[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 144 (Thursday, October 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11098-S11099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the horrific terrorist attacks of 
September 11, and America's response to those attacks have shifted our 
sense of priorities about what's important for our Nation. But, as we 
move forward with the challenging task of eliminating terrorism and 
securing the safety of our citizens, we must not lose sight of other 
values that make our Nation great.
  Some are using the shock and fear caused by the September 11 attacks 
to call for renewed focus on our energy security, and more particularly 
to renew their calls to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
exploration and

[[Page S11099]]

drilling. While I agree that it is high time we developed a strategy to 
reduce our dependence on imported oil and secure the Nation's energy 
resources and infrastructure, we should all know by now that developing 
ANWR will not achieve this goal.
  I have followed the Arctic debate closely for many, many years. I've 
spoken to this body on a number of occasions about this subject. The 
facts and best evidence on the main points at issue persuade me, as 
they have in the past, that drilling in the Arctic is both unnecessary 
and unwise.
  First, there is no oil bonanza in the Arctic that will impact or 
enhance the Nation's energy security, and neither the Senate nor the 
Nation should be rushed to an ill-fated judgement based on wildly 
inflated claims to the contrary.
  At peak production, many years down the road, the arctic coastal 
plain might at best replace about 5-9 percent of the foreign oil 
imported by the U.S. Oil from the arctic refuge will not have any 
meaningful impact on either the price of gasoline or on our demand for 
imported oil. It would do nothing to secure energy independence for our 
Nation.
  Arctic oil is also expensive to produce and transport to the lower 
48. Which is why, until Congress banned oil exports, the oil companies 
shipped a lot of that oil to foreign markets. If those exports bans are 
ever lifted, we'll likely see any oil from the refuge shipped overseas. 
There's a reason America imports so much OPEC oil, it's cheap.
  In short, our energy security lies in reducing our dependence on oil, 
period. The more efficiently our Nation uses oil, gas and other energy 
resources, the more we depend upon alternative energy resources and 
renewable resources, the less vulnerable our country will be to oil 
supply disruptions and price spikes.
  Moreover, the arctic refuge's coastal plain is the last 5 percent of 
the entire Alaskan coastal plain that is not already open to oil 
drilling. The remaining 95 percent of the Alaskan coastal plain is not 
only open to drilling, but vast tracts of it have yet to be explored 
for their potential oil reserves.
  What's so special about this last 5 percent, preserved since the 
Eisenhower Administration? It's the heart of all the wildlife diversity 
in the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That 5 percent is the 
central calving ground for the porcupine caribou herd, the exact same 
landscape that would be scarred with oil wells, drill pads, roads and 
pipelines if drilling is allowed. That 5 percent is essential migratory 
habitat for 135 species of birds and waterfowl. That 5 percent is home 
to polar bears, musk oxen, grizzly bears, wolves, 36 species of fish, 
and more than 100 other species of wildlife. In fact, ANWR is the most 
important polar bear denning area in Alaska.

  That 5 percent is also a desert compared to the rest of the arctic 
coastal plain. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation from the 
oil companies about how they will deal with the fact that there is not 
enough water to build ice roads in ANWR. If you can't build ice roads 
that ``disappear'' in the spring, you have to build gravel roads. Given 
what we have been told about the dispersed nature of recoverable oil in 
the refuge, the oil companies will need to build a lot of roads, roads 
that will crisscross the refuge, disrupting the natural flow of water 
during the spring, marring the wild character of the refuge and 
interfering with wildlife migration patterns.
  In Montana, we know we must have working landscapes where we 
encourage oil and gas development, promote timber harvest and grow our 
Nation's food and fiber. We know such landscapes, if carefully managed, 
can also produce abundant wildlife populations and much recreational 
opportunity. Balancing appropriate development with the need to protect 
special places, for ourselves and for our children, is a dance 
Montanans know well.
  So too the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have far too many 
other options open to us right now to secure our energy future than any 
that may or may not materialize from drilling in ANWR. Americans aren't 
ready to drill, and America doesn't need to. I hold that the Arctic 
refuge is too wild to waste.
  I would also like to address briefly some concerns I have with some 
of the energy proposals made by our colleagues in the House. I am 
particularly concerned with provisions that affect oil and gas leasing 
procedures on public lands.
  The House suggests that we replace the current public process 
surrounding oil and gas leasing on public lands with a centralized 
federal mandate that would remove any meaningful public involvement 
from oil and gas leasing decisions on national forest lands.
  In the 1980's, many Montanans traveled to Washington, DC to urge 
passage of legislation to bring the public into oil and gas leasing 
decisions on national forest and public lands. Their efforts and those 
of many others resulted in the passage of the 1987 Federal Onshore Oil 
and Gas Leasing Reform Act.
  Under current law, the forest supervisor analyzes likely impacts, 
considers surface resources and consults with the public before 
determining (1) where Federal oil and gas leasing is authorized and, 
(2) under what circumstances it should occur. Even if a lease is 
offered, it often contains provisions to protect wildlife and the 
environment through stipulations that limit roads and other industrial 
developments.
  Legislation endorsed by our colleagues in the House would eliminate 
the existing public involvement process.
  That legislation would strip national forest supervisors of existing 
authority to make decisions regarding oil and gas leasing. The local 
supervisor's authority would be transferred and centralized under the 
Secretary of Agriculture who is directed to ``ensure that unwarranted 
denials and stays of lease issuance and unwarranted restrictions'' on 
all oil and gas exploration or development operations ``are 
eliminated'' from oil and gas operations ``on Federal land.'' This 
seems out of character with the often repeated pledge from the 
Administration and others, that local communities should have a greater 
voice in the public lands decisions that directly affect them.
  Other language would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Interior to order a rewrite of oil and gas leasing plans to remove 
limits or restraints on oil and gas exploration and development. This 
would include local Montana decisions that limit oil and gas 
development designed to protect native trout streams.
  Still more language would give the oil and gas industry the power to 
force a review of previous decisions to limit oil and gas development 
on national forest and BLM lands, including written explanations 
showing ``whether the reasons underlying the previous decision are 
still persuasive.''
  In Montana, such decisions authorized millions of acres for leasing 
while protecting municipal drinking water sources for Helena, Red 
Lodge, and East Helena, popular hunting areas, key habitat and wild 
lands in the Elkhorns Wildlife Management Area, Line Creek Plateau and 
along Montana's Rocky Mountain Front. Montanans invested years in each 
of these decisions. They have been well debated, they have withstood 
legal challenge. They do not need to be reopened by Congress.
  In short, I want to express my opposition to any similar provisions 
that may arise in the Senate. As I have outlined above, what may seem 
like obscure language to other members of this body is vitally 
important to Montanans, and could have an enormous impact on my state, 
and the landscapes Montanans have declared too precious to develop.

                          ____________________