[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17844-S17845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SHOULD WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INDIGNANT?

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, during an appearance on ``Nightline'' 
last week, I got quite disturbed with the Secretary of the Interior. He 
said that the Alaska delegation had been sneaky about, as he said, 
sticking in provisions to allow exploration and development of the 
Alaska oil reserve in the budget bills without honest debate. And he 
further said that we had done this in the dark of the night.
  I came a little unglued at that, the idea that a Cabinet officer who 
is under oath--and I believe we are always under oath as Members of the 
Congress--will make statements that are just not true. I did not have 
time really to explain--in the context of that type of experience--the 
situation. So I have decided to come to the Senate and take 5 minutes 
to do it today.
  This is a map of my State. It depicts what happened in 1980 at the 
time the Congress withdrew all of those areas that are outlined in blue 
and set them aside as preservation areas, national parks, national 
wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness.
  This area up here, the Arctic National Wildlife Range, was expanded 
into what is known now as Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But one 
area, 1.5 million acres on the Arctic Slope, is the only area touched 
by that 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act that the 
1980 act allowed for continued utilization for development. This is 
called the 1002 area, because that is the section, 1002 in the 1980 
act. It abuts the Arctic Ocean of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
It is in the coastal plain. That area we have sought to proceed with 
leasing as was contemplated by the 1980 act now for 15 years.
  What has happened this year that did not exist before this year was 
that the President requested and Congress has granted a change in the 
law with regard to scoring of Federal actions under the Budget Act. 
Prior to this year, the leasing of land, which brings about sizable 
bonus bids, would not score as a Federal revenue raiser even though it 
would bring money into the Federal Treasury. There was a bid for one 
area right offshore of the Arctic oil reserve, this part of ANWR, as we 
call it, $2 billion just for the right to look to see if there was oil 
and gas in the area. It was dry. We expect bids in this area of over $5 
billion when the land is leased. More conservative estimates suggest 
that bids will be about $2.6 billion, with $1.3 billion coming to the 
Federal Treasury. That is what the Congressional Budget Office has 
said.
  The President has asked for, and we granted, the right to score 
sales, and leasing is a sale of a right to use land for a period of 
time. Those are now scoreable so they can get in the Budget Act.
  Going back to 1980, we have tried since then to get this leasing to 
proceed, but we have not been able to have it done.
  This year in the budget reconciliation, what we're now calling the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995, there was a vote in the Senate Energy 
Committee of 13 to 7 to include this area in the budget reconciliation. 
It came to the floor.
  There have been three rollcall votes on the Senate floor this year 
dealing with the issue: May 24, to prohibit the asset sales in the 
budget resolution; again on May 24, to strike this amendment that had 
been inserted in the budget resolution by my colleague, Senator 
Murkowski; and in October, during the budget reconciliation process, we 
voted on Senator Baucus' amendment dealing with the Arctic oil reserve. 
We tabled each of these motions. We were sustained in our position that 
this belongs in the budget bill.
  In response to another of Secretary Babbitt's assertions, we have not 
done this in the dark of the night. There was not anything sneaky about 
it. As a matter of fact, we have had, since 1987, 26 days of hearings 
on this issue in the House of Representatives, 14 days of hearings in 
the Senate, and there is no question that this has all been done in the 
light of day.
  We have not done anything sneaky in the dark of the night. To have a 
Cabinet officer accuse Members of the Congress of taking such action is 
really, I think, an extreme position. The interesting thing is the news 
media have picked this up and now they are bashing me over the head 
again, because I got disturbed at him for making such statements. It is 
appalling to me that we cannot require honesty and truthfulness out of 
people dealing with issues such as this.
  We seek only to proceed with leasing, as was contemplated in 1980. As 
I said, this is the only area of Alaska in which that act allowed 
development. Look at the rest of it. Over 100 million acres of Alaska 
set aside. We cannot use them. This one area we can use, and we have 
been blocked by filibuster since 1980 to proceed as contemplated.
  Now, the President asked for the change in the law, and asset sales 
can be included in the budget resolution. We can put this in the Budget 
Act, and we have put it in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It is a 
concept that we should, I think, consider.
  Mr. President, it means over 735,000 jobs for Americans. It means we 
will be able to produce oil from that area as was contemplated. It is 
probably the last greatest oil reserve on the North American Continent 
that has not been produced.
  We have had provisions to allow the leasing of the coastal plain in a 
whole series of bills. At one time, we had a six-vote margin on a 
filibuster vote to break the filibuster. We did not have 60 votes, and 
we were not able to bring this up in past Congresses. President Bush's 
1993 budget proposed this area be leased. Leasing of the coastal plain 
was part of his proposal to balance the budget by leasing land such as 
this and getting the bonus bids and getting the royalties that would 
come to the United States if leasing and development came about. He 
specifically provided, as a matter of fact, that the revenues would be 
shared equally between the Federal Government and the State of Alaska, 
which would mean a change in the law to accomplish that.
  I come to the floor and I am going to come back again and again. I am 
going to ask the Senate to analyze the statements made by this Cabinet 
officer and let the public decide: Should we have the right to be 
indignant when a Cabinet officer makes statements on national 
television that are not true, that we try to mislead the public in 
terms of what is going on here in Congress? Is it sneaky to put a 
provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 that does the same thing 
the President of the United States wants to do with the helium reserve, 
with the Teapot Dome area, and with the naval petroleum reserves? He 
wants to sell them. If they are sold, they are scored. We put it in the 
Balanced Budget Act. These actions have never been able to proceed 
passed because they were not in those bills either. They did not have 
the capability of getting a vote to avoid a filibuster in the Senate.

