[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1645-S1651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  ANWR

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity 
to address an issue that is very close to Alaska, Senator Stevens, our 
Representative Young, and myself. It represents the myth associated 
with ANWR and the realization that Alaska has been producing almost 25 
percent of the total crude oil that has been produced in this Nation 
for the last 23 years or thereabouts.
  I have here a map of Alaska that shows the pipeline and gives you a 
dimension of the magnitude of this particular area of our State. It is 
necessary that you recognize, as we address the disposition of allowing 
exploration in ANWR, that this was established as a responsibility that 
only Congress could address in releasing this particular area for 
exploration.
  I am going to give you an opportunity to view a map of Alaska. Alaska 
is a pretty big piece of real estate. On a map, if you overlayed Alaska 
on the United States, it would extend from Canada to Mexico and from 
Florida to California. We have the Aleutian Islands that go out almost 
2,000 miles. The breadth of the State from the pipeline alone at 
Prudhoe Bay to where the pipeline ends at Valdez is 800 miles. It is a 
big piece of real estate.
  Until a few years ago, we had four time zones in the State alone. 
When Senator Stevens or I go back to the State, we just begin our 
travel. We have a very small segment of the State that has a road 
system. This entire western area is without any roads, with the 
exception of a few miles in Nome and Kotzebue, and the villages.
  We are not connected to the continental United States, as you can 
see. Our neighbor to the right, Canada, constitutes a barrier--a 
foreign country; a good friend--from the rest of the United States. We 
have our southeastern part where our State capital is in Juneau, 
roughly 700 miles from our largest city, Anchorage. Our second largest 
city, Fairbanks, is 400 miles to the north of Anchorage.
  I go into this detail because it is important, as we look at the 
issue of ANWR, to keep it in perspective. I am going to refer to the 
chart behind me because I think it represents an appropriate 
comparison.
  Let me advise my colleagues of a couple facts.
  One, ANWR is going to be in the budget. We are going to be addressing 
the budget in the coming weeks. It is going to be in there at an 
anticipated revenue forecast of about $1.5 billion to the Federal 
Treasury. You can evaluate the pros and cons of that. It is also going 
to be in the Republican package that we are preparing to try to do 
something meaningful about the energy crisis in this country, which the 
current administration has not done.

[[Page S1646]]

 They have no energy policy, as evidenced by their inability to address 
what they are going to do with hydro.
  Some want to tear the dams down. What are they going to do with the 
electric industry? Obviously, Carol Browner wants to close half a dozen 
coal-fired plants, with no indication where we are going to pick up the 
alternative. Our nuclear situation is such that we cannot address what 
we are going to do with our nuclear waste, yet the nuclear industry 
contributes 20 percent of our energy in this country.
  If you look at gas, you may assume, as some do, that all we have to 
do is plug into it. If you read the National Petroleum Council report 
on gas, you have to recognize a harsh reality: We are using about 20 
trillion cubic feet of gas a day. In another 10 to 15 years, we will be 
using 31 trillion cubic feet a day. We do not have the infrastructure 
to deliver the anticipated demand. It just isn't there. It is going to 
require over $1 trillion--the industry figures $1.5 trillion--in the 
next decade, and that is only if we have access to areas where we are 
likely to find gas.

  Much of the overthrust belt--which is the Rocky Mountains--65 percent 
of that has been removed from exploration. So where do we go? We go 
offshore; we go to Louisiana; we go to Texas; we go, to some extent, to 
Colorado and Wyoming, but we do not have an aggressive plan.
  But we have an opportunity, in my State of Alaska--a significant 
opportunity--and that is ANWR.
  What is the significance of ANWR? ANWR is shown on this map in this 
little tight corner, over here by the Canadian border. It looks small 
on this map, but it is in proportion.
  There are those who say: Good heavens, you are going to jeopardize 
this area for exploration.
  What we, as Alaskans, have not been able to portray--because the 
media will not pick up on it, and people are evidently not interested 
enough to recognize the proportion here--this is ANWR. This is 19 
million acres, as shown by this little spot up here. It is as big as 
the State of South Carolina, a pretty big hunk of real estate. What 
have we done with this?
  In 1980, we made some permanent designations. We created the refuge, 
the arctic refuge: 9.5 million acres in perpetuity. We went up and 
created a wilderness: 8 million acres in this area that is shown on the 
map marked with the slices.
  But we left for Congress's dictate 1.5 million acres, so-called 1002 
areas, up here. The reason we left it is, Congress was concerned there 
might be major deposits of hydrocarbons in this area, just like there 
were in Prudhoe Bay.
  Let's look at Prudhoe Bay for a moment because there is an 
interesting parallel here. Prudhoe Bay is where the oil development is 
today. Let's look at Prudhoe Bay today and let's look at the 
traditional oil development and a picture that is an actual scene 
showing Prudhoe Bay and the animal activity that surrounds the area.
  I show you a picture taken some years ago, but it represents the 
heart of Prudhoe Bay. There you see the pipeline. You see the oil 
derricks, and you see the caribou.
  There is a degree of compatibility there. The reason it is there, 
obviously, is nobody is shooting these animals; nobody is running them 
down. There are no snow machines. It is summertime. There is no threat. 
They feel very much at home.
  These are nomadic herds that move in and out, but there is a 
compatibility. We have seen a tremendous growth in this western arctic 
herd since we developed this area. The reason we have seen that is 
there are no guns allowed in the area. These animals are protected. 
They prosper, as they should. To suggest somehow they are in jeopardy 
defies reality. When we started oil drilling in Prudhoe Bay, there were 
3,000 or 4,000 caribou in this herd. There are over 18,000 today. That 
is just a fact associated with experience that we have already had. 
Prudhoe Bay's technology is 30 years old. We can do a better job if we 
are allowed in here.

