[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 22 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1536-S1542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing a resolution, which I send 
to the desk, that addresses one of the most urgent needs of citizens 
all across the country. That resolution is cosponsored by Senators 
Schumer, Harkin, Kennedy, Durbin, and Boxer.

[[Page S1537]]

  What it does is call on Congress to take immediate action to enact 
supplemental appropriations that will include funding for the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This program helps more than 30 
million of our fellow citizens in low-income households around the 
Nation to pay rising energy bills. Every one of these households have 
fixed and low incomes, and many include children and elderly. More than 
two-thirds of the households eligible for this assistance have annual 
incomes of less than $8,000. As energy prices have risen and so have 
the costs to heat or cool a home, those families face an unacceptable 
proposition of choosing between their food, medicine, and other basic 
necessities.
  Unfortunately, this program has literally exhausted its funds in a 
number of States, and it is nearly exhausted in many others. As a 
result, thousands of households around the Nation--particularly in 
areas that may face several more weeks of the severe cold weather--are 
at risk. As many colleagues know, the price of heating oil, natural 
gas, kerosene, propane, and electricity has risen significantly over 
the past year and in some areas sharply enough to cause a deep 
financial burden on many households.
  It is my hope that President Bush and the Congress can work together 
to address this situation. I have talked with many of my colleagues. 
They share my concern, and they, too, have constituents in need. We are 
only in the middle of February at this point, and already some States 
have exhausted their LIHEAP support. March and April can be very cold 
months in New England, New York, and throughout the Midwest.
  This resolution calls on President Bush, who has been a strong 
advocate for LIHEAP, to work with our leadership to craft and enact 
legislation that would put $1 billion into the LIHEAP program to help 
those in need now when they need it. It also calls on Congress to 
support supplemental appropriations of $152 million in weatherization 
and $37 million on State energy conservation plan grants. These 
programs we believe can significantly help reduce energy use and reduce 
the overall expense of the program.
  There has been a lot of talk of bipartisanship in this Congress. I am 
reminded that bipartisanship really always counts the most when the 
national needs blur the lines of ideology and party. These are the 
times when the Senate has been at its very best. I suggest, 
respectfully, that with Americans struggling with their heating bills, 
and all of their bills as a result of their heating bills, and with 
commonsense relief for so many people directly within our grasp, there 
should not be an excuse for inaction. There would be every reason to 
act responsibly and rapidly. I hope my colleagues will join us in doing 
so.
  I thank the Senator from Alaska for his courtesy, and I thank the 
Chair.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me thank my good friend from 
Massachusetts for his concern over energy efficiency and conservation 
assistance to low-income families. I am sure he will be pleased to know 
that in my remarks today concerning the comprehensive energy bill that 
will be introduced on the 26th, Monday, when we come back, about noon, 
we cover under title VI an extensive area of concern not only to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, but I think the entire eastern corridor and 
other parts of the United States that are subject to cold winters and 
dependent on high-cost heating oil.
  I think it is appropriate to also note the study that came out by the 
CSIS yesterday indicating a reality that some of us hesitate to take 
seriously, but on the other hand this study has been underway for some 
3 years. It simply states the harsh reality that we are going to be 
dependent on hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future. It was estimated 
in that study that the increase would go from about 83 to about 90 
percent of the energy used in the world would come from hydrocarbons, 
primarily from the developing countries.
  So the reality that we are likely to suddenly relieve ourselves of 
