[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8882-S8884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I will try to be brief because I am
sure there are many who would like to start the recess.
Madam President, I call your attention and that of my colleagues to
the activity in the U.S. House of Representatives which occurred the
day before yesterday, rather late at night. This involved the reporting
out of an energy bill, a very comprehensive bill. As a consequence, the
baton now passes to the Senate. There is going to be a great deal of
debate in the committee, on which I am the ranking member, along with
other members of that committee, including the Senator from Louisiana
who just addressed this body. As a consequence of that debate and the
development of our own energy bill at this time, I will highlight one
of the topical points in that bill that affects my State of Alaska.
That is the issue of ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The action by the House is very responsible. It puts the issue in
perspective. The issue has been that somehow this huge area called
ANWR, an area of 19 million acres, an area that is approximately the
size of the State of South Carolina, is at risk by any action by the
Congress to initiate authorization for exploration.
What the House has done is extraordinary, mandating a limitation of
2,000 acres to be the footprint associated with any development that
might occur in that area. It takes the whole issue and puts it in
perspective that, indeed, This is not more than four or five small
farms, assuming the rest of the area of the State of South Carolina
were a wilderness. That is the perspective.
For those who argue ANWR is at risk, the House action has clearly
identified the footprint will be 2,000 acres. What will that do to
America's technology, to America's ingenuity? It will challenge it. It
will say, we must develop this field, if indeed the oil is there, with
this kind of footprint.
This technology has been developed in this country. The exploration
phase is three-dimensional. It suggests that you can drill under the
U.S. Capitol and come out at gate 8 at Reagan Airport. That is the
technology. This gives side views of what lies under the ground and the
prospects for oil and gas. It mandates the best technology. It mandates
we must develop this technology, and as a consequence puts a challenge
to the environmental community, the engineering community, and our
Nation. That challenge will help make this the best oilfield in the
world, bar none.
What else does it have? It has a project labor agreement. That means
there will be a contractual commitment between the unions, the
Teamsters, and the AFL-CIO, and it will create thousands of jobs in
this country. These are American jobs.
I urge Members to consider for a moment that over half of our deficit
balance of payments is the cost of imported oil. Once the Congress
speaks on this issue, there will be a reaction from OPEC. That reaction
will be very interesting. OPEC is going to increase its supply and the
price of oil is going to be reduced in this country. There is no
question about it. If OPEC knows we mean business about reducing our
dependence on imported oil, they will clearly get the signal.
Furthermore, it is rather interesting what the House did with the
disposition of royalties. The anticipated revenue from lease sales for
the Federal land in this area is somewhere in the area of $1.5 to $2
billion. That money is not just beginning to go in the Federal
Treasury; it will go into the development of alternative and renewable
sources of energy. So we have the funds to develop the new
technologies.
One of the misconceptions in this country that covers energy is that
it is all the same. It isn't. We generate electricity from coal. The
State of West Virginia is a major supplier of coal. Nearly 51 percent
of the energy produced in this country comes from coal. We also have
the capability to produce from nuclear. About 22 percent of our energy
comes from nuclear. We also use a large amount of natural gas, but our
natural gas reserves are going down faster than we are finding new
ones.
We have hydro; we have wind; we have solar. These are all important
in the mix. The funds from the sale or lease in ANWR are going to go
back and develop renewable sources of energy.
The point I make is why these energies are important. America moves
on oil. The world moves on oil. There is no alternative. We must find
an alternative, perhaps fuel sales, perhaps hydrogen technology, but it
is not there. We will be increasingly dependent on sources from
overseas.
I know the President pro tempore remembers the issue of the U2 over
Russia, Gary Powers, an American pilot in an observation plane that was
shot down. At that time, we were contemplating a major meeting of the
world leaders to try and relieve tensions. When his plane was shot
down, tensions were increased dramatically between the Soviet Union and
the United States. It was a time of great tension.