  What is the footprint going to be if we indeed are allowed to open up 
ANWR? The footprint is estimated by the industry to be 2,000 acres out 
of all of ANWR's 19 million acres. That is what we are looking at. We 
are keeping the refuge, we are keeping the wilderness, and we are 
making a determination.
  What does it look like when they are drilling in the area? This is 
what we would like to communicate to the American people. It is a 
pretty tough environment. There it is. We have a well under 
construction. This is not in ANWR because there is no entry or activity 
allowed. It is a typical scene in the Arctic in Prudhoe Bay. This is an 
ice road. They don't allow anything on the tundra in the summertime, 
but the ice roads stay there about 9 months of the year because you are 
way above the Arctic Circle, nearly 400 miles. It is a harsh 
environment.
  That is a typical rig. When the disposition of this is made one way 
or the other, what is going to be left? Well, let's look at it in the 
summertime. Same site, summertime activity is gone; ice road is gone. 
There you have it, Mr. President: the tundra, a spigot; that's it.
  I always think of my good friend, Senator Mark Hatfield. Mark 
Hatfield, it is safe to say, was a pacifist. He said: I will vote for 
ANWR any day of the year rather than send our troops in danger in the 
Mideast to keep oil flowing from neighbors we cannot count on.
  All right. Where are we? This is an extraordinary chart. This marks 
from where our increasing oil exports are coming. Ironically, they are 
coming from Iraq. Last year, we imported 300,000 barrels a day from 
Iraq. This year we are importing 700,000 barrels a day. How many people 
remember 1990 and 1991? Do you know what happened over there? We fought 
a war. We fought a war to keep Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait. 
What did that cost us? That cost us 147 American lives. We had 448 
wounded. We had 23 taken prisoner. That is a cost.
  We had another cost. What has it cost the taxpayers of this country 
since that war was over? What has it cost us in the last 10 years, from 
1991 until today, to keep Saddam Hussein fenced in, enforcing the no-
fly zone, enforcing, if you will, the embargoes, putting the fleet over 
there? We added it up. It is $10 billion. That is what it has cost the 
American taxpayer: 147 lives, 448 wounded, 23 prisoners, $10 billion.
  Where are we getting our oil now? The fastest increasing imports are 
from our old buddy, Saddam Hussein. Isn't that ironic?
  Look at the national security interests of this country. We are today 
56-percent dependent on imports. When we fought this war, we were 47- 
to 49-percent dependent. I think the President will recall, in 1973, we 
had an energy crisis in the country. We called it the Arab oil embargo. 
We had gasoline lines around the block in this Nation. People were 
inconvenienced. So Congress acted. At that time we were 37-percent 
dependent on imported oil. Congress set up the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve and said we would never approach 50 percent. We are going to 
take action. We never got 100 days supply of oil in SPR. We got a 56-
day supply. That is what it is now.
  Now there are proposals we should take oil out of SPR for the 
national crisis that we have on oil prices. That is very dangerous 
because if you take it out of SPR, you still need more imported into 
the country. And your good neighbors, the Saudis and the Mexicans, know 
it; the Venezuelans, you have less leverage. If we are ever going to 
take anything out of SPR, we should have a certification from the 
Secretary of Defense that it does not jeopardize our national security 
because you can only pull about 4 million barrels a day out of SPR.

  The point is--and it is a very important one--go very slow with the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve because after that, you don't have a 
backup. So here we are, depending on Saddam Hussein today. I find it 
inexcusable. This administration has no energy policy. They hope this 
won't be an issue in the campaign. They hope the issue will go away, 
and they hope the Secretary of Energy is going to be successful in his 
efforts to go around with that tin cup and try and get more production.
  Let's see what he has done so far. He went over to Saudi Arabia about 
10 days ago and said: We have an emergency in this country. They said: 
Well, we will have a meeting on March 27. We will address greater oil 
production then. He said: No, you don't understand; we have an 
emergency now. We fought a war over here. We kept Saddam Hussein out of 
Kuwait. They said:

[[Page S1647]]

