[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11275-S11280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would just like to share a few
remarks at this time concerning the energy bill. We need to improve our
production of energy within the United States, and I would like to
share a few thoughts about why I think it is a critical part of
stimulating the economy.
At this time of economic slowdown, we need to create circumstances
that will allow the economy to grow and flower. It has struck me for
some time--and I have mentioned this on the floor previously--that our
economic slowdown began over a year ago, and it began not long after we
saw a tremendous surge in the price of energy. The price of a barrel of
oil in the United States was as low as $13 a barrel. It soon leaped to
$30 a barrel. And 60 percent of all the oil we utilize in the United
States is purchased abroad.
So there was a tremendous transfer of American wealth. We got no more
oil--not a single barrel of oil--but we were paying more than twice as
much for that oil as we were paying just months before it surged
upward.
That drained a great deal of money from this economy. It
demonstrated, with great clarity, the dependence we have on foreign
oil. And most of the reserves of foreign oil are in the Middle East. It
has pointed out the dangers we face if we do not make some changes.
Now we are engaged in hostilities in the Middle East, and we see,
once again, just how fragile that supply of oil is to our Nation, and
how quickly it can be interrupted.
Our economy needs to improve. I think it is incumbent on us to
consider, quite seriously, reforming our energy laws so that we can
produce more energy in this country. If we can do that, we will be able
to keep more money at home. So when a well is drilled, the question is,
Will it be drilled in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Iraq or Kuwait, or will
it be drilled somewhere in the United States? When it is drilled here,
not only does the money stay here--the royalties that are paid to the
State or the landowner for the oil--but all the people who drill the
well, all the people who work at it, process the oil, and move that oil
from the wellhead site--all of those people will be paid salaries; and
then they will pay taxes. They will help reduce our unemployment,
increase tax revenue, and provide income for American workers.
So we need to do a number of things to improve our energy situation
so that we reduce the drain on our economy from the constant purchase
of oil abroad.
Conservation is a critical part of that. The more we can reduce the
use of oil and gas in America, then the less demand we have to transfer
wealth abroad to purchase it. At the same time, the more we can produce
in the United States, the greater our chance will be to churn that
money again within the United States, creating jobs, salaries,
retirements, and health care benefits, as well as taxes for our States
and our governments, our local school systems, and the Federal
Government. It will strengthen our economy in a number of ways.
I think improving our energy production would be a critical step in
revitalizing our economy. I do not think it is coincidental that we
began to sink not long after we saw a tripling of the price of oil on
the world market.
I am delighted to see the ranking member of the Energy Committee,
Senator Murkowski, in this Chamber. I know he wants to speak on this
issue. He has been a constant, steady advocate for America: What is
good for American workers, what is good for this country, what we need
to do to remain economically strong.
If we do not remain economically strong, we cannot do the good things
in this country, and around the world, we want to do.
He has been a great champion of that. As I said, I see he is in this
Chamber. I suspect he would like to talk on the energy issue in more
detail.
I thank him for his leadership and yield the floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me acknowledge the comments of my
good friend. He and I have shared stands on many issues; and one that I
think is prominent at this time, as indicated, is on the issue relative
to the request by our President that we have and pass an energy policy,
and that we do it with dispatch.
Our President has spoken out four times in the last 2 weeks,
indicating the general observation that, indeed, we need an energy
bill.
Quoting from a late October release, the statement is made that:
Tax relief is only part of the job. We need an energy plan
for America. Under the leadership of the Vice President, we
have drafted a comprehensive, common sense plan for the
future of our country.
It further states that:
It has passed the House of Representatives in H.R. 4. It
needs a vote in the U.S. Senate. We need to be more self-
reliant and more self-sufficient.
On October 17, he indicated:
I ask Congress to now act on an energy bill. The House of
Representatives passed its bill in August. This is an issue
of special importance to California, the State of Washington
[which the Presiding Officer represents]. Too much of our
energy comes from the Mideast. The plan I sent up to Congress
promotes conservation, expands energy supplies, and improves
the efficiency of our energy network. Our country needs
greater energy independence.