our dependence on foreign oil, unfortunately, is probably not a 
reality. The rationale for that is obvious. We don't have the 
technology, very frankly, particularly in the areas of transportation, 
for any other mode. That doesn't suggest we should not continue to 
fund, if you will, alternative energy, renewable energy and so forth, 
and continue to try to develop technology, such as hydrogen and various 
other things. But to suggest that somehow out of this energy crisis we 
can do it through conservation and efficiency alone is unrealistic. I 
wish that were the case.
  I encourage all of my friends to take a look at this report, which is 
done by an objective, unbiased group.
  Let me refer specifically to sections in our draft energy bill, and 
for the benefit of my friend from Massachusetts, who I see has left the 
floor, I will start from the beginning rather than what I was prepared 
to do, which was to comment specifically on the areas associated with 
the concerns of low-income families and programs on energy efficiency, 
conservation, and so forth. I will be happy to do that now that I see 
my friend is back. I think it represents an awareness and an 
acknowledgment of a situation that simply has to have relief.
  In title VI--energy efficiency and conservation assistance to low-
income families--we propose an extension of low-income home energy 
assistance. That specifically extends authorizations for the low-income 
home energy assistance programs, or LIHEAP, as it is termed, increasing 
authorized amounts from $2 billion to $3 billion, and it increases the 
authorized emergency funds from $600 million to $1 billion annually and 
extends programs making payments to States.
  The other portion that we think is important is the energy-efficient 
schools program, which in draft section 602, which establishes a new 
program within the Department of Energy making grants to local school 
districts and improving energy efficiency of school buildings, expands 
the use of renewable energy, and authorizes $200 million in fiscal year 
2002, increasing in subsequent fiscal years.
  We have proposed amendments to the weatherization assistance program 
which expand eligibility and funding authorization for weatherization 
assistance--providing grants to low-income households to improve 
residential energy efficiency.
  Then we have a portion that provides amendments to State energy 
programs. It sets procedures for regular review of existing State 
energy conservation programs and encourages regional energy 
conservation and planning.
  It sets State energy efficiency goals of reducing energy use by 25 
percent by the year 2010, compared to 1990 usage, and expands and 
extends authorization for State energy programs of $50 million in 
fiscal year 2000, increasing in subsequent fiscal years.
  I look forward to our discussion when we come back from our recess on 
various aspects of our comprehensive bill and the bill that has been 
introduced by my good friend, Senator Bingaman, today which covers some 
of the areas in which the Senator from Massachusetts expressed an 
interest. Certainly, we have the motivation to try to respond because 
there is more than a need for LIHEAP. There is a need for more 
generation in this country to meet the crisis that is evidenced in 
California.
  I am going to proceed with a general outline of the bill at this 
time.
  Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague yield for 30 seconds?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my colleague, I very much welcome what he is 
suggesting, and this is a debate I will welcome and I know many of my 
colleagues will because there is a great deal of difficulty for the 
country in deciding what we do about the dependency as described.
  I say again to my colleague and to my other colleagues, there is a 
distinction between the authorization that he is requesting, which is 
in the next budget cycle, and the supplemental appropriations that we 
are requesting to deal with the crisis now for families who are out of 
money and States that are out of money.
  Regrettably, what the Senator--and I know the Senator knows the 
distinction well--is proposing is down the road, whereas we face an 
immediate crisis in LIHEAP funding at this moment. I think the Senator 
will agree with me, will he not, that there is that distinction between 
these bills?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am not going to get into a debate on