 I'm sorry. We are going to have a meeting on March 27, and we will 
address it then.
  He got stiffed by the Saudis. So he went to Mexico and said: We need 
more production. The Mexicans said: Well, we appreciate that. We would 
like to help you, but you have been buying oil at $11, $12, $13 a 
barrel. Our economy went in the bucket. Where were you? The Secretary 
said: Well, we bailed you out of the tesobonos. We had a tremendous 
refinancing commitment for Mexico. They said: Sorry. We got stiffed.
  So where did the Secretary go next? Well, he went over to some of the 
other countries. Nigeria, you might get a little out of Nigeria. I 
don't know.
  Here is the superpower of the world, a Nation that is the most 
productive and has become the most dependent on imported oil. Make no 
mistake about it, we have to conserve. We have to have alternative 
energy. We have to develop the technology, but we have to be realistic. 
If somebody drove here, somebody came in on an airplane, they are going 
back the same way. We don't have the technology now for hydrogen. Fuel 
cells won't do it. Four percent of our energy is alternative. I wish it 
were more. Some of you came in here in a sports vehicle. Gasoline, at 
$1.70 a gallon, is going to shoot a pretty good hole in a $100 bill 
when you fill up that 40-gallon tank. What are we doing about it? We 
are hoping the problem will go away.
  It is not going to go away. It is going to get worse. We are going to 
be held hostage again and again. So our alternative is greater 
production in the U.S. Keep the jobs at home, keep the dollars at home, 
and for heaven's sake, why can't we do it? We have the technology; we 
have the know-how.
  We have a very active, extreme environmental community that is 
opposed to any resource development on public land, whether it be 
grazing, whether it be timber--timber, of course, is renewable--whether 
it be mining, whether it be oil and gas.
  This administration doesn't have a policy. They want to tear down the 
dams. They won't do anything about nuclear. Nuclear is 20 percent of 
our energy in this country. They don't have a policy.
  We are trying to do something about it. I am chairman of the 
Republican Energy Task Force. We have a legislative package, short-
term, interim, and long-term. We are proposing to do away with the 
gasoline tax and not jeopardize the highway trust fund. It can be done. 
If gasoline gets up to $2 a gallon, or thereabouts, I am of the opinion 
that we ought to do away with all of the tax. That is a little over 18 
cents a gallon.
  We have a positive approach. We are going to stimulate development 
and on public land and on offshore areas. We are going to stimulate 
development of our agricultural potential in ethanol. My good friend, 
Senator Grassley, has been a proponent of that for some time. We need 
all the domestic sources of energy we can get--the sooner the better--
to get off this kick of paying tribute to Saddam Hussein.
  Do not be misled. We have an opportunity to open up an area. We can 
do it safely. We have the technology.
  I am going to counter some of the myths that are associated with 
ANWR.
  Some ask: What do you want to open this area for because all of this 
Arctic coast is available? It is not available. That is truly a myth. 
With the exception of the area between the Colville and the Ganning 
Rivers, which is owned by the State of Alaska--this little area in 
here--more than 1,000 miles of the Arctic coastline is closed. That is 
just the harsh fact.
  What you have over here is a rather interesting piece of real estate 
because it happens to be an old naval petroleum reserve, now called the 
Petroleum Reserve Alaska.
  For heaven's sake, if you can't initiate exploration of a petroleum 
reserve that was designated in the 1900s or thereabouts, where can you? 
What an irony. There have been a few leases here. There is some 
production in there. But where the independents wanted to lease, the 
Department of Interior wouldn't put up the area for lease. As a 
consequence, that is an unrealistic statement. It is not factual 
because this is the Coastal Plain that borders clear around to here, 
and a very small portion is open. That happens to be State land. The 
Federal lands are not open. The Department of Interior won't issue a 
permit. They won't put up a proposed bid. That is just the fact.
  Let's move a little further.
  The State of Alaska will get 90 percent of the royalties.
  That is not true. The royalties are split 50-50, just like they are 
in Oklahoma or Louisiana or any other State.
  Somebody said Alaska's indigenous people are against all oil 
exploration in the Coastal Plain. That is very inaccurate. There are 
Inupiaq people in one Eskimo village called Katiovik that sits right 
here.
  I have another chart that shows you a greater portion of where this 
little village is. It is the only community within ANWR. They strongly 
support onshore exploration for oil and gas. That is in their backyard.
  Let me give you another example. We have a group called the Gwich'in 
near the Canadian border who are opposed to opening ANWR.
  It is kind of interesting. I am going to ask that this be printed in 
the Record. The Gwich'in at one time offered to lease all of their land 
of 1.799 million acres to the oil industry for exploration. The only 
problem is the oil industry didn't find any interest there. So they 
didn't opt to purchase the leases. Maybe they should have. Since that 
time, the Gwich'in, for the most part, have been funded by the national 
environmental groups and the Sierra Club.
  It is kind of interesting that one of the prominent members' names, 
Sarah James, is on the lease. They are free to choose. But, by the same 
token, the reality of what they were prepared to do at one time is kind 
of inconsistent with what they have chosen to do now.
  This is a copy of the lease that I ask unanimous consent to be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                    Native Village of Venetie,

                                                   March 21, 1984.
     To whom it may concern:
       This letter is authorization for Donald R. Wright, as our 
     consultant, to negotiate with any interested persons or 
     company for the purpose of oil or gas exploration and 
     production on the Venetie Indian Reservation, Alaska; subject 
     to final approval by the Native Village of Venetie Tribal 
     Government Council.
         Edward Frank, First Chief; Allen Tritt, Second Chief; 
           Virginia Henry, Secretary; Gideon James, Treasurer; 
           Lincoln Trill, Robert Frank, Sr., Lawrence Roberts, 
           Sarah James, Calvin Tritt, Council Members.

