[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S125-S126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE BUDGET TALKS

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me make a reference to the state of 
affairs relative to the suspended budget talks. I think it is fair to 
say that we have all observed, with some chagrin, finger pointing, the 
reality that after these endless meetings we are left with a situation 
where we have not reached an accord. It is undoubtedly a reality that 
we will not get this thing resolved until after the State of the Union 
on the 23d of January. It would be perhaps speculative to suggest we 
will get it resolved at that time. But we certainly hope so.
  But I think it is fair to say that the extended discussions covering 
the major issues of Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, taxes have been 
thoroughly gone into, but they are still not resolved. The President 
has stepped forward with a 7-year proposal to balance the budget, but 
the difficulty with that is most of the cuts are in the 7th year.
  In the 7th year the President is not going to be here. It is such a 
draconian mandate that undoubtedly Congress would find it unacceptable. 
Clearly it lacks the commitment that is necessary for it to be 
workable; and that is that we have a proportional cut over each year 
that is equitable and palatable to the American public. Further, Mr. 
President, we have not gone into the second-tier issues.
  These are issues that are subject to considerable debate, but they 
are in the reconciliation, and the reconciliation process as we know it 
is hung up as a consequence of the continued discussion over Medicaid, 
Medicare, welfare, taxes, and so forth.
  As a consequence, we have an emergency not just associated with 
weather, but in my State concerning resource development on public 
lands. As an example, we have unresolved the issue of opening up the 
Arctic National Wildlife Area for oil exploration. That is covered in 
the reconciliation package. We have a mining piece of legislation, a 
mining bill in the reconciliation package that will either determine 
the future of domestic mining or the demise of mining in the United 
States as we find ourselves in a situation where the industry is no 
longer able to generate a reasonable return on domestic investments and 
moves overseas.
  So there is much riding on a resolve, and we also have unresolved 
major appropriations bills affecting my State and the timber industry 
in the Tongass and the Interior appropriations bill. So it is 
imperative that judgments be made and that those judgments be made in a 
timely manner.
  As a consequence, Mr. President, I would just like to refer to what I 
think is the significance of what this debate is all about. It has been 
suggested that the debate concerns itself with a balanced budget. I 
think it is more fundamental. I think it is a historic debate about the 
role and the scope of Washington, DC, whether Washington will continue 
to tax Americans more, to spend more of America's savings, to regulate 
Americans more, and to control Americans more, or whether we are going 
to see a departure that will begin to reduce the size, scope, and power 
of Washington, DC. I think that is what this debate is all about. I 
think that is what we should focus in on. We are at a significant 
crossroads, Mr. President, and it is appropriate that we recognize it 
for what it is. It is either doing business as usual or a substantial 
departure from the status quo.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record a 
letter from Kelly R. King. Kelly King is a college student from Alaska. 
He was formerly an intern in my office. He has written this letter to 
each Member of the U.S. Senate who chose not to support opening the 
Arctic National Wildlife Reserve for exploration and, if the oil is 
there, production. I think it is appropriate that we reflect on the 
attitudes prevailing concerning whether or not we are going to continue 
to develop our natural resources in the United States, whether it be on 
public land for 

[[Page S126]]
grazing, mining, timbering, oil and gas exploration, or whether we are 
going to depend on imports.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 December 5, 1995.
     Hon. Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: Now that I am of voting age, I have 
     taken a deep interest in the affairs of my nation, and 
     particularly my state. The nation is facing a growing 
     national debt that we must stop. Alaska proposed a solution 
     to help this problem which you voted against, that is, the 
     opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil 
     exploration. I hope that you will reconsider your decision 
     with some information that I hope to bring to your attention. 
     If we opened the 1002 area to drilling, not only would it 
     help to solve the national debt, but it would also decrease 
     our dependence on foreign oil.
       In 1980, Congress set aside 1.5 million acres out of a 
     total of 19 million acres in ANWR so that it could be studied 
     and considered for oil exploration and named it the 1002 
     area. The studies have been done and it is time to open it 
     for drilling. Geologists have found that there is 
     considerable evidence that sizable quantities of oil could be 
     found in the Arctic Oil Reserve and recommend opening the AOR 
     for drilling. Don't believe those that tell you that ANWR is 
     America's last wilderness. In fact, more than 192 million 
     acres of the State of Alaska are already protected as either 
     National Parks, Preserves, Refuges, Marine parks and other 
     federal and state conservation units. The 1002 area is not 
     designated as a wilderness. Studies show that more than 99 
     percent of ANWR would remain untouched if oil drilling were 
     to take place. A study done by the Office of Technology 
     Assessment found that fewer than 2000 acres of the 1.5 
     million acres in the 1002, less than 5 percent, would be 
     affected. You can see by that study that drilling will only 
     affect the environment in minute ways. Modern day 
     technologies will allow us to drill for oil safely without 
     hurting the environment.
       You may ask how opening ANWR will affect your state and 
     America? Economists are estimating that if ANWR was opened to 
     drilling, that it would create over 700,000 jobs all around 
     the country. Not only would the United States benefit, but 
     over 700,000 Americans would have job security in the oil 
     industry for centuries to come. In a recent survey done 
     around the country, very few people have even heard of ANWR. 
     And when presented with the facts, they supported the idea of 
     drilling in the 1002 Area.
       Bi-partisan support for the opening of the Arctic Oil 
     Reserve (1002 Area) is widespread throughout Alaska. Not only 
     is it backed by the Alaska State Legislature, Governor 
     Knowles, and most of Alaskan citizens, but the Alaska 
     Federation of Natives endorses this plan as well. The 
     majority of Alaska Natives feel that development of the 
     reserve can only better their lives. If oil is found, it will 
     eventually provide jobs, water and sewer systems, electric 
     power, and security for their villages, while not sacrificing 
     the wildlife on which they are so dependent. The Porcupine 
     Caribou herd is of concern to Natives and to all Alaskans, 
     but careful regulations were implemented at Prudhoe Bay and 
     the Central Arctic caribou herd grew from 3,000 in 1972 to 
     18,000 today. This confirms that animals and development can 
     coexist in the Arctic.
       I hope that you use some of the facts that I have provided, 
     continue to research the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and 
     reconsider your decision. Development can only better the 
     United States and Alaska. I believe there is nothing to lose 
     in opening the Arctic Oil Reserve. If you would like more 
     information, I would urge you to contact the Alaska 
     Delegation. Please carefully decide, based on sound science--
     the obvious answer being that it is time to open the Arctic 
     Oil Reserve. Americans and Alaskans both know that it is 
     time.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Kelly R. King,
                                                  College Student.

  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________