[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 108 (Monday, July 30, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8378-S8379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  ANWR

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, unfortunately, the Senator from New 
Mexico, chairman of the Energy Committee, is not in the Chamber now. I 
had hoped to be able to pose a question to him.
  That question would have been regarding his comment indicating he was 
opposed to opening ANWR. He did not give a reason why, nor did he have 
to. I hope we will have an opportunity on this particular issue to have 
a good debate, a debate that evaluates the issue in its entirety.
  One of the things I keep referring to, with which the occupant of the 
Chair has some familiarity, is the unique circumstances surrounding a 
very small number of aboriginal residents of the north slope, the 
residents of Kaktovik. Their particular plight lends itself to some 
consideration by this body.
  I don't think I will have the opportunity of using the charts, but I 
can probably show this better if one of the gentlemen will go back and 
I can get them to show the actual ownership in the 1002 area of the 
92,000 acres of land that is owned by these aboriginal people.
  This is the historical land of their birthright. It is their village 
land. As a consequence of the manner in which the Federal Government 
chose the structure of management of the 1002 area and the surrounding 
area associated within ANWR, we found an enclave of 92,000 acres of 
private land that could not be utilized by the villagers who own the 
land.
  One has to address the propriety of what private land is all about, 
if indeed you can't use it. This particular area is in such a specific 
directive from Congress that the residents, the owners can't even drill 
for natural gas to heat their homes, let alone develop any of the 
subsurface rights for their wherewithal, simply because there is no way 
to access the area without trespassing on Federal land. This doesn't 
seem reasonable or fair.
  I am sorry to say the charts have gone back to my office. I will have 
to address this matter again with a visual presentation.
  These are the kinds of considerations that aren't addressed and would 
be addressed in the proposed legislation to authorize the opening of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Why should this group of Alaska 
Eskimos be denied the birthright to resource their land as any other 
American citizen would?
  This is just one inconsistency associated with this issue. It is a 
type of issue that would fall on the ears of many in this body who 
believe in fairness and equity. That is a factor in the consideration 
of the merits.
  I am continually confronted with Members who say: I am opposed to it. 
They are very reluctant to get into a debate as to why. The rationale 
is pretty obvious. There is a lot of pressure from America's 
environmental community. America's environmental community has 
generated an awful lot of membership and dollars by taking a stand on 
this issue and laying down a fear that somehow we cannot open this area 
safely or that somehow it is contrary to traditional use to drill in a 
refuge.
  As I have indicated earlier in my presentation today, we have oil and 
gas drilling in 30 refuges in this country. We have 118 refuges where 
there is actual oil, gas, and minerals. There are over 400 wells in the 
refuges in Louisiana. We have them in New Mexico. Why is it 
inappropriate to suddenly say we cannot allow drilling in the 1002 
refuge area when we have advanced technology? There is no justifiable 
reason other than the pressure that is brought on Members by the 
environmental community. That is the kind of debate I hope we can get 
into.

  I would like to see scientific evidence that suggests, if indeed 
there is a rationale to support it, that we can't do it correctly; 
scientific evidence to suggest that Prudhoe Bay is not the best oil 
field in the world in its 30-year old technology; scientific evidence 
to suggest that this won't create literally thousands of new jobs, such 
as 700,000, in the United States. Almost every State in the Union would 
benefit from this.
  I would like to hear a debate as to why it is in the interest this 
country to become more dependent on the Saddam Husseins of this world. 
That is what has happened. As we know, 6 weeks ago, we were at 750,000 
barrels a day. Today we are a million barrels a day. Are we here to do 
what is right for America or are we here to simply respond to the 
pressures of America's environmental community as it laments on fear 
tactics that are not based on any scientifically sound research?
  That is the reality with which we are faced. As we look at what is 
happening in the House of Representatives this week, they are going to 
take up the issue.
  There is going to be a motion to strike ANWR from the energy bill. It 
is kind of amazing to me to see what is happening over there because 
organized labor suddenly has said this is a jobs issue; that we are 
losing jobs all over the United States. But right now the one item that 
we can identify that would allow for the creation of thousands of new 
jobs is opening this area. So it is an argument as to whether you can 
do it safely; whether we can protect the Porcupine caribou herd; 
whether we can get the oil on line soon enough--in 3\1/2\ years--or 
whether it is a substantial supply.
  As I have indicated, if it is there in the abundance it would have to 
be to replace what we import from Saudi Arabia in a 3-year period of 
time, can we do it safely? There is no evidence to suggest that we 
can't. These are the discussions that we will have. I hope every Member 
will encourage open debate on this floor on the merits of opening ANWR. 
I have heard people say, ``I would rather this didn't come up'' and ``I 
would rather we didn't have to vote on this'' and ``it makes me feel 
uncomfortable.''

