[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10421-S10423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  ANWR

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call attention to some of the 
comments made in this Chamber earlier today relative to the issue of 
taking up a national energy security bill before this

[[Page S10422]]

body. I spoke a little earlier on the floor today and indicated that, 
clearly, it is in the national interest that we in the Senate proceed 
with an energy bill--report it out, bring it to the floor, and vote on 
amendments in an orderly manner.
  As I further indicated earlier, the majority leader has indicated 
that it is his intent to develop an energy bill--in his words, a 
``balanced bill''--and it would be introduced by the majority leader. 
Of course, this excludes the process associated with the committee 
reporting out a bill.
  Further, in the discussion that has taken place today, the issue of 
ANWR came up as the bone of contention. I want to address a couple 
points because there is a good deal of misunderstanding around this 
issue. There was a reference today that the accident that occurred when 
a bullet penetrated the pipeline earlier this week was proof that we 
should not rely on increasing the supply of oil that would traverse 
through that pipeline.
  I remind my colleagues that that pipeline is about 28 years old. It 
has provided the Nation with 25 percent of the total crude oil produced 
in the United States for that period of time. That volume has dropped 
from 25 percent to 17 percent. The pipeline capacity was a little over 
2 million barrels a day previously, in the early development of the 
Prudhoe Bay oil fields, that flowed through that pipeline. Today, with 
the decline in Prudhoe Bay, it has dropped a significant amount, to 
roughly 1 million barrels a day. But it still supplies this Nation with 
17 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country.
  Now, to suggest that this firing by a very high-powered rifle 
penetrated the pipeline is not quite accurate because it has been shot 
at numerous times. It is half-inch, high-tensile steel. It is my 
understanding that this particular firing--a blast of five bullets--
penetrated an area where there is a valve and, as a consequence, 
because of pressure in the pipeline, there was a significant leak, a 
spillage. The question of whether there is any permanent damage done 
has been addressed in the cleanup. There was no movement of any oil 
into any water or streams in the area. The security group of Alyeska 
found the incident as a consequence of the notification of a drop in 
pressure. They went out with helicopters and not only found the leak 
but identified and arrested the perpetrators. You can criticize 
anything, but the system did work. Everything is subject to, obviously, 
the exposure of terrorist activity, but in this particular instance 
this was a fellow who was extremely drunk, bored, or he lost his mind, 
and he simply decided it would be fun to start firing at the pipeline.
  That pipeline has been bombed; bombs have been wrapped around it. It 
has been wrapped with hand grenades, shot at, and it suffered exposure 
of numerous earthquakes over the 27 years and it continues to be one of 
the wonders of the world. So to suggest that somehow this bullet-
piercing accident is somehow questionable relative to the integrity of 
that pipeline is an expression of very little knowledge--factual 
knowledge--on behalf of those who suggest that somehow the pipeline 
can't be trusted for additional flowthrough if indeed ANWR is 
developed.
  I am going to conclude, as I promised my friend from Pennsylvania 
that I would be brief, with an explanation of some of the more common 
myths associated with the ANWR issue. I hope we can get ANWR up before 
this body and vote on it up or down in conjunction with an energy bill. 
That is the democratic process. Clearly, that did not prevail in the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee because I can only assume the 
votes were there to report out a bill with ANWR in it. I can only 
assume the votes are in this body to pass an energy bill with ANWR in 
it. Polling seems to indicate nearly 60 percent of the American public 
support opening ANWR as a significant contributor to reducing our 
dependence on imported oil.
  Some say there is an insufficient amount of oil. Some say it is only 
a 6-month supply and not nearly enough to justify exploration. That is 
nonsense. The U.S. Geological Survey, experts who have studied the 1002 
ANWR area, estimate that between 6 and 16 billion barrels of oil are 
economically recoverable; 10 billion barrels is equivalent to what we 
would import from Saudi Arabia over a 30-year period; 10 billion 
barrels is the equivalent of what we import from Iraq for a period of 
50 years.
  We are importing a million barrels a day from Iraq and enforcing the 
no-fly zone. We are taking the oil, putting it in our airlines, bombing 
some of the targets in Iraq, and have for some time. They take our 
money, pay the Republican Guard, develop a missile capability, and aim 
it at our ally, Israel.
  Maybe that is a short synopsis of foreign policy, but nevertheless I 
think one can conclude that is the ultimate outcome.
  We do not know what is in ANWR because we have never been allowed to 
determine through modern exploration, through seismic exploration, 
specifically what is available. Only Congress can authorize it.
  What is the extent of the area? It is interesting because ANWR is 
about 19 million acres--about the size of the State of South Carolina. 
The proposal is to allow exploration on 1.5 million acres. The House-
passed bill, which is H.R. 4, has limited that to 2,000 acres. That is 
the size of a small farm in the entire State of South Carolina--the 
wilderness, if you will, as a comparison.
  Prudhoe Bay was supposed to produce 10 billion barrels. It is on its 
13 millionth barrel today. It is absurd to think ANWR is only a 6-month 
supply of oil. That is to assume ANWR is the country's only source of 
oil; that there is no oil produced in Texas, or Louisiana, offshore, or 
no other oil is being imported into the country. The American people 
are wise enough to see that argument just does not hold oil, if you 
will.
  Clearly, the potential for this country's domestic supply is ANWR, 
and the abundance associated with the likelihood of a major discovery 
is second to none identified in North America. It is almost like 
wondering if you have a strategic petroleum reserve in your own 
backyard, but if you do not know, and if you do not have the ability to 
develop it, you really cannot use it.
  What is required in development? Very little. We need authorization 
by Congress. The House has done its job. The House passed a bill. H.R. 
4 includes ANWR. It is a challenge to the Senate to do its job.
  Some say it will take as long as 10 years before the oil is flowing 
and that is too long to make a difference. If the previous President 
had not vetoed the budget reconciliation bill in 1995, today ANWR would 
be open, or if the oil was not there, it might have been a park. We 
could have been less dependent on foreign oil, and our energy future 
would look a lot more certain if, indeed, we had taken that action back 
in 1995, but we could not overcome a Presidential veto.