[[Page S1538]]

the issue now. It was unfortunate today that both sides could not reach 
a resolve on the resolution concerning energy. It went to the 
Democratic side, and there was a reluctance on the other side because 
it did not include redress of the California dilemma, which is very 
difficult, as you know.
  A lot of people are working on that. We have to recognize, first of 
all, that we have an energy crisis in this country. It is not unique to 
one area. California needs immediate assistance. All one has to do is 
talk to the California legislators, and the reality is to sit down in a 
timely manner and address this with some corrective action, which is 
going to involve a large segment of examination of not only 
conservation, weatherization, alternative energy, renewable energy, but 
making sure we go back to our conventional sources of energy--it has to 
come from somewhere--and use our technology to produce it in a safer 
manner with less of an environmental footprint.
  As we all know, what we have concentrated pretty much on in the last 
several years is natural gas at the expense of coal and other things.
  I am going to proceed with my remarks. I thank my friend from 
Massachusetts for his comments.
  I alert all Members as to what is in this bill because it attempts, 
first of all, to address the broad interests associated with the crisis 
as we see it. It goes beyond the energy crisis because it is affecting 
the economy of this Nation as we see higher prices, shortages, and we 
see a growing consumer concern, a lack of confidence. A lot of it stems 
from the energy situation in this country.
  What we are attempting to do, with the efforts of many people, is 
bring together a comprehensive outline. We will introduce the 
legislation on Monday the 26th. It will be referred, I believe, under 
rule XIV to the calendar, and from there it is referred to the two 
committees of jurisdiction. There is a tax aspect, and I suspect that 
will move to the Finance Committee on which I serve. The other portion 
will move to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I chair.
  It is our intention then to begin hearings on this legislation as 
soon as possible, and other legislation that has been introduced. 
Senator Byrd has a coal bill. Senator Bingaman has a bill affecting 
LIHEAP. At the same time, I urge Senator Grassley, the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, to begin holding hearings, as well, on the tax 
aspects of this proposed legislation.
  It is important to note the role of the administration. The Vice 
President has announced the formation of an energy task force. This 
task force is unique because it attempts to set energy policy for this 
Nation--what direction should we go. Unlike the previous effort where 
the Secretary of Energy, the head of the EPA, and the Secretary of the 
Interior pretty much went their separate ways, he is attempting to 
bring them together to address how we are going to handle resource 
development on public land for oil and gas, what role the Department of 
Energy is going to play in coordinating, if you will, an action that 
EPA may initiate that could put off the ability to produce more oil and 
gas--a coordinated effort to make policy.
  We are going to get that from the administration, I imagine, 40 to 50 
days from now. That will be incorporated in either a substitute or 
amendments to this proposed legislation.
  Believe me, the legislation we will introduce is probably not in its 
entirety the legislation that is going to be adopted. It is going to be 
massaged, it is going to be cut, it is going to be stricken, it is 
going to be added to.
  We have to start. It is not going to be a piecemeal effort. It is an 
attempt to address, across the board, in a responsible manner, the 
concerns affecting the dilemma in this country as we seek energy 
policy, as we seek relief and address the economy that is being 
affected by this.
  The first title covers general provisions to protect energy supply 
and security. It involves consultation and reports on Federal energy 
actions affecting domestic energy security and supply.
  Then we have an annual report on U.S. energy independence. The idea 
is to what extent should we try and maintain a greater degree of 
independence in this country from the standpoint of our national 
security.
  It covers the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve and requires a 
study and report. As my colleagues know, we try to keep a 90-day 
supply. Today, we have about a 56-day supply, and the merits of having 
that should our imports be interrupted is paramount.
  We have a study of existing rights-of-way to determine capability to 
support new pipelines or electric power transmission. It is just not 
enough to have energy. We have to transport it. Some of our pipelines 
are old. Some of our transmission facilities are inadequate. We have 
problems with eminent domain. How do you get there from here? How do 
you cross public lands?
  We have a section covering the expanded use of Federal facilities to 
generate hydropower. We have a section requiring a nuclear generation 
study. Twenty percent of our energy comes from nuclear energy, and we 
have yet to deal with the nuclear waste issue. We were one vote short 
of a veto override in this body last year. We still, very frankly, are 
seeing the nuclear industry strangling on its own waste and our 
inability to address it with resolve. The French adopted in 1973 a 
nuclear program and they are almost 90 percent dependent on nuclear 
energy. They recover the plutonium, reinject it in the reactors, and 
address the waste in a responsible way. We cannot seem to get over that 
hump, yet we are 20 percent dependent.
  We have a section on development of a strategy for spent nuclear 
fuel.
  We have a section to study the status of the domestic refining 
industry. It is interesting, during a portion of our previous 
discussion on this topic, when we brought 30 million barrels out of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, suddenly we found out our refineries were 
at full capacity. We have not built a refinery in 20 years. What a rude 
awakening.
  We have a section to review the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's annual reports on the availability of domestic energy 
resources to maintain the electric grid, a study of financing for new 
technologies, a review of regulations to eliminate barriers to emerging 
energy technology, interagency agreements on environmental review of 
interstate natural gas pipeline projects, a program for pipeline 
integrity safety and reliability, and research and development for new 
natural gas technologies.

  For clean coal technology, we have cost and performance goals. We 
have technological research and development programs, authorization and 
appropriations for R&D power plant improvement initiatives, various 
coal mining research and development provisions, and programs to 
improve railroad efficiency.
  For oil and gas we have deepwater and frontier royalty relief which 
has been so beneficial in the Gulf of Mexico where we have seen 
drilling take place now in 3,000 feet of water. Lease sales are going 
as deep as 6,000 feet. The technology has been developed rapidly and 
successfully.
  Some in the media have picked this up and said this is a boondoggle 
for big oil. There is no alternative minimum tax here. This isn't 
something for big oil. Big oil can do very well on its own. It does not 
need assistance. However, the small guys do. The stripper wells do. 
Some of the independents do.
  So we have a use of royalty in kind to fill the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. We have improvements to Federal oil and gas lease management. 
We have a royalty reinvestment in America provision. On nuclear, we 
have the Price-Anderson amendments which address the liability on the 
nuclear plants. We have a nuclear energy research initiative, nuclear 
energy plant optimization programs, nuclear energy technological 
development, nuclear energy production incentive, and nuclear energy 
improvements.
  We have a provision for the Arctic Coastal Plain Security Act Of 2001 
which proposes opening up ANWR, which I will discuss in my concluding 
remarks because that seems to be the lightning rod in the whole bill.
  I mentioned when my friend, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, was 
here, the title on energy efficiency conservation assistance to like 
families. We have covered that. We also have enhancement and extension 
of authority relating to Federal energy savings, performance contracts, 
Federal energy efficiency requirements, energy efficiency science 
initiatives. We also have