                       Native Village of Venetie


               request for proposals for oil & gas leases

       The Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government hereby 
     gives formal notice of intention to offer lands for 
     competitive oil and gas lease. This request for proposals 
     involves any or all of the lands and waters of the Venetie 
     Indian Reservation, U.S. Survey No. 5220, Alaska, which 
     aggregates 1,799,927.63 acres, more or less, and is located 
     in the Barrow and Fairbanks Recording Districts, State of 
     Alaska. These lands are bordered by the Yukon River to the 
     South, the Christian River to the East, the Chandalar River 
     to the West and are approximately 100 miles west of the 
     Canadian border on the southern slope of the Brooks Range and 
     about 110 miles East of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. 
     Communities in the vicinity of the proposed sale include 
     Arctic Village, Christian and Venetie. Bidders awarded leases 
     at the sale will acquire the right to explore for, develop 
     and produce the oil and gas that may be discovered within the 
     leased area upon specific terms and provisions established by 
     negotiation, which terms and provisions will conform to the 
     current Federal oil and gas lease where applicable.
     Bidding Method
       The bidding method will be cash bonus bidding for a minimum 
     parcel size of one-quarter of a township, or nine (9) 
     sections, which is 5,760 acres, more or less, and a minimum 
     annual rent of $2.00 per acre. There shall be a minimum fixed 
     royalty of twenty percentum (20%).
     Length of Lease
       All leases will have an initial primary term of five (5) 
     years.
     Other Terms of Sale
       Any bidder who obtains a lease from the Native Village of 
     Venetie Tribal Government as a result of this sale will be 
     responsible for the construction of access roads and capital 
     improvements as may be required. All operations on leased 
     lands will be subject to prior approval by the Native Village 
     of Venetie Tribal Government as required by the lease. 
     Surface entry will be restricted only as necessary to protect 
     the holders of surface interests or as necessary to protect 
     identified surface resource values.
       Prior to the commencement of lease operations, an oil and 
     gas lease bond for a minimum amount of $10,000.00 per 
     operation is

[[Page S1648]]

     required. This bonding provision does not affect the Tribal 
     Government's authority to require such additional unusual 
     risk bonds as may be necessary.
     Bidding procedure
       Proposals must be received by 12:00 p.m. sixty (60) days 
     from the date of this Request for Proposals, at the office of 
     the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, Attention, 
     Mr. Don Wright, S.R. Box 10402, 1314 Haldiver Way, Fairbanks, 
     Alaska 99701, telephone (907) 479-4271.
     Additional information
       A more detailed map of reservation lands and additional 
     information on the proposed leases are available to the 
     bidders and the public by contacting Mr. Don Wright at the 
     office identified above.
       Dated this 2nd day of April, 1984.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this lease is from the native village 
of Venetie. It has the signatures of Sarah James and a number of 
others. It is dated April 2, 1984, and it specifically states that the 
acreage offered under the lease is 1,799,927.65 acres, U.S. Survey 
5220.
  That is where we are relative to the issue of some of the folks who 
feel that this is not in their interest, but by a long shot that is not 
all the people.
  I point this out not to condemn the attitude of my constituents but 
just to point out a reality that at one time they were willing to sell 
their interest in leasing this land for oil and gas, and now, to a 
large degree, their public relations efforts are funded by the Sierra 
Club and others.
  I will submit at a later time the specific financial contributions 
that are paid to the Gwich'in by the various environmental 
organizations.
  What is happening in Alaska is a molding of our State into the image 
that much of America's environmental community would like to see 
established as opposed to the reality associated with the population of 
our State, some 700,000, and the fact that we are the new kids on the 
block. We have been a State for 41 years. We don't own our own land.
  Here is the land ownership in Alaska, unlike Illinois or California 
or any other State. We have 368 million acres in our State.
  What is it made up of? Let's look at private land ownership in our 
State: 5 million acres; less than 2 percent. Why is that? Because the 
Federal Government owns it. OK? We have 51 million acres of national 
parkland; 76 million acres of Fish and Wildlife land; 23 million acres 
of U.S. Forest Service; and 57 million acres of wilderness forever 
locked up.
  How much is enough? Where is the balance?
  This is the Bureau of Land Management alone controls 65 million 
acres. The State has 104 million acres in State land. The State is so 
lucky. It must have had a fortune teller. This little piece of land 
right here is what funds our State, the land it had when it became a 
State.
  The Natives finally gave land to residents of Alaska. The Natives got 
43 million acres. But the Federal Government owns our State. That is 
just the reality.
  Some say we need to save ANWR for our grandchildren. We need to know 
if oil is there. If there isn't, it is not going to be developed. You 
have to find a lot of oil in Alaska before drilling. Otherwise you 
can't afford to drill it. If they cannot produce 5,000 barrels a day, 
the cost is not economical.
  Prudhoe Bay came in. It is 30-year-old technology. It is a pretty big 
footprint. We went from there to Endicott. Endicott is up in this area.
  The significance is that when it came on it was the tenth largest 
producing field in the United States. It came in at a little over 
100,000 barrels a day. Today, it is the seventh largest producing 
field. The footprint is 56 acres because it is all directional drilling 
from one spot. It makes sense in Alaska, but the costs are high. We 
could do a better job if we had an opportunity over here.
  As a consequence of whether we need this oil now or later, we had 
better find out whether it is there or not. They can only do that 
through exploration. Then they can make a decision.
  As a consequence of this, we run into one other argument, which 
really bewilders me because it is so unrealistic. They say, well, the 
Coastal Plain may only have a 200-day supply of oil, and that is not 
worth developing.
  Let me tell you a little bit about it. First of all, Prudhoe Bay was 
supposed to have 9 billion barrels of oil. It has been producing now 
for 23 years. We have had a total of 12 billion barrels from Prudhoe 
Bay in the last 23 years. We were supposed to get 10 billion barrels. 
It is still producing at a million barrels a day. It is good for 
another 10 years with the technology that we have.
  When you say this only has a 200, do you know what you are implying? 
An unrealistic argument because you are saying the rest of our domestic 
oil production would stop. That is totally unrealistic. A two-hundred-
day supply, but that is assuming the rest of the oil is produced 
domestically in this country is going to stop. First of all, it is not 
going to stop; is it? That is an argument so full of holes that it 
defies imagination.
  Let me show you what happens when we bring oil on line from Alaska 
and what it does to our imports because I think it states in no 
uncertain terms the reality associated with the opportunity we have 
now.
  Let's recognize what has happened here. This body passed ANWR 5 years 
ago, in 1995.
  The President vetoed it. Had he not vetoed it, today we would have 
had a lease sale and we would know what the prospects for a major 
discovery were. We might be within a very short time of production.
  Somebody says opening ANWR will not have any impact. Wrong. Here is 
the proof. This chart identifies our imports in 1975, 1976, 1977, and 
1978. They were going up dramatically, 6 or 7 million barrels a day. We 
developed Prudhoe Bay in 1976, the current field we have. We can see 
when it came online and production increased, imports dropped 
dramatically, it was a major contribution. It was 2 million barrels a 
day, 25 percent of our total domestic production.
  To open up Prudhoe Bay, it took this Senate meeting in this Chamber 
with a tied vote. Vice President Spiro Agnew broke the tie. That is why 
we have Prudhoe Bay today. That is why we have production of 20 to 25 
percent of our crude oil. That is reality.
  Don't be misled by the myths. We are not going to destroy the Coastal 
Plain. We are not going to destroy the caribou. We are only going to 
allow activity in the wintertime when the caribou come through and 
calve. As the picture demonstrates, caribou are healthy for the most 
part. Do not suggest we cannot address our concern over the migratory 
Porcupine caribou herd; we can do it if given the opportunity.
  Somebody says ANWR oil will be exported and not reduce our 
dependency. I have received a letter from BP that says they are 
curtailing their small amount of exported oil.
  Mr. President, 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:

                                               BP Amoco Corp.,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2000.
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to respond to your inquiry 
     regarding BP Amoco's plans concerning Alaska North Slope oil 
     exports. Pending completion of contracts due at the end of 
     April, at this time we do not have subsequent plans to 
     export.
       We applaud the Administration and the Congress for its 
     wisdom to permit the market to work and to remove an 
     historical penalty imposed on Alaska North Slope oil. The 
     West Coast is part of the global crude market. The ultimate 
     destination of Alaskan crude has no effect on either West 
     Coast supply or gasoline prices. Once our acquisition of ARCO 
     is complete, we would expect to run all of our Alaska crude 
     through ARCO's excellent West Coast refining and marketing 
     network.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Larry D. Burton,
                                                   Vice President.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That situation may be resolved by the takeover by 
Phillips of ARCO. BP did not have on the west coast any refineries. 
ARCO did.
  To make a long story short, with BP acquiring ARCO refineries, there 
will not be a surplus on the west coast. I think the amount varied. 
There were up to 60,000 barrels a day at one time. I have been assured 
as a consequence of the change, the purchase by Phillips of ARCO, that 
the little oil that was exported will be terminated simply because it 
will be utilized by BP in their refinery.

[[Page S1649]]

  Some say any development in Alaska would be environmentally damaging. 
People might not like oil fields, but Prudhoe Bay is the best oil field 
in the world. We can do a better job if we can get into ANWR; there is 
no question about it.
  They say the Coastal Plain is unspoiled. Let me say something about 
the Coastal Plain. It is not unspoiled. In one sense, there is an 
Eskimo village there. Those people live there. There are a couple of 
radar sites that are, and for all practical purposes have been 
abandoned. This section of the State is pretty remote. One cannot find 
anything much more remote than this particular area of our State. It is 
probably one of the better areas if one were looking for less of an 
impact on mankind and animal-kind.
  Some ask what will happen to the birds. Most of the birds are near 
the lakes. Birds come in, they migrate. The issue isn't that there are 
no birds in ANWR, because there are.
  Some ask about the polar bears. They den on the ice; they do not come 
ashore. A few do. Do you know what we have done to save the polar bear? 
We don't allow the white man to shoot the polar bear in our State. You 
can't shoot them. That is the greatest threat they have. The native 
people can keep them for subsistence. A white man can go to Canada or 
Russia and take a polar bear. So that is a bogus argument. We are 
protecting the polar bear. To suggest a little exploration is going to 
threaten the polar bear is a specious argument.
  This is what the press and the public do not digest. I guess we have 
a hard time communicating that reality.
  Here is another picture of our friends taking a walk. Three bears are 
walking on top of the pipeline. Why are they walking on the pipeline? 
Because it is easier than walking in the snow. They don't get their 
feet cold or damp. It is just easier.
  The predictions that were associated with developing Prudhoe Bay have 
not come true. They said: You are putting a fence across Alaska; the 
caribou and the moose will never cross it. When you put a hotline in 
permafrost, it will sink to China.
  These things never happened. That pipeline is one of the construction 
wonders of the world. It has been bombed, shot at, dynamited, not to 
mention having withstood earthquakes. We had a bad accident with a ship 
called the Exxon Valdez. It was the fault of the crew. We had a 10-and-
a-half-wide channel, and they ran on to a rock because they were 
drinking coffee and not paying attention. That is a harsh reality of 
that. Then they took on a little alcohol and everything was lost.
  The public ought to understand reality. I would love to debate some 
of the extreme environmentalists because they don't know what they are 
talking about, but they won't give me the courtesy or the chance. They 
refuse to let me participate in any of their gatherings. We have a 
letter that gives an idea of the extent to which some of the 
environmentalists go to generate public opinion. They are entitled to 
that, but by the same token, we are entitled to communicate some of the 
tactics.
  In a letter from the Sierra Club, Friday, January 2000, called ``The 
New Millennium Action Special Edition,'' it says:
  This February 5th, the Sierra Club, together with the Alaska 
Wilderness League, the Wilderness Society, the National Audubon 
Society, is hosting another National Arctic Wilderness Week in 
Washington. Supporters from grass roots are key in protecting 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and its fragile Coastal Plain. This 
gathering will help arm you with the skills and knowledge you need to 
build support in your community.