On October 4:
There are two other aspects to a good, strong economic
stimulus.
I note that the President uses the words ``economic stimulus.''
One is trade promotion authority, and the other is an
energy bill. I urge the Senate to listen to the will of the
Senators and move forward on a bill that will help Americans
find work and also make it easier for all of us around the
table to protect the security of the country.
We have spent a lot of time talking about homeland security. An
integral piece of homeland security is energy independence. I ask the
Senate to respond to the call to get an energy bill moving.''
The President made another comment to a group today asking again that
this body move on an energy bill. It would be derelict if we are to
conclude this session without addressing an energy bill.
We are not alone. I have letters here from the American Legion,
Vietnam Veterans Institute, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, Gold Star
Wives of America, Catholic War Veterans, Survivors of Pearl Harbor, all
who participated in a press conference yesterday here in Washington.
I ask unanimous consent that the following letters be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, October 25, 2001.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: We write today out of a sense of
urgency concerning our national security, as it relates to
our need for energy independence. The development of
America's domestic energy resources is vital to our national
security. We respectfully urge you to adopt the provisions
contained in H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future Energy
Act of 2001.''
War and international terrorism have again brought into
sharp focus the heavy reliance of the United States on
imported oil. During times of crises, such reliance threatens
our national security and economic well being. The import of
more than 50 percent of our petroleum from the Persian Gulf
further compounds our foreign trade balance at a time when
our energy demands continue unabated. It is important that we
develop domestic sources of oil, contained within our public
lands--such as the supplies within the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge.
Working for a comprehensive energy policy and achieving
responsible energy independence are critical national
security and economic goals. H.R. 4, as passed by the House
of Representatives, is a major step forward to achieving
these imperative goals. We strongly urge your support.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Santos,
National Commander.
____
Vietnam Veterans Institute,
October 30, 2001.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: We write today out of a sense of
urgency concerning our national security as it relates to our
energy supply. The development of America's domestic energy
resources is vital to our national security. We respectfully
urge you to
[[Page S11276]]
immediately pass H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy
legislation.
We are pleased the House of Representatives, acting with
bipartisan support, addressed our energy vulnerability by
passing H.R. 4, the `Securing America's Future Energy Act of
2001' or the `SAFE Act of 2001.' It is imperative the Senate
do the same. Following the horrific events of September 11,
2001, failure to pass this bill would pose a threat to our
people, our economy, and our national security, that we all
wore the uniform to maintain.
All Americans, as well as our military troops, need this
legislation enacted into law. If we intend to rebuild our
economy and continue the campaign against international
terrorism and those who attacked us, we must develop domestic
sources of oil contained within our public lands--such as the
supplies within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We must
be able to rely to the fullest extent possible on our own
resources to provide for the maintenance of our economy at
home and our prolonged war effort abroad.
By passing H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy legislation
now, the Senate will be supporting our troops in the field
and all working Americans, including those displaced by this
heartless act of aggression. We, as Veterans, stand united
and cannot overstate the importance of this legislation, and
respectfully request you lead the Senate by voting on and
passing H.R. 4 so our nation can move forward in defense of
freedom around the world.
We know that when the chips are down, America can and will
stand and fight, using all its resources and all its might to
defend our nation and the cause of freedom around the world.
Join us in this cause. Pass the comprehensive energy bill and
help us rebuild America!
With the support of our members,
J. Eldon Yates,
Chairman and Founder.
____
AMVETS,
Lanham, MD, October 26, 2001.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
The Capitol, Washington, DC
Dear Senator Daschle: On behalf of AMVETS, I am writing to
encourage you to bring H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future
Energy Act of 2001, before the full Senate for consideration
at the earliest possible moment prior to the close of the 1st
Session of the 107th Congress.
