[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1657-S1660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have been given a few moments this
morning to share with you a concern I have over legislation that
undoubtedly will be introduced at some time in the Senate. It involves
the issue of ANWR, which is an area in my State of Alaska that is
looked upon by many as a partial solution to our energy crisis and to
others as a sacrifice of our environmental character and quality. Let
me, just for reference, identify the ANWR area because, again, I think
we need to keep things in perspective.
This is ANWR. It is about 19 million acres, the size of the State of
South Carolina. You see this area way up in the corner, that is a
proportion, the proportion of how it looks in relation to the entire
landmass of the State of Alaska. The point I want to bring out to my
colleagues is that roughly half, 8.5 million acres, are in wilderness
in perpetuity. The other portion is refuge, leaving a coastal plain of
about 1.5 million acres about which only Congress can make a
determination whether or not it could or should be opened.
As a consequence, in our energy bill which we introduced yesterday, I
found there was very little focus on the bill itself. Most of the focus
seems to be on the issue of ANWR. I want to make sure everyone
understands, as we look at this energy crisis, ANWR is not the answer.
It is not intended to be the answer. But it is part of the solution to
our energy crisis for specific reasons. A, we are 56-percent dependent
on imported oil. B, as a consequence of that, one has to question at
what time, at
[[Page S1658]]
what point we begin, if you will, to jeopardize our national energy
security because of our increased dependence on imported oil.
I was asked the other day: Senator what was our dependence in 1973
when we had the Arab oil embargo; it was 37 percent, it is 56 percent
now. The Department of Energy says if we keep going the way we are, we
will be over 62 percent or 63 percent by the year 2006 or 2007. At what
point do we really compromise our national security by being so
dependent on outside sources: Do we rely on Saudi Arabia, Venezuela,
Mexico, and other areas?
Let's look back to 1991-1992. We fought a war over oil. We stopped
Saddam Hussein from going into Kuwait. He had his eyes on Saudi Arabia
as well. He wanted to control the world's supply of oil. So we have
already pretty much made the commitment of just how far we will go. Now
the question is, As we become more dependent, when does our national
security really become jeopardized? I think we are there already.
As a consequence, any effort, in my opinion, by Members to consider
introducing legislation that would put ANWR in a wilderness in
perpetuity really puts our national security at risk. I ask Members who
obviously have a sensitivity concerning the environment--which we all
do--to reflect a little bit on the merits of this legislation. At a
time when we have an energy crisis in this country, is it appropriate
that Members, who obviously are extremely sensitive to the pressures by
the environmental community, would yield to those pressures and suggest
we put the area where we are most likely to make a major discovery, in
North America, off limits at a time when we have an energy crisis? At a
time when we have previously fought a war over oil?
Let me share a couple of other observations because I think they
reflect meaningfully on the message I would like to deliver briefly
today. That is the myth associated with ANWR, that somehow this is the
last untouched area in the United States. That is absolutely incorrect.
Let me show a beautiful picture of this 1002 area. This is the
million and a half acres that, indeed, are part of ANWR. There are
probably 100,000 caribou in that picture. It is a little bit difficult
to see it. But it is interesting to reflect the place from which the
picture was taken.
I ask unanimous consent that the certification from the photographer,
Kenneth Whitten, in a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, be printed in
the Record. It was June 20, 2000, and it identifies specifically where
the picture was taken.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Fairbanks, AK,
June 20, 2000.
Senator Barbara Boxer,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: Following are specific answers to
questions you asked about photographs I took that were
produced as a poster by the Porcupine Caribou Management
Board.
1. The photos were taken at Beaufort Lagoon, an abandoned
DEW line station on the arctic coast east of Kaktovik,
Alaska. Beaufort Langoon lies within the 1002 area, about 6-8
miles from its eastern boundary. The photos were taken July
4, 1991. About 100,000 caribou walked past Beaufort Lagoon
that day.