[[Page S8379]]

  We are sent here to do a job, Mr. President; to take tough votes. We 
are sent here to do what is right for America. If what is right for 
America is to increase our dependence on imported oil from Saddam 
Hussein, well, that is beyond my interpretation of what is right for 
America.
  I look at Saddam Hussein as an enemy. He is attempting to shoot down 
our airplanes. We are enforcing a no-fly zone. We continue to do that. 
It is in our national interest. Why should we be importing more and 
more oil from him? Oil is fungible. If we spilled oil on the desk of 
the Presiding Officer, it would spill all over the table. If we buy the 
oil from Saddam Hussein today, we could buy oil from OPEC and let 
somebody else buy Saddam Hussein's oil. That is one way to dodge this 
so-called inconsistent bullet. But we don't seem to be doing it.
  This Senator is going to--probably on the Jordan bill--bring up an 
amendment again to terminate our purchase of oil from Iraq. To me, it 
is absolutely inconsistent that we would depend on that source. It 
addresses our national security. The national security of this country 
should not be 56-percent dependent on imported oil.
  One thing that continues to frustrate me a little bit is the 
assumption by many that oil simply comes out of the gas station. You go 
down there and insert your credit card and fill your tank, and there is 
very little consideration that somebody has to produce it; that it has 
to be refined; that it has to be transported; and America and the world 
move on oil.
  We get complacent and somehow we are concerned about electricity. We 
have a lot of alternatives for electricity. We have hydro, nuclear, 
natural gas, and coal. But America moves by oil. We have an opportunity 
to relieve our dependence--not that we are going to eliminate it, but 
we can relieve it--by coming to America, to my State of Alaska, where 
we have the technology to do it safely. Again, Mr. President, I will 
keep this in the perspective of reality. This is a pretty small 
footprint--about 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. That is the size 
of the State of South Carolina. That is what we can do with the 
technology we have. It is just beyond me that Members fail to want to 
discuss the merits. They fail to discuss why we should not do it. They 
are uncomfortable with the issue.
  Again, that is not why we were sent here. We were sent here to make 
hard decisions and vote in the best interest of America. To me, to 
relieve our dependence on imported oil addresses specifically our 
national security interest. It is an issue that is coming before this 
body. It is going to be before the Energy Committee of which I am the 
ranking member.

  I hope Senator Bingaman and I, in that committee, can have spirited 
debates on the specific merits of why it is not in the interest of the 
United States and our national security to relieve our dependence on 
these increased sources of oil from the cartels of OPEC, to try to 
develop sources here at home, keep the jobs at home.
  Look at the balance of payments--over half of the balance of payments 
is the cost of imported oil. We can reduce that. So why should 
America's labor sources not come to grips with this and begin to lobby 
it, as they are successfully doing? So this issue is an issue that is 
timely, an issue that should be addressed fully in an extended debate 
based on science, not emotion. The emotional arguments have prevailed. 
They have prevailed very strongly because of an organized, extreme 
environmental group that fails to recognize that this energy crisis is 
not going to be solved alone by alternatives, renewables, new 
technology, solar, wind.
  This energy crisis is going to have to be resolved by a balanced 
process, where we advance, if you will, funding for these new 
technologies, but they alone can't solve the problem. We are going to 
have to increase clean coal utilization. We are going to have to 
address what to do with nuclear waste in this country because nuclear 
provides us with 22 percent of the energy in this Nation. We are going 
to have to recognize that we are now using our natural gas reserves 
faster than we are finding new ones, and we are going to have to again 
address the realities associated with the generation of electricity 
from our hydro sources, many of which have not been expanded to any 
great extent. We are going to need a comprehensive bill, with 
technology, alternatives, renewables, but it has to have an increased 
supply. Otherwise, we will go through what we did in 1992 and we will 
fail. The American people will hold us accountable, as they should.
  ANWR is not the total answer, by any means, but it is part of the 
solution to regaining our independence, reducing the vulnerability of 
this country, and recognizing that these are real jobs to be created 
right here at home. I think my friend brought me a chart relative to 
the ownership by the Native people of Alaska. I started with this, and 
I think it is appropriate that in the broad scheme of things, the 
interest of many of the residents is forgotten.
  This is the 1002 area here. We have a pointer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent for another minute and a half.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. This is a million and a half acres of the 1002 area. 
We have here in white the ownership by the residents of Kaktovik. This 
is 92,000 acres. As you can see, you have no way out. This is all 
Federal land. In the selection of their Native lands when they had the 
original village up here, a location that has been there for many 
centuries, under the land claims legislation, the provision was they 
could not develop these lands until Congress had made a determination 
specifically on what to do with this area. Only Congress has the 
authority to open it up. These residents sit here in an enclave with 
private land they cannot develop. They cannot even drill for natural 
gas to heat their homes. That is an injustice. That would be corrected, 
among many other things, by this legislation that we propose in opening 
up ANWR.
  I thank the Chair for the time allotted me and allowing me to extend 
my remarks.
  I tell everybody that I look forward to a very spirited debate with 
enough time so we can get into the meat of this issue. I encourage my 
colleagues who say, ``I am sorry, I can't support it,'' to start giving 
us reasons why, other than just the rhetoric associated with it.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________