[[Page S1539]]

an alternative fuels and renewable energy section, a significant 
section. We have an exception to HOV passenger requirements for 
alternative fuel vehicles. If you have an alternative fuel vehicle, 
something that doesn't run on gasoline, you can take it on the HOV lane 
all by yourself. We have alternative fuel credits for qualifying 
infrastructure, State and local governments use of Federal alternative 
refueling requirements, and mandates on Federal fleet fuel economy, and 
use of alternative fuels.
  If we are going to mandate things, the Government ought to lead the 
way, not the public. Our bill requires Federal agencies to increase the 
fuel economy of newly acquired Federal fleet passenger cars and light 
trucks by at least 3 miles per gallon by the year 2005. We are putting 
government where it ought to be, leading the way.
  We have local government grant programs, extension of special 
treatment of duel-fuel vehicles under Department of Transportation fuel 
economy standards. We have renewable energy programs for residential, 
access to renewable energy resources. We have hydroelectric relicensing 
reform, which includes processes for consideration of Federal agencies 
on the condition of licensing of various facilities, including hydro 
dams, coordinating environmental review processes, and a study of small 
hydro projects. This bill helps ensure electric energy transmission 
reliability, and repeals PURPA mandatory purchase and sale 
requirements. We also repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, 
and encourage emission-free control measures under the State 
implementation plans.

  On the aspect of taxes, we have enhanced oil recovery credit extended 
to certain nontertiary recovery methods, such as horizontal drilling. 
We have extension of Section 29 credits for producing fuel from 
nonconventional sources. We have 10-year carryback for a percentage of 
depletion for certain oil and gas properties. We repeal the current net 
income limitation on that percentage depletion. We clarify the 
definition of a ``small refiner'' as used in an exception to the oil 
depletion deduction, and we accelerate depreciation of oil and gas 
pipelines, petroleum facilities, and refineries. We also have capital 
construction funds for U.S. drilling vessels. We provide credits for 
investment to qualifying clean coal technology.
  Regarding coal, we have huge coal reserves in this country. We could 
reduce our dependence on imported oil but we have not built a new coal-
fired plant since 1985 because you cannot get a permit. We've used 
natural gas for electric energy producing capability, but we have the 
coal here. We have the technology to clean it up, and we should use it. 
We may have to adjust the permitting process to expedite it, but not at 
the sacrifice of the environment by any means.
  We have new credits for investment for qualifying advanced clean coal 
technology, credits for production for qualifying advanced clean coal 
technology, and provisions relating to private loan financing for long-
term natural gas contracts. We include the electric power industry's 
agreement on so-called ``private use restrictions": tax-exempt bond 
financing of certain electric facilities, and we allow expensing of 
costs incurred for temporary storage of nuclear fuel. We have tax 
incentives for energy efficiency: credits for distributed power and 
combined heat and power property, a tax credit for energy efficiency 
improvements to existing homes and for construction of new energy-
efficient homes, a tax credit for energy-efficient appliances and motor 
vehicles, and we have a credit for alternative fueled vehicles and for 
qualified electric vehicles, credit for retail sales of alternative 
fuels as motor vehicle fuel, extension of deductions for certain 
refueling property, and an additional deduction for the cost of 
installation of alternative fuels.
  For renewable energy, we make modifications to the Section 45 credit 
for electricity produced from renewable resources, and extend it to 
include waste energy, and we establish a new tax credit for residential 
solar and wind property. Finally, we treat facilities using bagasse, 
sugar cane waste, to produce energy as solid waste disposal facilities.
  Now if your particular area of interest is not in here, let us know 
and we will include it. This is a comprehensive bill. I remind all of 
my colleagues, this is an effort to start a process to address a 
problem that is affecting not only our economy but is creating a 
growing energy crisis moving from California across the country.
  One of the lightning rods in the bill is the issue of ANWR, which is 
in my State of Alaska. I have tried several times, but I can't seem to 
get across the significance of trying to put this in perspective. I am 
happy to say that the occupant of the Chair is not from Texas because 
Alaska happens to be 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas. Put this in 
perspective: If we overlay Alaska on the United States, we get a 
picture of how big Alaska is. In the north it would touch Canada, and 
in the south it would touch Mexico; on the right it touches Florida, 
and on the left it goes to California. It is a big hunk of real estate.
  What does it consist of? Anchorage is our largest city. In the upper 
right-hand corner is an area that is magically called ANWR. What does 
ANWR mean? It means the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That sounds 
pretty significant. What does ANWR consist of? Congress in 1980 made 
significant decisions in determining what this area would consist of 
and be used for. Out of the 19 million acres in ANWR, they determined 
they would designate 8.5 million acres of it as pure wilderness--that 
is the area in black with the slashes--8.5 million acres wilderness, no 
track vehicles, no activity of any kind. Visitors can go in on foot, 
and that is it. They decided to make 9.5 million additional acres a 
refuge. This area below was designated a refuge, even though the whole 
19 million acres is classified as a refuge. But they did one other 
thing. They left out the Coastal Plain. This is the area in tan. That 
is 1.5 million acres. If you add all that up, you get 19 million acres. 
That is all of ANWR. But the difference and the point is, there cannot 
be any development in the wilderness. There cannot be any development 
in that refuge where the pointer is.