2. The photos were taken from a rooftop, looking south and
southwest across the lagoon toward the mainland and the
coastal plain. All the flatter terrain in the foreground of
the photos and all of the visible caribou are within the 1002
area. The Brooks Range mountains in the distance are south of
the 1002 area, but are readily visible from all parts of the
1002 area on clear days. The snowcapped peaks in the photo
are the highest peaks in the Brooks Range. In the far western
part of the 1002 area, the mountains are even closer to the
coast, but the peaks are not as high. East of the 1002 area
the mountains are also lower, but closer to the coast.
3. The image is typical of the 1002 coastal plain. However,
a person standing at ground level on flat terrain would not
have quite as good a view. There are many low hills or bluffs
along watercourses in the 1002 area that offer similar
overviews of the coastal plain, but the old buildings at
Beaufort Lagoon may be the only place right on the coast in
the 1002 area where one can get high enough to see so much of
the plain at once. Similar or better views are readily
available throughout the 1002 area from aircraft.
4. All of the lower, flat terrain in the photo (where the
caribou are) is within the 1002 area and potentially
available for oil and gas development.
5. The coastal plain within the Arctic Wildlife refuge and
the 1002 area is generally narrower than the coastal plain
further west on the North Slope. Thus wildlife tends to be
more concentrated than elsewhere, with waterfowl and
shorebird nesting, other migratory birds, caribou calving,
muskoxen, land predators, and marine birds and mammals all in
closer proximity and denser concentrations than elsewhere on
the North Slope. Some other areas of the North Slope have
higher abundances of one or a few species, but the ANWR
coastal plain has the greatest variety and concentrations for
such relatively small area.
6. I was the Alaska Department of Fish and Game research
biologist in charge of Porcupine Caribou Herd research and
monitoring from 1978-1997. I spent 2-6 weeks each summer
working on the ANWR coastal plain, plus additional time
throughout the rest of the year following the caribou
elsewhere on their migrations through northern Alaska and
Canada. I served on the Porcupine Caribou Technical Committee
(now advisory to the International Porcupine Caribou Board)
from about 1979-2000 and I represented the State on the
International Porcupine Caribou Board at most meetings from
about 1993-2000. From 1996-2000 I was the Regional Research
Coordinator for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for
interior and northeastern Alaska, but I still maintain an
active role in Porcupine Caribou matters. During the late
1970s and most of the 1980s I was also involved in research
on the Central Arctic Caribou herd in the Prudhoe Bay area. I
retired after 24\1/2\ years with the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game on May 31, 2000.
If I can be of any further assistance in your efforts to
protect the ANWE coastal plain, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Kenneth R. Whitten.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. ``The photos were taken from a rooftop looking south
and southwest across the lagoon.'' And it is in the area of the lagoon.
The significance of it is, if it is in wilderness, what is a rooftop
doing there?
The reality is that also within this area is the village Kaktovik,
which is in the 1002 area, which is often overlooked. This is the same
part of the land, and it shows the village of about 227 people. It
shows a radar station, an airport, the ocean, and so forth. It is a
pretty harsh environment.
Let me show you another contrast, and the contrast is caribou
browsing in the Prudhoe Bay area. There is moderate activity. There
happens to be a drilling rig in that particular picture. You see a
pipeline. The realization is if the caribou are undisturbed and they
are not threatened, why do they have a tendency to become used to
activity?
The point of these two pictures I think shows the contrast that,
indeed, we are talking about two different areas. We are talking about
the Coastal Plain. We are talking about two different herds of caribou.
But we are still talking about caribou, and we have been able to
protect those caribou as a consequence of not allowing any harassment,
shooting, or otherwise as opposed to the Porcupine herd which is
subject in that area to subsistence hunting, which is traditional among
the Native people.
I want to show you the contrast, and I want you to recognize that
this picture was taken from a roof in a wilderness and in a wilderness
there is not supposed to be any rooftop. Part of that wilderness
includes the village where 227 people live. They have children. They
have schools and so forth.