As you know, our current reliance on foreign oil leaves the
United States vulnerable to the whim of individual oil-
exporting countries, many existing in the unpredictable and
highly dangerous Persian Gulf. And it cannot be overstated
that energy supplies touch nearly every aspect of our lives
from our economy to our national security.
Passage of H.R. 4, would greatly assist in our ability to
secure a more dependable and diversified domestic supply of
energy. And, I would note that since the Persian Gulf War our
security has become more threatened with our dependence on
foreign sources of oil growing from 35 percent of domestic
supply to nearly 60 percent.
AMVETS firmly believes that we cannot wait for the next
crisis before we act. H.R. 4, as approved by the House, is a
critical part of an overall policy America requires to
promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound
production and distribution of energy for the future. We urge
your expedited approval of this legislation.
Dedicated to service,
Joseph W. Lipowski,
National Commander.
____
Statement Of Our Nation's Veterans Group ``Our Domestic Energy Security
is Our National Security'', October 30, 2001
We, the undersigned, representing our nation's veterans,
strongly believe that the development of America's domestic
energy resources is a vital national security priority. The
horrific events of September 11, 2001, constitute a threat to
our people, our economy, and our nation's security. With U.S.
troops actively engaged in combat overseas, we firmly believe
that America can and will win this prolonged war against
terrorism, using all its resources to defend our nation and
the cause of freedom around the world.
Because of these beliefs, we applaud the House of
Representatives for its bipartisan work in addressing our
energy vulnerability by passing H.R. 4, the ``Securing
America's Future Energy Act of 2001'' or the ``SAFE Act of
2001.'' It is imperative that the Senate pass the House
version of H.R. 4 so that our nation can move forward in
establishing our energy security, as well as our defense of
freedom at home and abroad. It is essential for us to develop
all domestic energy resources including the supplies within
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
By passing H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy legislation,
the Senate will be supporting our troops in the field, all
Americans, their families, and our nation. We, as Veterans,
stand united and respectfully request that the Senate vote on
and pass H.R. 4.
J. Eldon Yates,
Chairman and Founder,
Vietnam Veterans Institute.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. These letters indicate their support for energy
legislation to be passed out of the U.S. Senate. From October 25:
Dear Senator Daschle: We write today out of a sense of
urgency concerning our national security as it relates to our
need for energy independence. The development of America's
energy resources is vital to our national security. We
respectfully urge you to adopt the provisions contained in
H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001.''
The House has acted. This letter was signed by the American Legion.
Here is a quote from the AMVETS letter:
On behalf of AMVETS, I am writing to encourage you to bring
H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001, to
the full Senate for consideration.
The Vietnam Veterans Institute:
We write today out of a sense of urgency concerning our
national security as it relates to our energy supply.
The important point is that each one of these organizations reflect
on our energy supply in conjunction with our national security.
They further state:
If we intend to rebuild our economy and continue the
campaign against international terrorism and those who
attacked us, we must develop domestic sources of oil
contained within our public lands--such as supplies within
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We must be able to rely,
to the fullest extent possible, on our own resources. . .
That is signed by J. Eldon Yates, chairman and founder of the Vietnam
Veterans Institute. We have our Nation's veterans groups also signing
on as well. These represent a pretty significant voice of those who
gave so much for America, for the freedoms we enjoy and the realization
that we can never properly repay the contribution made by our veterans.
I note in the letter from the American Legion:
War and international terrorism have again brought into
sharp focus the heavy reliance of the United States on
imported oil. During these times of crisis, such reliance
threatens again our national security and economic well-
being. The importation of more than 50 percent of our
petroleum from the Persian Gulf further compounds our foreign
trade deficit at a time when our energy demands continue
unabated. It is important that we develop domestic sources of
oil contained within our public lands, such as the supplies
within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
We have a pretty good representation of what America's veterans think
about the necessity of this body passing an energy bill. It is
important to note that one member of this body, the junior Senator from
Massachusetts, is quoted as saying, with regard to his comments on
patriotism vis-a-vis ANWR:
This is not the moment to falsely cloak in the mantle of
patriotism a choice as clear and as critical as the choice
about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I will let the Senator speak for himself relative to an explanation.