The other day we had a U2 flying over Iraq with an American pilot. We
were enforcing a no-fly zone. We were doing an observation. A missile
was shot at that aircraft, barely missing it. It blew up behind the
tail. It hardly made page 5 in the news.
We are importing a million barrels a day from Iraq. We are enforcing
a no-fly zone over Iraq. We have flown 231,000 individual sorties, with
men and
[[Page S8883]]
women flying our aircraft, enforcing this no-fly zone, ensuring his
targets are not fully developed. Occasionally we bomb and take out
targets.
How ironic; here we are, importing a million barrels a day, enforcing
a no-fly zone, taking on his targets, but we are taking this oil and
putting it in our aircraft to do it. I don't know about our foreign
policy.
What does he do with the money he receives from us? His Republican
Guards keep Saddam Hussein alive. He develops a missile delivery
capability. He puts on a biological warhead, perhaps. Where is it
aimed? At our ally, Israel. Virtually every speech Saddam Hussein gives
is concluded with ``death to Israel.''
Where does this fit in the big picture? Six weeks ago we imported
750,000 barrels a day from Iraq. I find it frustrating. We had another
little experience about 3\1/2\ weeks ago. Saddam Hussein was not
satisfied with the sanctions being levied by the U.N. He said: I will
cut my oil production 2.5 million for 30 days. That is 60 million
barrels. We all thought OPEC would stand up and increase production.
They didn't. They have a cartel. We can't have cartels in this country.
We have antitrust laws against them.
My point is quite evident. OPEC, the Mideast nations, are trying to
stick together, hold up the price, because they are increasing their
leverage on the United States. What does that do to the national
security of this country? It is quite obvious to me.
There is another argument that was used. We heard it on the House
floor: Ban the export of any Alaskan oil that might come from ANWR.
Fine, I will support that.
One of the amusing observations I made the other day is that one of
the Members of the House got up and said we have to oppose opening this
because all the oil is going to Japan. That is nonsense. So it is
prohibited in the authorization. The last oil that was exported outside
the United States from Alaska occurred a year ago last April, a very
small amount that was surplus. But it is not surplus anymore because
California is now importing a great deal of foreign oil because they
have increased their utilization while Alaska has declined in its
production.
If you go through the arguments that will be before this body on the
ANWR issue, please think about the action of the House, the responsible
action of the House. No longer is 19 million acres at risk, an area the
size of the State of South Carolina; 2,000 acres is at risk. Is that a
reasonable compromise to address our energy security? Certainly. It
mandates the best use and the highest use of particular knowledge. It
has a project labor agreement in it. The unions think very highly of
this because it has become a jobs issue.
We have an obligation to do what is right for America. We know our
environmental friends have taken a stand on this, but most of their
arguments are gone. Can you open it safely? Surely; and the Federal
royalties are going to go back for conservation and renewables and R&D.
We are going to put a ban on exports, resolving that issue.
ANWR has been the focal point of a lot of misinformation by
environmental extremists. They have tried to hold it hostage for their
own publicity, membership, and dollars, and they have been quite
effective. But the House vote proves that when we really look beyond
the rhetoric, we can safely explore the resources in ANWR.
I applaud the House leadership for crafting a compromise, a balanced
bill, one that I think every Member should seriously consider.
After the recess, I am going to be discussing this issue at some
length. I hope my colleagues will join me. We have heard from a few who
say, we are going to filibuster this. You are going to filibuster an
energy bill? Is that what you really want to do? Are you going to
filibuster and in effect cause us to increase our dependence on
imported oil? Filibuster a bill that will provide more American jobs
for American labor? I welcome that debate.
It is amusing, and I am going to conclude on this note because I see
the President pro tempore patiently waiting, how things change in our
media as they are exposed to the pressures from special interest
groups. I am going to quote from the Chattanooga Free Press, June 3 of
this year, an article done by Reed Irvine. He cites the issue of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the issue of arsenic in the drinking
water, the idea of trying to bring things into balance. He specifically
takes on two of the major newspapers in this country, the Washington
Post and the New York Times, by reminding us of their gross
inconsistency. He states:
In 1987, a Washington Post editorial describing ANWR as one
of the ``bleakest, most remote places on the continent''
said, ``(T)here is hardly any other place where drilling
would have less impact on surrounding life . . . Congress
would be right to go ahead and, with all the conditions
and environmental precautions that apply in Prudhoe Bay,
see what's under the refuge's tundra.''