  They give hands-on training. They will provide you with opportunities 
for training. You will learn how to intensify your skills in lobbying, 
message development, meetings, communications and legislative advocacy. 
All are worthwhile and appropriate.
  It says further: We've got you covered.
  That is the last paragraph: ``We know your time is valuable so we 
don't ask you to cover all your expenses for the trip.''
  A trip from where? A trip from Alaska, that's where. It is expensive, 
about a $1,000 to get here from Alaska. It also says that you need to 
pay a $40 registration fee, but if you don't have it, some scholarships 
are available. Where does that money come from? The Wilderness Society 
and the Sierra Club of course:

       We'll pay for your travel to Washington, DC, your hotel, 
     two in a room, a continental breakfast each morning and 
     several dinners. Unfortunately, space is limited so hurry up. 
     To find out if you are eligible phone the Sierra Club.

  I don't know any development groups that have that kind of money to 
do that kind of lobbying. Nevertheless, that is reality. It is fair 
game. Just make sure the public knows about it. Many of these people 
have never been to ANWR. That is what bothers me. I have been there. I 
take a group of Senators up there every year so they can see for 
themselves and make their own evaluation as they represent their State.
  One of the things I will conclude with: If you are from the Northeast 
corridor and you are sick and tired of high prices for heating oil, you 
haven't seen anything yet. The Northeast corridor is just getting 
started. And here is why.

  This is the harsh reality of where we are today. Our crude production 
is represented by this gray line. It is roughly 6 million barrels a day 
domestically, this is down from 7.5 million. So our crude production is 
dropping. It is dropping significantly. The crude oil production is 
dropping and the petroleum demand is going up. What is happening here 
is the crude oil production has dropped about 17 percent, and the 
petroleum demand, which is the black line, has gone up 14 percent. So 
we have a shortfall. So we have to make up the difference.
  We have had the heating oil crisis in the Northeast corridor. There 
was an assumption we would have a cold winter. We didn't. There was an 
assumption we would have storage. A funny thing is, 20 percent of the 
crude oil storage in the Northeast corridor has been eliminated because 
it did not meet legitimate environmental concerns, as well as 15 
percent of the heating oil storage. These are old tanks that didn't 
meet specs and were not rebuilt.
  We have lost 37 refineries in this country in the last decade. Why? 
The refinery business is not too attractive for a lot of reasons. You 
have Superfund exposures, you have EPA requirements, you have a 
situation where the return on investment is questionable. Many of the 
majors have gone out of the refining business because of the 
consequences associated with that.
  So you have a situation now where the Northeast corridor better look 
out for their high electric bills. This winter it was high heating oil 
bills, but it is going to be electric bills this summer. Only 3 percent 
of the Nation's electricity comes from oil-fired generating plants, but 
that is not true in the Northeast corridor. It is nearly one-third. New 
England relies on fuel oil for about a third of its power generation. 
Just a small handful of those plants will be setting the electric 
prices in the region during the periods of high demand. This is going 
to cost Northeast residents millions of dollars. So what do they want 
us to do about it? Do they want us to import more oil, or do they want 
us to relieve our dependence by producing safely and domestically?
  The arguments I get from all of the Northeast groups: You can't open 
ANWR. You cannot do it safely. They are breathing the fire of the 
radical environmental movement that wants three things: They want a 
cause, they want dollars, and they want membership. They sell America 
short--especially America's ingenuity and our technical ability. The 
fact is, we can produce energy here at home. They will not debate me. 
They refuse, they absolutely refuse.
  So this is what is going to happen in the Northeast corridor. I hope 
the newspapers and their editorial writers start figuring this out 
because it is going to happen. Remember when you heard it first.
  Electricity establishes a rate structure from a uniform price. Under 
that method, the central dispatchers first tap generation offering to 
sell electricity at the lowest price. But as the demand goes up, air-
conditioning use goes up, and you are going to see the more costly 
generating powerplants come on line. Those are the ones that are oil 
fired.

[[Page S1650]]

  The power purchasers pay all bidders the price charged by the last 
powerplant called into service. In many cases, the final unit will be 
an old, oil-fired plant which will charge a rate higher because of the 
higher oil prices. All other non-oil-burning plants will reap a 
windfall profit because they will be paid as if burning oil. That is 
the way the process works. I hope somebody can take heed of what I am 
telling you. New England relies on 30 percent fuel oil for its own 
power generators.
  What do they want us to do? They say: Alternative energy. Fine. Let's 
do it. What are we going to do? Four percent is what we produce 
currently.
  Let's spend more on development. We are. We do not have the hydrogen 
technology yet.
  In the meantime, we have an opportunity for domestic relief, and I 
implore those people up there to seize that opportunity. It is as if 
they are born with their eyes closed, and they keep them closed to the 
reality that we can open these areas safely. They say: The Senator from 
Alaska comes to the floor and his motivation is selfish.