It is in deep contrast to the attitude prevailing among America's
veterans organizations.
If we look at reality associated with what is happening in the world
today, we can reflect on just how we have compromised ourselves into a
position of vulnerability. There is a gentleman who was a Member of
this body for many years, Mark Hatfield of Oregon. Mark Hatfield was a
pacifist. I think I can liberally use that general terminology. His
position on opening up this area of public lands in my State of Alaska
was very clear. He said: I will support opening up ANWR any day rather
than send another American man or woman into harm's way to fight a war
on foreign soil. Make no mistake about it, that is just what we are
doing today; we are fighting a war on foreign soil.
What is the last war we fought over oil? We have to go back to the
Persian Gulf conflict. We have to go back to what Saddam Hussein of
Iraq was basically up to, what his objective was. His objective was to
go into Kuwait, invade Kuwait and go into Saudi Arabia. He knew that he
could control the world's supply of oil, and the power and influence
that would come as a consequence of that would certainly put him in the
driver's seat relative to policies in the Mideast.
What are we doing today? We are importing somewhere between 700,000
and a million barrels of oil from Iraq, from our friend Saddam Hussein.
What do we do with that oil? We enforce an aerial blockade to a large
degree because we fly our planes over enforcing the no-fly zone. It
might be compared to a blockade at sea, only this is one in the air. We
are putting in danger our men and
[[Page S11277]]
women as they enforce this. They take out targets, radar targets, from
time to time. He attempts to shoot us down. He shot down a couple of
drones. He has almost shot down one of our interceptor aircraft. As a
consequence, as we continue this policy, our vulnerability is evident.
In so doing, he takes our money, pays his Republican Guards for
protection, develops a missile capability, develops, for all practical
purposes, activities associated with fostering terrorism, he develops a
biological weapons capability. Who does he aim it at? He aims at our
ally Israel.
That is a consequence of the United States losing its leverage
relative to its continued dependence on Mideast oil.
We see the latest press release dated October 25, AP, ``Qatar Calls
For Oil Production Cuts.'' We all know what this means. This means the
OPEC nations are coming together to reduce the supply so that the price
of oil can be increased in that range of $22 to $25.
We see another headline, from Washington Post, October 26, ``Iraq
Caught Smuggling Oil, U.N. Official Says.''
As we all know, Iraq is under economic sanctions regime. The U.N. has
control, up to a point, over monitoring the sale of oil from Iraq. But
what Iraq has been doing is they have been cheating. What they do is
they bring a tanker into their port. There is a certification on a bill
of lading for so many barrels of oil. The U.N. inspectors sign off on
it. And then after they leave, they fill up the rest of the tanker with
illegal oil, and, obviously, the profits go to Saddam Hussein.
I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 26, 2001]
Iraq Caught Smuggling Oil, U.N. Official Says
(By Colum Lynch)
United Nations, Oct. 25.--Iraq was caught smuggling $10
million worth of oil through an Athens-based shipping company
in violation of U.N. sanctions, the United Nations said
today. U.S. and U.N. officials have long suspected Iraq of
siphoning between $1 billion to $2 billion in oil revenue
each year. But this is the first time that the United Nations
has obtained hard evidence to support those suspicions. Under
the terms of a U.N. oil-for-food program begun in 1996, Iraq
is allowed to sell oil to buy humanitarian goods, pay
restitution to the victims of the Persian Gulf War and fund
improvements in the country's infrastructure. Iraq exported
more than $18 billion worth of oil last year.
Benon Sevan, the executive director of the program,
provided the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday with a letter
from a Greek captain who has admitted illegally exporting
500,000 barrels of Iraqi crude during two trips to the
Persian Gulf port of Mina Al-Bakr in May and August.