In 1988, a New York Times editorial said of the area,
``(T)he potential is enormous and the environmental risks are
modest . . . the likely value of the oil far exceeds
plausible estimates of the environmental cost.'' It
concluded, ``(I)t is hard to see why absolutely pristine
preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence
over the nation's energy needs.''
That was in 1988. We are importing right now close to 60 percent of
the oil we consume. The article goes on to say:
Since then our energy needs have become more pressing, but
with new editorial page editors, both these papers are now
singing a different tune about the ANWR. At the Times,
editorial-page editor Howell Raines has dumbed-down the
paper's editorial pages and op-ed pages. A good example is an
editorial on drilling for oil in ANWR published last March.
It said, ``This page has addressed the folly of trespassing
on a wondrous, wildlife preserve for what, by official
estimates, is likely to be a modest amount of economically
recoverable oil.''
What the Post had described as ``one of the bleakest, most remote
places on the continent'' had somehow in the flick of a new editorial
editor been transformed, in 14 years, to some wonderful wildlife
preserve.
Having worked that miracle, Raines has been designated as
the next executive editor of the paper.
Over on the other side:
Fred Hiatt, who succeeded Meg Greenfield as the editorial
page editor of the Washington Post, effected a similar
transformation. Now a Post editorial describes that formerly
remote, bleak wasteland as, ``a unique ecological resource''
and says that exploiting it ``for more oil to feed more of
the same old profligate habits would be to take the wrong
first step.'' The Post accused [those of us in this body who
support this] of ``demagoguery.''
How clever.
I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Chattanooga Times/Chattanooga Free Press, June 3, 2001]
Shady Environmentalism
(By Reed Irvine)
Environmentalists come in many shades of green, but a lot
of them are just plain shady, ignoring science and common
sense and jumping on the green bandwagon for partisan
political purposes. This is evident in the rush of people to
bash the Bush environmental initiatives. All of a sudden,
thanks to a last minute move by Bill Clinton, countless
Americans began quaking in their boots, having learned from
the media that something very few of them had ever heard of
before, arsenic in drinking water, might give them cancer.
They were not told that this conclusion was based on
studies in countries where the level of arsenic in drinking
water is as much as 10 times higher that the 50 parts per
billion maximum level permitted in the U.S. We have yet to
see a study showing that cancers caused by arsenic are more
prevalent in communities in this country where arsenic in
drinking water is above average than in those communities
where it is below average. We have seen a story in the New
York Times reporting that arsenic is used at the Sloan
Kettering Institute to cure a particularly vicious type of
leukemia.
Even more than arsenic in drinking water, the proposed
drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has
been used to bash President bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney. Back in the 1980s. two of our most influential
newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times,
favored exploitation of the oil in this remote, inhospitable
region of Alaska.
In 1987, a Washington Post editorial describing this area
as ``one of the bleakest, most remote places on this
continent'' said, ``(T)here is hardly any other place where
drilling would have less impact on the surrounding life . . .
Congress would be right to go ahead and, with all the
conditions and environmental precautions that apply to
Prudhoe Bay, see what's under the refuge's tundra.''
In 1988, a New York times editorial said of this area,
``(T)he potential is enormous and the environmental risks are
modest . . . the likely value of the oil far exceeds
plausible estimates of the environmental cost.'' It concluded
``(I)t is hard to see why absolutely
[[Page S8884]]
pristine preservation of this remote wilderness should take
precedence over the nation's energy needs.''
