[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 41 (Monday, March 26, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2843-S2844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE ENERGY CRISIS

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, over the last several days I have had 
an opportunity to respond to inquiries regarding the energy crisis in 
this country and specifically the bill Senator Breaux and I introduced. 
It covers many of the questions surrounding the adequacy of energy in 
this country.
  We have attempted to focus, first, on the reality that we are in an 
energy crisis. I wonder when the media and some of the people in this 
country are going to figure out the reality of this. The issue is not 
about oil. It is not about ANWR. We have a 303-page bill, and it seems 
as though everybody wants to focus in on one segment, and that segment 
calls for increasing our supply of oil from ANWR in my State of Alaska.
  It is not just about oil. It is about a terrible energy shortage in 
this country. It is about our national security. It is about our 
economy. And it is, indeed, about the recognition that if we do not 
take some immediate action, this crisis is going to get worse.
  I am amused at some of my colleagues. It seems to be focusing in, 
somewhat, on a partisan basis. To suggest somehow the crisis is being 
overblown by our President, that by drawing attention, we are 
compounding the problem, befuddles me. The reality is that what we have 
seen, over an extended period of time, at least the last 8 years or 
thereabouts, is a failure to recognize our demand has been increasing 
and our supply has been relatively stagnant.
  To some extent, we have seen that in the crisis in California. We saw 
an experiment in deregulation fail. We saw an effort to cap, if you 
will, the price of retail power in California. The results of that 
effort are associated with the bankruptcy, for all practical purposes, 
of California's two main utilities as a consequence of the inability to 
pass on the true cost of that high-priced power that came from outside 
the State of California, that California absolutely had to have to meet 
its demand. Those costs, unfortunately, were not able to be passed on 
to the consumer.
  Now we see the utilities basically bankrupt. We see situations where 
the State is stepping in and guaranteeing the price of power. I wonder 
if there is any difference between the California consumer ratepayer 
and taxpayer. They are all the same. But the burden is being shifted 
now to the taxpayer as the State takes an increasingly dependent role 
in ensuring that California generates power and has enough power coming 
in. When we talk about talking down the economy, I wonder if we are not 
being a little unrealistic.
  If we look at what happened in reporting fourth quarter earnings of 
the Fortune 500, we find that many of these reports have the notation 
that increased energy costs is one of the reasons for the projections 
not being what they anticipated.
  We also have what we call the phenomena of NIMB--not in my backyard. 
In other words, we want power-generating capacity but we don't want it 
in our backyard. Where are you going to put it?
  It reminds me very much of the situation with regard to nuclear 
energy. Nuclear energy in this country provides about 20 percent of the 
power generated in our electric grid. Yet nobody wants to take the 
nuclear waste. We have expended $6 billion to $7 billion out in Nevada 
at a place called Yucca Mountain, which was designed to be a permanent 
repository for our high-level waste. The State doesn't want it. The 
delegation doesn't want it.
  Are there other alternatives? The answer is yes. What are they? 
Technology.
  It is kind of interesting to look at the French. Nearly 30 years ago 
at the time of the Yom Kippur War in the Mideast, in 1973, the French 
decided they wouldn't be held hostage again by the Mideast on the price 
of oil. They embarked on technology. Today they are 85-percent 
dependent on nuclear energy. What do they do with the high-level waste? 
They reprocess it, recover it and put it back in the reactors. It is 
plutonium. They vitrify the rest of the waste, which has a lesser 
lifetime. As a consequence, they don't have a proliferation problem and 
the criticism that we have in this country over nuclear energy. But, 
again, the NIMB philosophy is there--not in my backyard.
  From where are these energy sources going to come? Are you going to 
have a powerplant in your county in your neighborhood? That isn't the 
question exactly. But in some cases it is the question.
  Some suggest we can simply get there by increasing the CAFE standards 
and increase automobile mileage. We have that capability now. You can 
buy cars that get 56 miles per gallon, if the American public wants it. 
They are out there. Some people buy them, and we commend them for that. 
But is it government's role to dictate what kind of car you are going 
to have to buy?
  Some people talk about the merits of climate change. There is some 
concern over Kyoto and the recognition that we are producing more 
emissions. But are we going to solve the Kyoto problem by allowing the 
developing nations to catch up or, indeed, are we going to have to use 
our technology to encourage the reduction of emissions?
  Let me conclude my remarks this morning with a little bit on the 
realization that we have become about 56-percent dependent on imported 
oil. This is an issue that affects my State. We have been supplying 
this Nation with about 25 percent of the oil produced in this country 
for the last decade. One of the issues that is of great concern in the 
development of oil from Alaska--particularly the area of ANWR--is 
whether we can do it safely. Of course. We have had 30 years of 
experience in the Arctic.