Again, I refer to the reality of how Alaskans live in the Arctic. I
want to show you pictures of some children. This is the little village
of Kaktovik. These are kids going to school in the morning. You notice
how they are dressed in their parkas. It is pretty bleak and harsh. The
realization of that kind of a lifestyle relates to a friend of mine
named Oliver Leavitt, who is with the Arctic Slope Regional
Cooperation. The last time I was in Barrow with a group of Senators he
took us to the new school in Barrow. He said: I use to come to school
to keep warm. He said: I had to pick up driftwood on the beach early in
the morning, take it home to our sod home, and then I went to school to
keep warm.
I quote a friend of mine by the name of Jacob Adams, who is the
president of the Regional Corporation:
I love life in the Arctic. But it is harsh, expensive, and
for many, short. My people
[[Page S1659]]
want decent homes, electricity, and education. We do not want
to be undisturbed. Undisturbed means abandoned. It means sod
huts and deprivation.
There is another side to this; that is, the residents who live there,
and their attitude and their commitment to their lifestyle that depend
on the caribou.
We recently had comments by former President Carter. President Carter
signed the Alaska national interest lands bill in 1980. Alaskans
assumed at that time that the land issue was resolved. We have put 59
million acres in wilderness in the State of Alaska. These are the
areas. I don't expect the President to really reflect on where these
are. But when you talk about wilderness and talk about ANWR, you also
talk about other areas that are larger than ANWR that are wilderness
in Alaska. The question is, How much? Under statehood in 1959, we
thought we could get a commitment from the Federal Government as to how
much would be enough. In 1980, we signed an agreement basically under
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Here is a two-page
list. The point I want to make is that the Wrangell-St. Elias
wilderness has 87 million acres. We have 8 million in ANWR. Gates of
the Arctic has 7 million acres. It goes on and on to total roughly 58
million acres.
I simply point this out to counter those who suggest that we need
some area of wilderness in Alaska that is untouched. ANWR is not
untouched. Gates of the Arctic, for all practical purposes, is
untouched. Wrangell-St. Elias, for all practical purposes, is
untouched. Let's keep the arguments in perspective.
I will conclude with the statement from President Carter in signing
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980.
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.
Mr. President, I quote from the same signing ceremony Mo Udall, the
chief sponsor of the legislation.
I'm joyous. I'm glad today for the people of Alaska. They
can get on with building a great State. They're a great
people. And this matter is settled and put to rest, and the
development of Alaska can go forward with balance.
There you have it. That is what Alaskans believed in at the time this
was accomplished.
Let me also advise you that in the President's budget, which came out
today, on page 69 the President also proposes linking near-term and
long-term approaches by encouraging new oil and gas production on
Federal lands and using Federal income from that sale to support
increased efforts to develop solar, and to develop renewable energy
sources. The administration's legislative proposal will include opening
a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Let me show you again that chart because it suggests that we are
opening only a sliver. You have to keep these things in perspective.
This is 19 million acres--the size of the State of South Carolina. This
sliver up here is 1.5 million acres. Industry says that the oil is
there and they can develop it in less than 2,000 acres.
The percentage is something that is very hard to communicate to
people, but it is very real. It is a sliver we are proposing, and it is
not the total answer to our energy crisis, by any means. But what it
does is send a very strong signal to OPEC that we mean business about
reducing our dependence on imported oil. I am convinced once we come to
grips with that, you are going to see OPEC relax a little bit. They are
going to increase their production.
I think you will see the price drop. If we don't do this, they are
going to get the message. And the message is to reduce production and
keep the high prices up.
Again, I encourage my colleagues and the staff listening to recognize
the significance of any effort to put this permanently away at a time
when we have an energy crisis that would send terrible signals to OPEC
and would jeopardize our national energy security. I said this on this
floor time and time again.