Since then our energy needs have become more pressing, but
with new editorial-page editors, both of these papers are now
singing a different tune about the ANWR. At the Times,
editorial-page editor Howell Raines, has dumbed-down the
paper's editorial and op-ed pages. A good example is an
editorial on drilling for oil in the ANWR published last
March. It said, ``This page has addressed the folly of
trespassing on a wondrous wildlife preserve for what, by
official estimates, is likely to be a modest amount of
economically recoverable oil.'' What the Post had described
as ``one of the bleakest, most remote places on this
continent,'' had been transformed in 14 years to ``a wondrous
wildlife preserve.'' Having worked that miracle, Raines has
been designated as the next executive editor of the paper.
Fred Hiatt, who succeeded Meg Greenfield as editorial-page
editor of the Washington Post, effected a similar
transformation. Now a Post editorial describes that formerly
remote, bleak wasteland as ``a unique ecological resource''
and says that exploiting it ``for more oil to feed more of
the same old profligate habits would be to take the wrong
step first.'' The Post accused the Alaska senators who
advocate drilling for oil in the ANWR of ``demagoguery.''
Sen. Frank Murkowski sent a letter to the Post in which he
pointed out that Alaska has 125 million acres of national
parks, preserves and wildlife refuges, of which 19 million
acres are in the ANWR. Congress set aside 1.5 million ANWR
acres for possible oil and gas exploration. The Bush proposal
is to permit drilling on about 2,000 acres, about one-
hundredth of 1 percent of the entire refuge. Sen. Murkowski
concluded, ``I suggest the demagoguery comes when you follow
the extreme environmentalist line: 19 million acres for
wildlife and pristine conditions and not even 2,000 acres for
energy security.'' Energy security is not a minor
consideration. The U.S. imported 37 percent of its oil in the
1970s and 57 percent today. It is said that ANWR could supply
only enough oil to meet our needs for six months. That might
be true if ANWR were our only source of oil. The U.S.
Geological Survey estimates that there is enough oil there to
replace our imports from Saudi Arabia for the next 20 to 30
years. Only a very shady environmentalist would shun that.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. My next effort after the recess will be to come back
and discuss the energy situation. It is not a matter of pointing
fingers. When we come back, I will say why we are focusing in on oil
exploration as well. I am going to try to answer the question why is it
safer and better to import our oil rather than drilling right here in
America by providing the facts. We need to know what we have in America
first.
I am going to talk about how the experts estimate ANWR might only
contain a 6-month supply of oil, which is absolutely ridiculous because
that would be true only if we produced no oil nor imported any into the
United States for 6 months. ANWR has the potential of equaling what we
are currently importing from Saudi Arabia for a 30-year period of time.
We are going to answer the question of whether we should focus more
on conservation. I am going to answer that by saying we need a balance.
I am going to answer the question of why it takes energy so long to
turn it around once the shortage begins to become noticed.
I am going to talk about why we must act now because we are going to
be held responsible if, indeed, we do not act now.
Madam President, I thank the President pro tempore for his attention.
I remind my colleague we have some heavy lifting to do because the
American people are looking for action.
We started in 1992. I was on the committee. Senator Bennett Johnston
was chairman of that committee. We put out an energy bill from that
committee. When it came to this floor, we gave away clean coal; we gave
away nuclear; we gave away hydro; we gave away natural gas; we gave
away oil; and we concentrated on alternatives and renewables. We
expended $6 billion. That was a worthwhile effort. But we didn't
increase supply.
This is a different year. The ``perfect storm'' has come together.
Our natural gas prices have quadrupled. We haven't built a new coal-
fired plant in this Nation since 1995. We haven't done anything with
nuclear energy in a quarter of a century. We haven't built a new
refinery in 25 years. Now we suddenly find that we don't have a
distribution system for our electrical generation or our natural gas
generation. We are constrained. It is affecting the economy. It is
affecting jobs. It is going to get worse. The American people expect us
to come back and do something about it. They will not stand for
grandstanding. They will not stand for the status quo. They will not
stand for the threat of filibusters.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what is the time limit for Senators to
speak?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak using
whatever time is necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________