  Another question is: What effect will it have on the economy? What 
effect will it have on national security?
  About one-half of our balance-of-payment deficit is the cost of 
imported oil. That is a pretty significant outflow of our national 
product in the sense of purchasing that oil.
  The national security interests: At what time and at what point do 
you become more dependent on imported oil, and at what point do you 
sacrifice the national security of this country?
  We fought a war in 1991. We lost 147 lives. There is a colleague over 
in the House who made the statement the other day that he would rather 
see us drill in cemeteries than to see his grandson come back from a 
conflict in the Mideast in a body bag. We already did once. How many 
times are we going to do it as we become more and more dependent? It 
affects the national security and it affects the economy.
  As far as the attitude of those in my State, a significant majority--
over three-quarters of Alaskans--support opening up ANWR.
  Why do you want to open an area on land in a refuge? Let's put it in 
perspective. This refuge is the size of the State of South Carolina. 
This refuge contains 8.5 million acres of a wilderness that is 
dedicated in perpetuity and will not be touched. There are 19 million 
acres in the refuge that are off limits, leaving 1.5 million acres, a 
little sliver up at the top. That little sliver consists of 1.5 million 
acres out of 19 million acres. People say that is the Serengeti of the 
north. That is an untouched area.
  First of all, they have never been there, unlike the occupant of the 
chair who has been there. And I appreciate his wisdom and diligence in 
making the trip up there.
  There is a small village there with 147 people. They live in Kaktovik 
with a school, a couple of little stores, a radar site, and there is a 
runway.
  What do the people think about it? They want it. They want the 
alternative ability to have a lifestyle that provides jobs, educational 
opportunities, personal services, health care, and so forth.

[[Page S2844]]

  It is amazing to me to kind of watch and participate in this effort 
to communicate because the environmental community is spending a great 
deal of money portraying this area in 2\1/2\ to 3 months every summer. 
They are not portraying it in its 10-month winter period. They are not 
portraying it accurately relative to the people who live there.
  They suggest it is going to take 10 years to develop the area. That 
is absolutely incorrect. They don't point out the reality that we have 
the infrastructure of an 800-mile pipeline already there, and that we 
have moved over towards the ANWR line to the Badami field, which is 
approximately 25 miles away from the edge of ANWR. If Congress were to 
authorize this area, it would take roughly 3\1/2\ years to have oil 
flowing.
  Some people say it is only a 6-month supply. Tests estimate that 
there is a range of between 5.6 billion to 16 billion barrels. At an 
average of 10 billion barrels of production, it would be the largest 
field found in 40 years in the world.
  That will give you some idea of the magnitude. It would be larger 
than Prudhoe Bay, which has been producing for the last 27 years 25 
percent of the total crude oil produced in this country.
  Let's keep the argument in perspective. It is a significant 
potential. It can reduce dramatically our dependence on imported oil 
from Saddam Hussein and others. It can have a very positive effect upon 
our economy.
  Some Members have threatened to filibuster this. I am amazed that 
anyone would threaten a filibuster on an issue such as this. It is like 
fiddling while Rome burns.
  Those who suggest that fail to recognize the reality that we have an 
energy problem in this country, and we have a broad energy bill that we 
think covers all aspects of energy development as well as new 
technology.
  I urge my colleagues to go back and reexamine the potential.
  First of all, let's recognize we have the problem. We are going to 
have to do something about it. We are not going to drill our way out of 
it. It is going to take a combination of a number of efforts to utilize 
existing energy sources. But opening ANWR is significantly a major 
role, if you will, in reducing our dependency on imported oil.
  I remind my colleagues of one other point, and that is, a good deal 
of the west coast of the United States is dependent on Alaskan oil. 
That is where our oil goes. If oil does not come from Alaska, oil is 
going to come in to the west coast from some place else.
  Oftentimes people say, developing Alaskan oil has nothing to do with 
the California energy crisis because they do not use oil to generate 
electricity. That certainly is true. I agree.
  But what I would add is, California is dependent on Alaskan oil for 
its transportation, its ships, its airplanes. As a consequence, if the 
oil does not come from Alaska, it is going to come from someplace else. 
It is going to come from a rain forest in Colombia where there is no 
environmental oversight. It is going to come in ships that are owned by 
foreign trading corporations that do not have Coast Guard inspections 
and the assurance of the highest quality of scientific applications to 
ensure the risk of transporting the oil is kept at a minimum.
  I urge my colleagues to reflect a little bit on the reality that this 
is an energy crisis. We are not going to drill our way out of it. We 
are going to have to use all of our resources, all of our energy 
technology, and a balanced approach, which is what we have in our 
energy bill, to confront this energy crisis.
  Mr. President, I thank you for your time and attention.

                          ____________________