  We built the Pentagon in 18 months. We built the Empire State 
Building in a year. Industry says if they make a discovery, they can 
develop and get oil online in somewhere between 18 months and 2\1/2\ 
years, depending on our will to give them the authority within the 
environmental parameters to do it safely.
  Some people say our energy policy is misguided; we need to focus on 
natural gas. We found 6 trillion cubic feet. Let's use gas. Recognize 
that America moves on oil. Our planes, our ships, our trains move on 
oil.
  In response to the September 11 attack, we are preparing now for a 
long, sustained war. Are we going to count on unstable governments in 
the very part of the world where we are fighting to assure our energy 
security? We need to begin at home with energy solutions found within 
our borders, and if we make the commitment to authorize the opening of 
this area, I assure my colleagues it will be very symbolic. It would 
send a very solid message to that part of the world were we to continue 
to increase our dependence on imported oil.
  About 67 percent comes from foreign sources, a majority of that from 
the Mideast. Fighting a war uses a lot of energy. Mr. President, 
450,000 barrels of petroleum products were estimated to be used daily, 
and that was through 582,000 soldiers in the Persian Gulf war. It is 
estimated we are using over 500,000 barrels a day currently in this 
conflict.

[[Page S10423]]

  Some say it is America's Serengeti, its mountains; it is deserted; it 
is beautiful. Again, it is the size of the State of South Carolina. It 
is 19 million acres. Can we open it safely? Yes.
  Some say we can get the energy from the National Petroleum Reserve in 
Alaska; that is why it was established. That is wishful thinking 
because actually just 15 percent of that entire coastline is open for 
exploration. Just 3 years ago, the Federal Government closed vast 
amounts of NPR to protect the birds that live in the lakes. If you look 
at the model and lakes over NPR, that is where bird life is. There are 
very few lakes associated in the ANWR area.
  Finally, there is a concern of the Porcupine caribou and the 
Gwich'ins, but no one mentioned what is happening on the Canadian side 
and involvement of the Gwich'ins who are participants in putting up 
land for lease.
  There was an extraordinary article in the Vancouver Sun newspaper 
indicating the Gwich'ins are benefiting greatly from oil and gas 
exploration because Canada expanded its oil and gas leasing program to 
include testing exploratory wells, et cetera.
  The bottom line is there seems to be a great fear suddenly to take up 
an energy bill, with no particular explanation, particularly when the 
administration has encouraged Congress to take it up, particularly when 
the House has done its job, and now we are advised by the majority 
leader that the committee of jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, is going to suspend any further markup on energy 
legislation for ``this session''--this session.
  I have a press release that states that instead the chairman will 
propose comprehensive and balanced energy legislation. The chairman 
will. It does not say with the participation of the committee or the 
minority or the Republicans. It says the chairman outside the 
parameters of the committee.
  It further says ``the comprehensive and balanced legislation that can 
be added''--it does not say ``will be added;'' it says ``can be 
added''--``by the majority leader to the Senate calendar for,'' it 
says, ``potential action.'' It does not say ``action.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the press release be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Energy Committee Suspends Mark-Ups; Will Propose Comprehensive and 
             Balanced Energy Legislation to Majority Leader

       At the request of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, 
     Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff 
     Bingaman today suspended any further mark-up of energy 
     legislation for this session of Congress. Instead, the 
     Chairman will propose comprehensive and balanced energy 
     legislation that can be added by the Majority Leader to the 
     Senate Calendar for potential action prior to adjournment.
       Noted Bingaman, It has become increasingly clear to the 
     Majority Leader and to me that much of what we are doing in 
     our committee is starting to encroach on the jurisdictions of 
     many other committees. Additionally, with the few weeks 
     remaining in this session, it is now obvious to all how 
     difficult it is going to be for these various committees to 
     finish their work on energy-related provisions.
       Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Bingaman said, the 
     Senate's leadership sincerely wants to avoid quarrelsome, 
     divisive votes in committee. At a time when Americans all 
     over the world are pulling together with a sense of oneness 
     and purpose, Congress has an obligation at the moment to 
     avoid those contentious issues that divide, rather than 
     unite, us.
       Bingaman will continue to consult and build consensus with 
     members of his committee, with other committee chairs and 
     with other Senators as he finalizes a proposal to present to 
     the Majority Leader.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I encourage again the majority leader to reflect on 
this action, give us the assurance he will take it up during this 
session and allow sufficient time for Members to provide for 
amendments, provide us with an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote 
on contentious issues, and that we meet our obligation as the Senate, 
as the House of Representatives has done, in addressing what is in the 
national security interests of our Nation, and that is the passage of 
the comprehensive energy bill.
  I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for allowing me this extra 
opportunity to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________