  Congress has, solely, the authority to open up the ANWR Coastal Plain 
area. It is important to note what is in there because some people say 
it is the Serengeti of the West; it is the Grand Canyon--whatever. 
There is an Eskimo village there. People are living there. There are 
about 227 residents of Kaktovik.
  Let me show you some pictures of Kaktovik. Here are some kids going 
to school in Kaktovik in the morning. You notice they didn't do a good 
job shoveling the walks. It is pretty harsh. It is winter about 10 
months of the year. The kids are happy. One of them is getting some new 
teeth. You wonder why they are in the Eskimo parkas. Those ruffs are 
wolf ruffs. Do you know why they wear wolf ruffs? Because the breath 
doesn't freeze on wolf fur, but it freezes on others.
  Here is what it looks like in the summertime. To suggest this is a 
pristine wilderness with nothing on it is a bit misleading. People live 
there. They hunt.
  You can see the radar site. That is the radar site, in part. That is 
the DEW line, and the Arctic Ocean, and the ice is out there. There is 
an airfield and a couple of hangars, schools, little stores, and so 
forth.
  We have another picture of Kaktovik. But my point in going through 
this is to illustrate that, indeed, in ANWR there is a designated area 
with only the authority by Congress to open it up, and it is that tiny 
fraction. Let's go back to the map again, the tiny fraction that we are 
considering, and that is the Coastal Plain.
  If we do the arithmetic, we have already said it is 19 million acres 
in the ANWR area, and we are talking about leasing 1.5 million acres. 
And then the question is, What happens if you do that?
  Let me show you a couple of things.
  You see over on the left is what they call the Trans-Alaska pipeline. 
That is a 800-mile, 48-inch pipeline. It was built about 26 years ago 
and runs from Prudhoe Bay the length of Alaska. That goes the whole 
length of the State, 800 miles down to Valdez. That is where the oil 
flows. That is already there.
  It comes, you will notice, from Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay is the 
largest oilfield in North America. It has been producing about 20 
percent of the total crude oil produced in the United

[[Page S1540]]

States for about 26 years. That pipeline was built so we could move 
that oil to market.
  We tried to move it by tanker. We built the Manhattan and thought we 
would take it through the ice to the east coast. It did not work. The 
ice is simply too thick, so we built a pipeline. But the interesting 
thing is that the environmentalists said: If you build that pipeline 
the length of Alaska, the moose and the caribou are going to be 
divided. They will not be able to cross it. It is going to be an 
environmental disaster. That is a hot pipeline because that oil is hot 
when it comes out of the ground, and if you put the pipeline in 
permafrost, frozen ground, it is going to melt the ground, it is going 
to break, and you will have a mess on your hands.
  All those doomsayers were wrong. It didn't happen. These are the same 
arguments being used today. They are saying if you go up there and open 
up that area, you are going to have a disaster.