  Now, Mr. President, it is very difficult to represent a State that is 
offshore, that is one-fifth the size of the United States, and that has 
so many varied issues that involve Federal lands and Federal actions, 
and to deal with the person who is Secretary of the Interior, who is 
unwilling to properly present the issue to the American public. I 
believe--and there has been a recent poll that will be announced 
today--the American public, when fully informed about this issue, will 
agree with us, that leasing should go ahead, as contemplated in 1980, 
and the revenues that will come from that area should come to the 
Federal Treasury, and some to the State. But the jobs that would come 
from developing our oil reserve should be available to Americans. We 
should stop importing so much foreign oil.
  There are a great many more things that were said by the Secretary of 
the Interior in that statement when we appeared together on 
``Nightline.'' I will come back again and again, because all I am 
asking for, Mr. President, is an honest debate, to tell the truth and 
give the facts and let the judgment be made. But when people are trying 
to 

[[Page S17845]]
twist the information so that it casts us in a light of being people 
that sneak around in the night--can you imagine that, saying we did 
this in the ``dark of the night,'' that we were sneaky, when we have 
had so many days of hearings, so many public statements on the floor, 
so many votes both here and in the House?
  I think there is just no question that a Cabinet officer who does 
that should be called to attention, and we should ask: Is this the 
conduct that this administration believes should be the conduct of a 
Cabinet officer? When he raised his hand and said he would support the 
Constitution, as you and I did, Mr. President, does that not mean we 
will be truthful in the conduct of our business, the public business?
  We do it out in front of everybody, right here on the floor. We did 
our action of putting this amendment in the bill, by a vote of the 
committee. We have had three votes on the floor this year. We have been 
here for 15 years now trying to get this Congress to proceed as was 
contemplated in 1980. I do not think it is proper to call us 
``sneaky,'' or to say we are doing it in the dark of the night.
  I hope more and more people in America understand that those who make 
allegations like that have something to hide themselves. I am going to 
find some way to bring to the American public the truth in these 
statements that are being made by the Cabinet members of this 
administration.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to talk just a few minutes now. 
I understand that the unanimous-consent agreement that has been 
propounded and accepted limits Senators to 5 minutes. I ask unanimous 
consent to extend that to 10 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would have to object, Mr. President. We, of course, 
have no objection if the Senator wishes to be recognized for the second 
time. But in the interest of fairness, we have set 5 minutes per 
Senator. If there is another Senator to speak at the end of that 5 
minutes, he should be recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is not an unfair response. Perhaps at the end of 
that time, I will call on using leader time, which I understand has 
been made available to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.

                          ____________________