But as we look at our increasing dependence on imported oil and where
that oil is coming from now that we are seeing about 750,000 barrels a
day coming from Iraq that we fought a war with in 1991 and 1992, we are
forgetting that we lost 147 lives. We are forgetting that as we buy
Saddam Hussein's oil we are putting it in our airplanes and going over
and bombing it. That may be an overly simplistic statement. But it is
factual. We have had over 20,000 sorties where we have enforced the no-
fly zone over Iraq.
What is he doing with our money? He is developing a missiles and
biological capabilities. And at whom are these weapons aimed? They are
aimed at Israel, our greatest ally.
I hope the American people and my colleagues will reflect a little
bit on this. Again, this isn't the answer to the energy crisis. This is
one small part, but it is, I think, fair to bring this up to my
colleagues and recognize that as we look at the comprehensive energy
bill that we put in, along with Senator Lott and a number of other
cosponsors, nobody seems to be paying any attention to the merits of
this broad, comprehensive bill. It is like you go to a bullfight and
you want to see some blood. The media and attention seem to be focusing
on one single thing, ANWR.
I think it is appropriate that we respond in some detail. We have
letters from organized labor. This isn't a benefits issue for labor;
this a job issue for labor. It is estimated there would be about
750,000 jobs in the United States associated with the development of
this if, indeed, the oil is there. So it is very real.
Let me show you what this area looks like in wintertime because it is
tough, it is harsh. The winter is roughly 10 months of the year. This
is a picture of it. There it is. That is the tundra in the wintertime.
In the summertime, why, it looks a little different. I will show you a
picture with one well to give you some idea of the technology we have
because we have been able to use ice roads. I think we have a picture
associated with development in the Arctic. This picture shows that is
the kind of footprint there is because of technology we have been able
to develop.
Let me close with one other observation to my friends from
California, Washington, and Oregon specifically. The oil production out
of Alaska goes to the west coast of the United States--virtually all of
it. We used to export a little of that oil only when it was surplus to
what the West coast could use. We have not had an export since April of
2000. If we do not develop a replacement for declining Prudhoe Bay,
then California, Washington, and Oregon are going to get their oil
overseas--from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, from the rain forests of
Colombia, these are places where there is no environmental oversight.
They are going to get it in foreign tankers.
As a consequence, I think the risk is much higher than getting it
here in our own country where we can contribute meaningfully to the
balance of payments, keep jobs in the United States, and have the
environmental oversight that is appropriate.
One of the things that bothers me is how many people are concerned
about developing oil and gas in the United States; yet we have
environmental laws, both Federal and State, and the highest technology
in the world. But they do not reflect on the oil coming from overseas
and what kind of an environmental oversight is associated there. In
many cases there is virtually none.
It is manageable. We do have the technology to develop it. And we
should listen, I think, to the people who live in the area with regard
to their concerns in relation to the opportunities for a choice of a
lifestyle, education, and so forth.
Mr. President, I do appreciate the time allotted to me today. Again,
I want to emphasize ANWR is not the solution to the energy crisis, but
it can make a significant difference because as we commit to reduce our
dependence on imported energy to less than 50 percent by opening ANWR
alone, if the volume is in the area of a million barrels a day, we
would be able to achieve that.
Mr. President, obviously, I will have other opportunities to speak,
and there are time commitments this morning. But I think the timeliness
of the matter, and some Members contemplating the merits of going to a
wilderness bill,
[[Page S1660]]
that they consider the merits of the points I have brought up today.
Indeed, we have the capability to open up this sliver--and it is a
sliver--it is a very small fraction of a huge area the size of the
State of South Carolina. We have 30 years of experience in the Arctic.
As a consequence, nothing is risk free, but we have learned how to
eliminate the risk dramatically.
I hope Members will visit ANWR when we take our Senate trip up there
on March 30, 31, and the first day of April because I think it is
necessary to see it, to talk to the people, to look at the old
technology, reflect on the new technology, and get an appreciation for
a very unique part of our great Nation, but a very, very harsh
environment that is blessed with extraordinary resources in the oil and
gas reserves that exist in the area.
Mr. President, I conclude my remarks and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________