  What you have is interesting. You already have, between Prudhoe Bay 
and ANWR, an area--BP has a discovery in Badami. Badami is about 40 
miles from Prudhoe Bay towards ANWR. There is a pipeline that goes out 
to Badami. Another 40 miles of pipeline added to that 20 and you will 
be in ANWR.
  Another significant thing, there was one oil well drilled in 
Kaktovik, drilled there before 1980. It is what is called a tight hole. 
No one knows what is there other than Chevron and BP, but the 
geologists are excited because they say this area could contain a major 
discovery of a magnitude of ranging anywhere from 3.2 billion to 16 
billion.
  When you look for oil, you usually don't find it. If you look for it 
in Alaska, you better find a lot or we can't develop it. If we can't 
get 5,000 barrels, forget it; it will not be economically viable. That 
is where Prudhoe Bay has been so prolific. If it is not there in the 
magnitude it has to be, then the whole argument is academic. The 
question is, How significant is it?
  I want to show a couple of photos of what the pipeline is used for. 
It has a dual use.
  Here are three bears going for a walk on the pipeline. The reason 
they are walking there is it is easier than walking on the snow. It is 
like a paved highway. Nobody is bothering them, nobody is shooting 
them.
  Here is a picture of what happens in Prudhoe Bay in the summertime, 
which doesn't last very long. These are the caribou. These are not 
stuffed; they are real. Nobody is bothering them, shooting them, 
running them down. This herd was 3,000 animals in the central Arctic 
when we started Prudhoe Bay. There are 26,000 caribou there now. We are 
doing fine.
  We talk about the polar bear. Let's show an ice picture. It is mostly 
ice up there, but here is a nice picture. That is a nice ice picture. 
That is the harsh, bleak ANWR area in the wintertime, 10 months of the 
year. They say the polar bears are there--they are not there, they are 
out at sea.
  Talk about polar bear, the U.S. has the greatest conservation for 
polar bear of any of our Arctic neighbors. If you want to trophy hunt 
polar bears, you can go to Russia or Canada, but you can't do it in the 
United States. It is prohibited. You can't take them. The Natives can 
take them for subsistence. So that is a bogus argument. There is a new 
study out and the number of polar bears have increased dramatically.
  Here is a picture of the technology we have today, as far as drilling 
in the Arctic. You notice the ice road? There is no gravel road. They 
pour water on the snow, it freezes, and bingo, you have a road. OK?
  That is a drill rig out in the middle of nowhere. You see the cars 
moving, you see the Arctic Ocean out there. That is the footprint. That 
is directional drilling. We have technology that lets you drill 100 
wells through one of these, one spot, with directional drilling. It is 
not like in the old days.
  What does it look like in the summertime? It looks like this for 
about 2 months. There is the tundra and that is what comes out, and the 
footprint is pretty small.
  This is the drilling technology. This is out of the New York Times 
about 2 weeks ago. It shows you how they drill from one spot and go 
into various areas because they have a technology that they call 3-D 
seismic. It used to be 2-D. They can look down now and spot these 
little spots. Where they used to, if they hit the big one on the right, 
they were lucky, but now they can go after those little ones and get 
greater recovery through this from directional drilling technology. So 
you don't get a footprint all over the place, but the footprint is 
estimated to be 2,000 acres out of 19 million.
  We asked the geologists to tell us--Prudhoe Bay is a big oilfield--we 
asked what the footprint is total, all the pipelines, the gathering 
stations, the bunkhouses, the various things. I think the figure was 
about 6,000 acres, but they said if they were going to do it today, 
they could do a field the size of Prudhoe Bay with a technology of 
1,000 to 2,000 acres. So we are looking at the increasing manageability 
of the footprint.
  I think I said enough about the technology. I think I have given you 
a picture of what ANWR consists of in the 19 million acres. I have 
tried to portray what is at risk here, 1.5 million acres.
  But I will conclude with a little reference to some of my colleagues, 
some of whom said if this comes up, we are going to filibuster the 
issue.
  Let me remind my colleagues. Don't they have an obligation to come up 
with an alternative? What are the alternatives? If we look at reality, 
we have to admit that with a 56-percent dependence on imported oil, and 
the reality of EIA saying that is going to increase to 70 percent by 
the year 2010, or thereabouts, and the CSIS study that says 
unfortunately we are going to become more dependent on the world for 
hydrocarbons and oil, that suggests there is not much relief in sight; 
we are going to continue to become more and more dependent.
  I was asked while giving a speech the other day: Senator, since it 
was 37 percent in 1973 and now it is 56 percent, at what point do you 
believe our national security interest is compromised? I thought about 
it for a minute. I said: The best answer I can give you is that in 1991 
we fought a war. We fought a war over oil. We fought a war against 
Saddam Hussein to stop him from invading Kuwait. And ultimately his 
mission was to go into Saudi Arabia and control the world's supply of 
oil. That is how important it was. Was it a national security issue? 
Sure, it was. We don't want Saddam Hussein to control the oil. Where 
would we be today if Saddam Hussein controlled the oil?
  When you look at 56 percent and the reality of our increased 
dependence, the idea comes across that maybe we ought to try to reduce 
our dependence on imports. Then the question is, How do you do it? 
Before I tell you how to do it--I will conclude with that. My wife 
keeps reminding me: You keep saying that, and you never keep your word.
  That reality is associated with where we are now acquiring our 
greatest increase in imported oil. It is from Iraq. We fought a war in 
1991. We lost 147 lives. We had 400-some wounded. We had 23 taken 
prisoner.
  Let's look at our foreign policy and try to make it simple so it is 
understandable, because we are flying sorties over Iraq; we are 
bombing. He sells us 750,000 barrels a day. It is increasing, I might 
add. I met him. He is not a nice guy. You try to kind of figure out 
what he is up to, and you generalize by saying he is up to no good. We 
are getting 750,000 barrels a day. We are sending our money over there. 
We get his oil, put it in our airplanes, and go bomb Iraq. We do it 
again the next day. If you believe it, we have flown hundreds and 
thousands of sorties. We are buying his oil, giving him the money, 
putting it in our airplanes, and bombing him. I kind of question that 
foreign policy. It may seem a little oversimplistic.
  Let's ask Saddam Hussein what he is doing with the money. He is 
building a military capability, a missile delivery capability, a 
biological capability, and where is it aimed? Our greatest ally, 
Israel.
  If I have made a full circle, which has been my intention, I hope I 
have been able to communicate what I consider a terrible inconsistency.
  What we have in this bill is a commitment and a goal to reduce our 
dependence on imported oil to 50 percent, or less, by the year 2010. We 
can do it in a combination of ways. One is by opening up the area of 
ANWR. One is

