[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 137 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11412-H11414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            DEVELOPMENT OF ANWR IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to set 
the record straight on some very interesting, but very misleading, 
allegations regarding the development of the coastal plain for our oil, 
your oil, in the State of Alaska.
  Let me make it perfectly clear that nobody cares about the 
environment more than Alaskans. We have balanced our environment with 
what the Nation needs.
  To give you an example of what we have been able to do with winter 
drilling, directional drilling, ice roads and pads, this is an oil 
field, what an oil well looks like in Alaska in the wintertime.
  This is the alpine field itself. I want everybody to look at what is 
on the floor. It is snow. It is ice. It is probably 40 below zero, 
very, very hard to live there. But after we are all done, this well 
will produce probably 300 million barrels of oil for you, all of it 
going to the United States. This is what it looks like when we finish 
drilling.

                              {time}  1445

  That is the footprint. That is the footprint. It is not much larger 
than the desk that the Speakers speak from behind here. That is what is 
left. Anybody saying there is going to be a huge footprint is not 
looking, not thinking, not being there.
  And this is for us. This is Federal oil. And why should we not 
develop it? When I think of the footprint, I think of Boston or L.A. or 
Miami, those are really impacts upon the environment. But an even 
bigger impact upon our environment is our 58 percent dependence upon 
Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Colombia and Yemen. 
Think about that for a moment. That is a footprint. And by the year 
2005, it will be 61 percent, unless we change our ways.
  Last year, we imported very nearly a million barrels a day alone from 
Iraq.

[[Page H11413]]

 A million barrels a day from Iraq. U.S. purchases from Saddam Hussein 
are $39 million each day we send him to build arms, to kill people, to 
potentially have nuclear war.
  Do we want that kind of footprint? In fact, I would like to show a 
real footprint. Not this one less than the size of this desk, but this 
one. Do my colleagues recognize this footprint? I would like to refresh 
our memories. This footprint was Kuwait. Does that look like it is good 
environment? Is that protecting the atmosphere with all the oil 
burning? That is the footprint, not what I had in my own footprint.
  Let us compare these two right here. I think it is pretty good, that 
is the footprint of those who are against developing our coastal plain. 
This footprint, green grass, wildlife, a little tiny thing not much 
bigger than that desk, or this one right here. That is the real 
footprint.
  Then we have another one. I keep hearing 95 percent of it is open for 
development. If I could have the next one, 95 percent is open for 
development. This is what we are talking about. We keep hearing from 
people on that side of the aisle from Massachusetts, who have never 
been there by the way, have no concept, wants to have a reserve of oil 
to heat the homes for the senior people and wants to buy it from the 
OPEC countries and pay $34 a barrel, or use it out of the reserve which 
was set aside for strategic purposes only for military. I was here, he 
was not. And to have someone to say that this is the way to solve our 
problem by spending our reserve and then to say that 95 percent of 
Alaska is open for oil development and coastal plain.
  This is closed from all the way here, all the way over to here, it is 
open here, closed, open and closed. Looking at that, 14 percent is 
open.
  The ironic part about it, people say 95 percent. And I said something 
time and time again, just because this carpet is blue does not make it 
the sky. This is carpet. And just because an area might be open, most 
of it is closed, does not mean there is oil there. And how can this 
Congress keep saying because of special interest groups, we must not 
develop the small little coastal plain area less than a million acres? 
About the size of the Dulles Airport, by the way.
  Madam Speaker, I desire to set the record straight on some very 
interesting, but very misleading allegations regarding the development 
of the coastal plain of my home State of Alaska. Let me say up front 
that nobody loves Alaska more than Alaskans and nobody cares more about 
protecting Alaska than the people who reside in our great state. What 
Alaskans have found in the more than 20 years of oil and gas 
development is balance. A way to balance our Nation's need for fossil 
fuels and our desire to conserve our precious natural resources. 
Alaskans accomplish this balance with technological advances such as 
directional drilling where development can tap oil and gas reserves 
from miles away. Technology has also reduced the size and impacts of 
these developments. Our soil and gas facilities on the North Slope have 
gotten smaller and smaller while becoming cleaner and cleaner. The 
surface disturbance of these areas is temporary and minimal. Advances 
such as ice roads and pads leave no impact upon the environment. But 
don't just take my word for it, let me show you a recent development 
site utilizing this new technology.
  This photo demonstrates the winter oil and gas operations that will 
deliver oil and gas resources to supply our Nation's demands. Now, let 
me show you the footprint this development leaves when summer arrives 
and the ice and snow have melted away. This is how Alaskans develop oil 
and gas resources in our State, with minimal impact, surface occupancy 
while maximizing protective measures for the environment. With this 
successful track record, I hope my colleagues can understand why it is 
so deeply troubling for me to hear comments from some of my urban 
colleagues who try to lecture Alaska and Alaskans about environmental 
impact. When I think of man's impact on the environment, my mind races 
to big cities, like Boston, with huge expanses of development and air 
quality issues. Not oil and gas production that services our national 
demand in an environmentally benign manner.
  Some of these same Members also advocate the creation of a Northeast 
heating oil reserve. While I may concede that there are some 
superficial merits to this notion, it will do nothing to solve the real 
problems our country faces regarding a domestic energy policy. While 
the band aid of a heating oil reserve sounds appealing, it is both 
unworkable and will rely on foreign imports to maintain the reserve's 
capacity. To address the heating oil issue, this administration decided 
to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to impact heating 
oil prices. This ill-conceived, political knee-jerk was opposed by both 
Alan Greenspan and Secretary of the Treasury Summers. In a September 
memo, they wrote the President that draining the reserve would be a 
``major and substantial policy mistake.'' Unfortunately, their forecast 
was proven true at the expense of taxpayers. We don't need temporary 
Band-aids to fix our energy problems--we need lasting solutions to the 
problem of dangerously excessive dependence upon imports. Fifty-eight 
percent of our Nation's supply is delivered from foreign sources. That 
is especially shocking when you consider that the United States was 
only 35 percent reliant during the 1973 oil embargo. And even more 
worrisome is that more and more oil is being supplied from countries 
like Iraq. Ten years ago, we went to war in the Persian Gulf to stifle 
Saddam Hussein. Within the last year, this administration has allowed 
Iraq to export nearly 1 million barrels per day to the United States. 
Why? Because this administration's energy policy consists of one 
principle: When the price of crude gets too high, we ask foreign 
sources to increase production to drive down price.
  Madam Speaker, what kind of energy policy relies on our enemies to 
supply our Nation's needs? At the same time, this flawed policy 
provides millions of dollars to be used in a manner which places our 
global security in jeopardy. At today's prices, the United States 
reliance on Iraq's production hands Saddam Hussein more than $33 
million per day. That adds up to nearly $1 billion per month. Thanks to 
this administration, Saddam Hussein receives funding that can be used 
to build weapons of mass destruction and carry forward his anti-U.S. 
agenda. Not only do these actions put our foreign policy and the 
national security at risk, they also are fiscally irresponsible and 
environmentally damaging. Imports of crude oil account for nearly $100 
billion per year of our trade deficits--one-third of the entire trade 
deficit.
  Also, let's not forget what environmental protection looks like in 
these countries. This is a picture of environmental protection in the 
less stable foreign nations the United States is dependent upon. The 
fact is, that a development in Alaska, the size of Dulles Airport, can 
help address the supply needs of the United States as part of a 
comprehensive national energy policy with a balance to protect the 
environment. Like all new Federal actions, it will take the passage of 
a law to begin the development of the coastal plain. However, the 
coastal plain was set aside for future development in Sec. 1002 of the 
1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The first line of 
this section clearly states the intent, ``The purpose of this section 
is to provide for a comprehensive and continuing inventory and 
assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plain of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impacts of oil 
and gas exploration, development, and production, and to authorize 
exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids 
significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife and other 
resources.'' And President Carter made this intent very clear at the 
signing ceremony when he said in the opening moments of that ceremony, 
``This act of Congress reaffirms our commitment to the environment. It 
strikes a balance between protecting areas of great beauty and value 
and allowing development of Alaska's vital oil and gas and mineral and 
timber resources. A hundred percent of the offshore areas and 95 
percent of the potentially productive oil and mineral areas will be 
available for exploration or for drilling.''