Chiladakis Theofanis, captain of the oil tanker Essex, wrote
to the United Nations and the United States in September that
Iraq loaded 1.8 million barrels into his vessel on May 16
while a team of U.N. inspectors looked on.
When the U.N. officials left the site, the Iraqis pumped an
additional 230,000 barrels of crude into the tanker and
provided a bill of lading for the additional oil to a company
called Roundhead Inc., Sevan said. A similar scheme was
repeated on Aug. 27.
``The ships involved first loaded the quantities of oil
which were authorized under the program,'' Sevan said in a
letter to the Security Council committee that oversees Iraq's
oil exports. ``After United Nations inspection agents had
finalized their activities on board of the ships, the load
pumps on the platform were allegedly restarted in order to
load additional volumes of oil on the vessels.'' Iraq's
ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Douri, denied the
charges.
The Security Council has been attempting to stop the Iraqi
smuggling but has encountered resistance from Russia, which
has contended there is little proof. Russia has blocked a
U.S.-British proposal to revise the sanctions policy against
Iraq.
The proposal aims to ease civilian imports while tightening
the controls on oil smuggling and the purchase or prohibited
weapons. Moscow favors steps aimed at lifting the sanctions
entirely. The oil-for-food program will be up for renewal on
Nov. 30.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It indicates that when the U.N. officials left the
site, the Iraqis pumped an additional 230,000 barrels of crude oil into
the tanker and provided a bill of lading for the additional oil to a
company called Roundhead Incorporated. This was repeated again on the
27th. The estimated revenue that has come into Iraq is indicated to be
between $1 and $2 billion in additional revenue as a consequence of
these activities.
We know this cheating is going on. We are about to face the reality
that the price of oil is going to be increasing as OPEC recognizes the
vulnerability of the United States.
I want to share one more thing with the Senate. This is the
foreboding reality of the future. Some of us around here remember what
happened in Iran a little over a decade ago. The fall of the Shah. The
Shah fell. How did he fall? He fell in a revolution that occurred as a
consequence of the unrest in that country at that time.
I would suggest that the record would note that the same set of
circumstances are very much in evidence in Saudi Arabia today.
You may recall the Greek myth about Cassandra, who had the ability to
predict the future, combined with the curse that nobody would believe
her. When it comes to energy, I am beginning to feel somewhat like
Cassandra.
I have come to this floor week after week pointing out the peril of
our current energy situation and the looming disaster that is our
energy future if we simply maintain our current course. I have come
before this Senate week after week calling for a balanced and
responsive energy policy to the crisis ahead, a policy that stresses
production and conservation, which promotes the development of
alternative energies, as well as prudent development of traditional
resources.
Earlier this year, Senator Breaux and I submitted a bipartisan energy
bill that had over 300 pages. The bill had extensive proposals for
conservation and alternatives. But the only thing most of the
colleagues focused on was the 2 pages covering a small sliver of the
Arctic in my State of Alaska known as ANWR. That is where the lightning
rod was, Madam President.
As we know, we are living in a new era today, after September 11. Our
country and our way of life were attacked on that date, and we are in
the midst of the anthrax scare. It is, in all likelihood, closely
connected with the attacks in New York and Washington. What do
September 11 and the subsequent events have to do with energy? I say,
everything.
At the risk of sounding like a Cassandra again, I want to set out the
facts as they are known now and invite this body to look into the
future.
Fact No. 1: Every reputable scientific study of our future energy
consumption suggests that, even with dramatic conservation and rapid
development of economical alternatives, our dependence on oil as a
percentage of overall energy use will increase for the next 20 years.
Whether we like it or not, a stable source of oil is key to our
economic viability for the foreseeable future.
Fact No. 2: Absent new discoveries, the major source for new energy
imports will be the Persian Gulf, the location of a majority of the
world's known reserves. We are already dependent for about 25 percent
of our total oil use on the Persian Gulf, and that number will only
increase. This Nation today is importing 57 percent of the crude oil we
consume, with half of that coming from the Persian Gulf.