[[Page S1541]]

opening up the overthrust belt in Montana, in Wyoming, and Colorado--
areas that have been withdrawn by the previous administration by the 
roadless policy. There are 23 trillion cubic feet of gas taken off 
commercial availability by that roadless designation in those States.
  We can do something about reducing our dependence. Then we can bring 
on our improved technology of our conventional resources, such as 
nuclear, by addressing what we are going to do with nuclear waste; 
bring on our coal by developing our clean coal technology; and we can 
reduce our dependence, because it is in the national security interests 
of our Nation to reduce our dependence on the Mideast.

  One thing the CSIS study points out is that for the foreseeable 
future the world will be looking at energy sources from unreliable, 
unstable areas of the world that foster terrorism. I get the message. I 
am sure you do, too.
  The reality is that the argument against opening up this area is 
absolutely bogus. The bottom line is, the extreme environmental 
community needs an issue. And ANWR is their issue. It raises dollars. 
It raises membership. It raises fear. It never addresses the advanced 
technology and whether we can do it safely. Of course we can. We have 
had 30 years of experience in the Arctic. The footprint is smaller. The 
technology is better. But they need an issue that is far away, that the 
American people and most of the press can't afford to go up and look 
at.
  I have pleaded with Members to come up before they speak as experts 
on what should be done in my State and look at it--take a look at it 
objectively. One Senator said to me after we landed and got out of the 
helicopter, after he looked around: All right, Frank. Where is the 
wilderness? It is a mentality. Where is the wilderness? That is the 
wilderness. It is like there ought to be a sign that says ``Wilderness 
2 miles around to the left''. You see. But I can't get Members to go.
  We have a trip coming up. I implore those of you who feel strongly 
about this issue to find out something about it, because your 
information is coming from one source--America's environmental 
community. And this is their fight. They have to have it. It is their 
bread and butter. And they use scare tactics.
  I am going to mention one more thing. This is a Canadian issue. We 
had the Canadian Minister on Environment here. He says to his Foreign 
Minister that we ought to oppose opening this area. He went down and 
talked to the Canadian Ambassador. Then he talked to our new Secretary 
of State. Canada looks on Alaska as a competitor for energy. That is 
neither here nor there. We get a significant amount, and a growing 
amount, of our energy from our good neighbors in Canada. But they do 
not practice what they preach, and they don't tell you the truth, 
unless you ask the right questions. Being on the Intelligence 
Committee, you know how that works.
  Let me show you what this is. You see Alaska on the left. Over on the 
right is Canada. That green line divides them. You see the Arctic 
Coastal Plain up at the top. This is the route of porcupine caribou, 
which is a different herd from the pictures I showed you before. These 
animals migrate through northern Canada on that route that shows the 
tan area that moves around.
  Up at the top, you see a lot of little things. Those are oil wells 
that the Canadians have drilled in Canada. There are about 89 of them. 
You see them particularly up at the top. They made a park out of that 
area because they did not strike any oil. That is Canada's own 
business. I admire them for making a park out of it. But the caribou 
were going through there when the oil wells were being drilled. The 
pregnant cows were going through there and going back to the calves. 
That is neither here nor there--just to point out an inconsistency.
  They said they made a park out of it and that we ought to make a park 
out of ANWR. They don't tell you they built a highway through there. 
There it is--the Dempster Highway right through the migration of the 
caribou. It doesn't bother them. Trucks stop, and so forth. The 
greatest danger to the caribou is people running them down with snow 
machines and shooting them.
  We have what we call the Gwich'in people. They are a fine group who 
live partially in Canada, at Old Crow, and over at Fort Yukon on our 
side. So they cross the border. This group many years ago proposed to 
lease some of their land on the Alaska side for oil drilling. We have 
the situation of the individual members on the leases. Unfortunately, 
there was not any interest because the geology wasn't very promising. 
So the oil industry did not choose to take them up on their leases. Of 
course, now they don't acknowledge they were ever willing to lease 
their land.
  I just point that out as a bit of inconsistency. It is just part of 
the history, and we move on from there. But the difference is the 
Gwich'in people are two groups: The Gwich'in people themselves and the 
Gwich'in steering committee, which is funded by the national 
environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club. They, unfortunately, 
have a significant voice. And much of that voice is fear. They put fear 
in these people; that if we have this development up in ANWR, the 
livelihood and the dependence on the porcupine caribou herd will be 
sacrificed to the point they will lose their subsistence.

