
     reserves and the negligible environmental consequences, the 
     proposal to open a relatively tiny portion of the ANWR should 
     command broad support in Congress--broad enough to override 
     the veto that has been threatened by President Clinton 
     because of pressure from environmentalists.
       There is an additional benefit from opening that small 
     portion of the ANWR: The federal government would realize 
     $1.3 billion in oil royalties over seven years, money that 
     would help achieve the goal of a balanced federal budget.
       The revenue potential of resource development on other 
     government-owned and/or government-controlled lands in one 
     that should be taken into consideration as Congress seeks 
     ways to achieve its goal of a balanced budget by 2002. Such 
     land use not only could help meet crucial resource needs but 
     also could help achieve a fiscal policy that would provide a 
     tremendous boost to the economy generally.
       Although the federal government holds the legal title to 
     one-third of U.S. lands the key to offshore resources, the 
     officials who make up that government have failed in the past 
     to recognize that they were actually trustees and that 
     ultimate ownership and control was held by the American 
     people.
       Those people want wise use of their properties. Such use 
     includes preservation where warranted and economic 
     utilization where that is warranted.
       A Congress under new management appears to be aware of that 
     distinction. The president should also grasp it.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the last item I want to submit for the 
Record is a letter dated November 10, 1995, to the President of the 
United States from Mr. George Duff, president of the Greater Seattle 
Chamber of Commerce. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   Greater Seattle


                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                                November 10, 1995.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce 
     continues its support to open the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge's (ANWR) Coastal Plain to environmentally responsible 
     oil and gas exploration, development and production. The 
     Advanced technologies of the oil companies have proven that 
     opening ANWR would be environmentally safe and wouldn't 
     endanger wildlife habitat. In 1987 after extensive 
     examination of this issue the Chamber adopted a formal 
     position supporting the opening of ANWR.
       The Chamber believes that national security and economic 
     stability depend on sufficient ongoing quantities of domestic 
     oil production. Increased domestic oil production minimizes 
     the possibility of economic disruption due to dependence on 
     foreign oil and decreases the nation's trade deficit.
       The Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce urges you to 
     approve the federal budget bill containing a provision to 
     open ANWR's Coastal Plain to oil and gas exploration and 
     development.
           Respectfully,
                                                      George Duff,
                                                        President.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order 
for not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 10 minutes.

                          ____________________