  Sure, I represent my State. Sure, this is in my State. But my State 
doesn't consume it. Sure, we get half the revenue, just like Oklahoma 
or any other area. But this is domestic energy for domestic jobs paying 
domestic taxes and providing for the national energy security of this 
Nation.
  Some of these other folks would rather have us import it from Saddam 
Hussein. That is where it is coming from, 700,000 barrels a day, from a 
country where we lost 147 servicemen fighting a war.
  So we are going to be facing higher prices. Non-oil-burning plants 
are going to reap a huge windfall. New England is going to take it and 
they are going to scream and ask why we are not doing something about 
it. It has been estimated an oil plant that offered electricity at $37 
a megawatt hour for power 1 year ago is probably going to be seeking a 
price of $75 or more because they are going to have to buy oil on the 
open market. Remember, oil has gone from $10 to over $30. That is 
significant.
  There are a couple of other factors a lot of people overlook. There 
is an inflation factor. They figure every time oil goes up $10, it 
contributes about \1/2\ percent to inflation. We have seen the truckers 
come to Washington. They came twice. Do you know why they were here? 
Because they cannot pass on the increased price of diesel fuel. They 
are stuck. They are going out of business.
  Wait until you see the farmers when they start fueling up to plant 
their crops. They are going to be screaming. They will be driving their 
tractors to Washington. They will want relief. The relief of this 
administration is to go beg for more oil production in the Mideast. I 
find it inexcusable.
  We concern ourselves with the deficit in the balance of payments, 
$300 billion a year. That means we are buying more from countries than 
they are buying from us. But of the $300 billion, $100 billion is the 
cost of imported oil. We are sending our jobs overseas. We have seen 
employment in the domestic oil industry drop dramatically.
  It is important that Members understand what has happened to this 
country and to our ability to maintain a growing industry that we have 
become so dependent on, and what a poor job we have done on it. What we 
have done, under this administration, is to simply import more oil, 
propose more taxes. I think the administration's tax proposal is about 
$2.5 billion this year.
  We have seen the gas tax, 4.3 cents a gallon. I would like to do a 
little short review because I remember 1993. I remember when the 
Republicans lost control of this body and the Democrats took control 
and the administration came in with a huge Btu tax--British thermal 
unit--a tax on energy. We defeated that tax then. It is a good thing we 
did. But we also had a 4.3 cent-per-gallon gas tax and that was not 
going to go into the highway trust fund. That was proposed to go into 
the general fund.
  We had a vote. Every Republican voted against it. We had six 
Democrats join us. The vote was tied. Vice President Al Gore broke the 
tie, and that is why we have the 30-percent increase in the gas tax 
that went on in 1993 at 4.3 cents a gallon. Our Vice President, who 
broke that tie, deserves accolades, if you will, because he bears that 
responsibility. We are living with it today, and it has cost the 
taxpayers somewhere in the area of $43 million.

  That gives us some idea of the background of how we got to where we 
are and what kind of a policy this administration has toward our energy 
crisis. They hope it will go away. There is so much finger pointing 
around here that one cannot believe it.
  The Secretary of Energy the other day said an interesting thing. He 
said: We were caught by surprise; we were caught napping.
  Come on. Let's recognize facts, and facts are that in 1994 the 
independent petroleum producers were concerned about our dependence on 
imports. They solicited Secretary Brown under the Trade Expansion Act 
and asked him to do an evaluation of the national security risk, and he 
did. As a consequence of that, even the President acknowledged our 
energy dependence on the Mideast and our oil imports affect the 
national security interests of the Nation.
  He did that. What happened? Nothing. There was no relief. So we went 
along even more. In any event, nothing was done. Time went on. We 
became more dependent. As a consequence, we found ourselves in a 
situation last March where many of us became concerned. We became so 
concerned that we wrote a bipartisan letter to the Secretary of 
Commerce, Secretary Daley.
  I have the letter dated March 21 to our President. I am going to 
quote what he said in November after he received the report from the 
Department of Commerce by Secretary Daley. He said:

       I'm today concurring with the Department of Commerce's 
     finding that the Nation's growing reliance on the imports of 
     crude oil and refined petroleum products threaten the 
     Nation's security because they increase U.S. vulnerability to 
     oil supply interruption.

  He was on notice in 1994.
  To bring my colleagues up to date, in March of last year a bipartisan 
letter went to Secretary Daley asking him to again initiate, under the 
Trade Expansion Act, an evaluation of the danger to our national 
security because of our increased dependence on imports. That was done. 
It was delivered to the White House in November of last year, and the 
White House either did not open their mail, sat on it, or put it at the 
bottom of the stack. In any event, they have refused to release that 
report.
  Clearly, it is going to say the same thing. The national security of 
our Nation is at risk because of our increased dependence on imported 
oil. I am told we are looking at billions of dollars of increased 
appropriations this year for the military so they can have fuel for our 
defense. We have another case of this administration refusing to 
recognize reality. It is as though they want to get out of town before 
this becomes a political issue or before the American people understand 
the danger of what is happening because of our increased dependence on 
imported oil.
  The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner, the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, our majority 
leader, Trent Lott, and I as chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, all wrote a letter to the President asking him why 
he has not opened that report he received in November from the 
Secretary of Commerce. We asked why he has not shared that with the 
American people, and to tell us whether our national security is at 
risk because of our increased dependence, again on our old buddy, 
Saddam Hussein. How ironic. What goes around comes around.
  Last year, we had 300,000 barrels a day from Saddam Hussein; this 
year, 700,000 barrels a day. The fastest growing source of our imports 
is coming from Iraq. I will say it again and again and again. In 1991, 
we lost 147 lives, 448 soldiers were wounded, 23 were taken prisoner, 
and the U.S. taxpayers paid $10 billion to fence in Saddam Hussein.