  The other group is a little more open. To make my point--and I think 
it is important--if you look at the other map, the one showing the top 
of the world, you will see Alaska over here, and you see Barrow above 
Prudhoe Bay. This is our northern most community. It is a large Eskimo 
village.
  What they have been able to do is, they formed a borough or a county. 
They formed their regional corporations. They formed their village 
corporations. They tax the oil activity. They tax the pipeline. They 
have the finest schools in the United States. They have indoor 
recesses. You can't believe it. They have health care.
  Every child has an opportunity for a full-blown college education 
from the revenues that come in to the Eskimo people. They manage. They 
have become the strongest capitalists that I have ever seen. They do 
not have time for the inefficiencies of the Federal Government. It has 
been an extraordinary transition because they have a revenue stream. 
Their traditions of whaling are maintained.
  What they have done is, they have invited the Gwich'ins up to see 
their standard of living on three occasions. The Gwich'ins almost came 
the last time, until the Gwich'ins' steering committee said: You can't 
go. You can't break the heritage. This is the influence, if you will, 
unfortunately, that exists.
  Because the Barrow people now have educational opportunities, they 
have a choice. They can follow subsistence--hunting and fishing--they 
can go to college; they can move into jobs in the oil industry. There 
is very little employment in the Gwich'in area. That is their own 
business. I respect their choice. What I don't respect is the influence 
of the outside groups that use them. That is what I object to.
  That is what a lot of this debate is all about because, as I said 
before--and the bottom line is--the environmental community needs this 
issue. They are milking it for all it is worth. A few of us are trying 
to bring in the realities that the arguments today against opening ANWR 
are the same arguments that were used against opening Prudhoe Bay 27, 
28 years ago.
  That is the extent of my harangue at this late hour, to try to put in 
perspective the debate. When my colleagues come to this floor and say: 
I am going to filibuster the issue, I think they ought to address the 
issue. I think they ought to go up and see for themselves. And I think 
they have an obligation to address the alternatives because you are not 
going to conserve your way out of this energy crisis. I think all of us 
who are realistic recognize that. We are going to need all of our 
sources of energy. We are going to need all of our technology. We are 
going to have to come together on reality.
  There are two other things I wish to say. One is people might say, 
Senator Murkowski, this is only a 6-month supply based on the reserves.
  First of all, nobody knows what is in there. But let's say it is a 6-
month supply. When you say that, that is assuming there is not going to 
be any other oil produced in the whole United States, in the gulf, or 
any place else for 6 months--pretty significant--no trains, no 
boats, no airplanes.

[[Page S1542]]

  If you turn it around--and from my point of view--if we do not allow 
the development, that is like saying this country is not going to have 
6 months' worth of oil for its trains, so forth and so on.
  So you can flip that ridiculous argument around and it still comes 
out a ridiculous argument. So I do not put much significance in it, 
but, nevertheless, it is one of the arguments that is used.
  Remember Prudhoe Bay? Ten billion barrels was the estimate. They have 
gotten 12 billion barrels already, and they are still kicking 1 million 
barrels a day. The technology is there, and certainly the need is. 
Again, I appeal to my colleagues who are still with us at this late 
hour, and all my colleagues, to recognize the national security 
interests of this country. And when--and at what point--we become 
vulnerable to imports, we have to consider what it does to the security 
of this Nation. We have already fought one war over oil. To me, that 
sends a pretty strong message.
  I will simply recall the remarks of our friend and former colleague, 
Senator Mark Hatfield, who said: One of the reasons I support opening 
ANWR is I will never support sending another member of our Armed Forces 
into harm's way in the Mideast in a war over oil.

                          ____________________