Fact No. 3: Our relationship with the Persian Gulf countries is
uneasy, to say the least. Of the major oil-producing countries in the
Persian Gulf, we apply some form of economic sanction to all of them.
Think of that. We have economic sanctions on virtually all of those
countries in the Persian Gulf from which we import oil. We have a
moratorium on imports from Iran. We import, as I indicated, somewhere
between 700,000 and a million barrels a day from Iraq, which we have
been bombing for 10 years. Our relations with the remainder are
complicated by a number of factors, not the least of which is our
alliance with Israel, a country which is the sworn enemy of most of
those nations in the Mideast.
Fact No. 4: The stability of the Persian Gulf is in grave doubt. We
have spent billions to have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia to contain
Iraq in the name of the Persian Gulf Stability Accord. Radical Islamic
movements are a serious political force in many other countries. Even
Saudi Arabia, our traditional bulwark of stability in the region, is
now a cause for grave concern.
Mr. Hersh's article, written after extensive consultations with the
National Security Agency and others, paints a grave picture of Saudi
Arabia's political future, the corruption of
[[Page S11278]]
the country's regime, its alienation from the country's religious rank
and file, and its vulnerability to Islamic fundamentalism.
Detailed in the article is an eerie reminder of the situation in Iran
in the late 1970s under the Shah. Iran was, of course, at that time the
United States' stable anchor in the gulf. We all remember too clearly
what happened in Iran.
Mr. Hersh also points out the level of complicity between those we
rely on for energy in Saudi Arabia and those who seek to attack the
United States and our citizens.
Saudi Arabia is the largest single source of funding for radical
fundamentalism and its organs of terror. The Taliban would not exist
but for Saudi Arabian money. That has been identified. Al-Qaida and
Osama bin Laden would not exist but for Saudi money. I need not remind
you that Saudi money would not exist at all but for oil. It all comes
back to oil.
On October 22, the two largest newspapers in New York and Washington,
DC--the sites of the attacks on September 11--issued editorial opinions
urging that we resist linkage between the events of the 11th and energy
policy--totally in contrast to the position, I might add, of organized
labor and veterans in this country.
Let me confront those opinions with another set of basic facts about
the September 11 attacks. Osama bin Laden and other radical Islamic
groups have three major issues with our Nation. First, the United
States alliance with Israel--our traditional alliance with Israel is
being put to the test by energy dependence in the gulf. The Bush
administration, which has been as good or a better friend to Israel
than any other administration in recent memory, is now somewhat at odds
with Israel in an attempt to appeal to more moderate elements in the
Gulf. What is this all about? It is about oil.
Secondly, bin Laden wants United States troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Why are we there? To prevent Iraq from threatening the stability of the
gulf. The issue is oil.
Thirdly, bin Laden believes that the value of Persian Gulf oil should
be seven times its current price--that is, $144 a barrel. He has
written in his extensive writings that he wants to seize control of
what he calls the ``Islamic wealth'' in order to end what he calls the
``greatest theft in human history''--the U.S. purchase of cheap oil.''
It is all about oil, oil, oil. To suggest there is no linkage between
energy policies and the events of September 11, in my opinion, is
ludicrous. It doesn't take Cassandra to see where our energy future is
headed. It will, however, require action by this Senate in order to
reverse our present course. The House has done its job. The President
has asked the Senate to act. I urge my colleagues to pass energy
legislation as soon as possible.
I think we have continually communicated, as a minority, with the
Democratic leadership urging the scheduling of an energy bill that we
can take up and debate prior to going out on recess. There seems to be
a reluctance in the Democratic leadership. There is an energy task
force report in the energy bill that we have outlined. It is very
unrealistic, in my opinion, to address the arguments, one of which, of
course, continues to be the issue of ANWR.