  Where does this oil go? It goes to the United States--to you and me, 
and for our airplanes and cars. Where does the money go? Do you think 
it goes to the people of Iraq? It goes to Saddam Hussein who controls 
the flow of that money. Do you know where most of it goes? It goes to 
the Republican Guard that guards him and keeps him alive. He has 
probably had more assassination attempts than we know. But he takes 
good care of those people. How does he do it? He has one source of

[[Page S1651]]

cash-flow--oil. I just cannot accept the policies of this 
administration to enrich that man.
  We have the farmers, and we have the truckers. Mr. President, have 
you flown lately? Have you looked at your airplane tickets? They put on 
a surcharge. Nobody can figure out what the ticket costs anyway. If it 
is a short trip, it is $20. If it is a long trip, it is $40.
  Have you received a FedEx package lately? There is a surcharge added.
  Pretty soon, the American people are going to wake up. A surcharge is 
going to be on everything. They say: Oil really hasn't affected 
inflation. Don't be too sure it has not hit yet.
  Do my colleagues think we will get relief? We will see what happens 
on Monday. Anything that happens on Monday is 8 weeks getting to your 
gas station. That is the harsh reality.
  The policy of this administration is more imports. That is it. They 
never learn by history: 37-percent dependent in 1973; 47-percent 
dependent when we fought the war in the Persian Gulf; 56-percent 
dependent now; 65-percent, according to the Department of Energy, in 
the year 2015 to 2020. Does it behoove us to take action now? I think 
so.
  I told you a little bit about exploration and production. Here is 
what happened in our employment in energy: 405,000 employed is down to 
293,000. That is the position we are in.
  Our oil production domestically dropped from about 7 billion to about 
6 billion in this period of time because we don't have an aggressive 
posture. It is not that we do not have oil and gas. This administration 
will declare victory, I guess, on the 27th if OPEC releases more oil. 
But I think Americans are going to have to ask a basic question, a 
simpler question, and that is: Will the administration's actions 
decrease our oil dependence or increase it? That is the basic question, 
and the American people ought to understand it.
  Next Monday is March 27, and they say there will be an increase in 
foreign production of another 1 million to 2 million barrels. Then the 
administration--the Secretary of Energy and the President--is going to 
claim victory. They will say: We have more oil.
  How hollow, because it is going to increase our dependence, it is 
going to give them more leverage. We are going to have another crisis. 
They said OPEC could never get together and did not have the 
discipline. They did. They got together. They would rather sell their 
oil at a higher price than sell less oil, obviously. They would like to 
see it somewhere at $20 to $25 to keep us on the hook. That is the 
thought.
  I encourage the American people to ask: Is this in our national 
interest to swallow the administration's claim of victory? If indeed 
there is a significant increase coming, if we swallow the 
administration's claim of victory that it is in the Nation's interest 
to become more dependent on imported oil, or strike out with an 
aggressive posture based on American technology and American can-do 
spirit to develop resources at home in the overthrust belt in my State 
of Alaska?
  I implore my colleagues who want to speak on behalf of America's 
environmental community, to know what they are talking about. I ask 
them to get up to ANWR and Prudhoe Bay and take a look at it. See what 
we have done and look at some other oil fields. Just do not take the 
word of the self-anointed environmental groups that have a mission. 
That mission is membership, dollars, and a cause.
  I am not suggesting they do not make a significant contribution. The 
problem is that they refuse to recognize that we are going to be 
needing crude oil--petroleum products--for a long time. They refuse to 
recognize that we are better off developing domestically than importing 
it. They refuse to recognize where we are getting our imports, the 
significant role of our rock. They refuse to recognize the role of the 
lives we lost in the Persian Gulf war. They refuse to recognize we have 
done a pretty good job in developing oil and gas resources. We can do a 
better job, if given the opportunity.
  I do appreciate the time that has been allotted to me today.
  I think it is important to recognize that, in all honesty, we do not 
have an oil policy, we do not have an energy policy. I fear my 
colleagues from the Northeast are going to be exposed to substantial 
increases in electricity.
  I have the obligation to proceed with electric reliability bills, 
electric restructuring. But the fact is, they are going to be dependent 
on fuel oil making electricity. The price is going to be a lot higher 
than they have ever had before. People are going to be asking, What are 
you doing about it to relieve the problem? I hope their answer is not 
solely to increase imports.
  I again extend my willingness to travel to the Northeast corridor, my 
willingness to meet with the editorial writers of the Northeast papers 
that continually misrepresent facts. I encourage them to give us an 
opportunity to be heard. I encourage them to come on up and take a look 
and spend the money so they can objectively make recommendations and 
decisions upon those to whom they and their papers and their media 
extend themselves.
  I would like them to know that our Governor, and our delegation would 
love to have you. We will treat you with a level of hospitality that 
you will find quite suitable and quite comfortable. You might want to 
bring some long underwear though.
  Give us an opportunity to contribute to this country.
  The last thing I want to say is, we became a State in 1959. That was 
41 years ago, or thereabouts. The rest of the country established their 
land patterns 100, 150 years ago. We are still trying to develop an 
economy. We have 700,000 people. We are trying to develop a university. 
We don't have any roads across our State. The Federal Government owns 
it. We are dependent on natural resources. Our fish are renewable. Our 
timber is renewable. We also have a lot of oil and gas.

                          ____________________