  The intent to develop the portion of the refuge with the greatest 
potential for oil and mineral development is clear. President Carter 
made this point at the signing ceremony when he spoke of the offshore 
areas being completely open to development and the 1002 area being set 
aside for onshore development. Revisionists feel that the area set 
aside to provide ``vital oil and gas resources'' is now the biological 
heart of the refuge. These environmental extremists clearly have never 
visited the coastal plain of ANWR to witness how Alaskans have struck a 
balance between environmental protection and supplying this nation with 
the vital energy resources. Alaskans conserve the area our oil and gas 
developments occupy. We have only utilized 14 percent of our arctic 
coastline for oil and gas development--not the 95 percent some Members 
have erroneously stated. And we have reduced the temporary footprint 
these developments create. First generation developments utilized 65 
acres. With 30 years of arctic experience, the same development would 
use less than nine acres. for some fields, directional drilling allows 
development without any surface occupancy.
  Many of the concerns revolve around the caribou that calve upon the 
coastal plain. As a Member who served in the Congress during the 
consideration and building of the Trans

[[Page H11414]]

Alaska Pipeline, I have heard the allegation that oil and gas 
development will hurt the caribou that thrive within our State. This 
argument was made during the building of the 800 mile Trans Alaska 
Pipeline 20 years ago. It has now been dusted off and used in the 
debate against developing ANWR. Mr. Speaker, I think the truth about 
development's impact upon caribou can be easily found by looking at the 
impact over the past 20 years of the Trans Alaska Pipeline.
  When the pipeline was being built the caribou population of the 
Central Arctic Caribou Herd was at 3,000. Since development, 
populations have been as high as 23,400. The reason caribou have 
thrived on the North Slope is because our arctic development has relied 
on technological advances which actually help create a favorable 
environment for the wildlife. With directional drilling and ice roads 
and pads, the oil and gas industry can utilize technology to protect 
wildlife and the environment.
  Madam Speaker, developing the coastal plain of my home State of 
Alaska to responsible drilling is the right thing to do. This small 
development will supply this country with vital energy resources while 
doing no harm to the environment. Utilizing such a small area, as 
Congress intended, to service our Nation's energy needs is an important 
part of a comprehensive energy policy and something that can be done 
with balance to conserve the environment. It is something that the 
Native Alaskan population that call the coastal plain home want. It is 
something that a majority of Alaskans want. And oil and gas production 
from Alaska's coastal plain is something this nation needs.

                          ____________________