One of the fascinating things about the contribution of oil that
comes down the west coast to the States of Washington, California, and
ultimately Oregon--although Oregon does not have a refinery--is the
reality that nearly two-thirds of that oil comes from Alaska. If Alaska
doesn't replace that oil, that oil is going to come into these States,
and it is going to come from the Mideast, come in foreign tankers that
are built in U.S. shipyards, with U.S. crews.
The States of Washington, Oregon, and California should recognize
their secure supply from Alaska is much more valuable than the unknown
risks associated with bringing oil in from the Mideast.
As Congress looks at the current exposure to terrorism, where a
terrorist act in Saudi Arabia can overthrow the royal family in Saudi
Arabia, or there could be a terrorist attack on ships going through the
Straits of Hormuz--all of that leads to the question: Should we have an
energy bill that balances conservation and production?
I will close with the argument relative to those who seem to have a
little difficulty with the issue of opening up the Coastal Plain. I
will give some idea of the vastness of the area.
Many people in this body have not chosen to take advantage of
opportunities to visit the area for themselves. ANWR happens to be
about the size of the State of South Carolina. It is about 19 million
acres. The House bill allows 2,000 acres to be utilized for development
and exploration; 2,000 acres is not much bigger than a small farm, if
one can somehow recognize we are talking about 2,000 acres out of 19
million acres.
What is the rest of ANWR? Madam President, 8.5 million acres have
been put in wilderness in perpetuity, 9 million acres in refuge, and
there is only 1.5 million acres left that only Congress has the
authority to open.
In the House bill, only 2,000 acres can have the footprint of
development only. Is that responsible? We think it is. Can it be opened
safely? We have had 30 years experience in Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay has
developed 13 billion barrels of oil. It was only supposed to develop 10
billion barrels of oil. It has provided the Nation with 25 percent of
its total crude oil supply for the last 27 years.
People say ANWR contains a 6-month supply. That is assuming there is
no other oil produced in this country and no other oil imported. If,
indeed, ANWR is in the range of estimates of 5.6 billion to 16 billion
barrels, it would replace what we would import from Saudi Arabia in 30
years or Iraq in 50 years. It would be very substantial.
The merits of whether we can do this safely, the merits of the
arguments of some of America's extreme environmental communities that
have used this issue, very frankly, as a cash cow--and they have milked
it for all they can and will continue to do so until we eventually
authorize the opening of it and they can move on to something else--
because this issue is so far away, the American people cannot see the
reality of ANWR for themselves. That, indeed, we have the technology to
open the area safely.
Recognize the experience we have had in the Arctic over the last 30
years. We built ice roads. We do not develop when the migratory path of
the caribou are involved. The potential of the area is very large. If
there isn't the oil we expect there to be, we can make a park out of
it.
For us not to have knowledge of what is in there at a time when we
are increasing our dependence on the Mideast is unconscionable to me.
There are other issues that enter into this, such as our relationship
with Canada. Canada considers us a competitor, and there is nothing
wrong with competition. Nevertheless, their view of the world is we
should not develop any more resources out of Alaska because it competes
with theirs in the Canadian Arctic. I can understand that.
As to the growth of the caribou herds in the Prudhoe Bay field, there
were 3,000 to 4,000 animals, and now they have close to 26,000 animals
in the Prudhoe Bay area. You cannot shoot them.
The Washington Post ran articles depicting polar bears. It is
interesting because the pictures--and this is yesterday's Washington
Post article--shows a couple of polar bears. When one reads this, one
assumes this is in the 1002 area. This is a little east of Barrow. It
is not in the 1002 area. We have certification from the photographer
who took these pictures that it is not in the 1002 area. But it is a
warm, cuddly issue, and people look at polar bears.
The article does not tell you that these polar bears are protected.
They are marine mammals. If one wants to take a trophy polar bear, one
can go to Canada and shoot it, or one can go to Russia and shoot it,
but one cannot in the United States, in Alaska, shoot a polar bear.
I do not know a better way to protect the polar bear than protecting
them from traditional trophy hunting. We have taken steps to try and be
responsible relative to development in this fragile area. We have the
technology to do it right.
Some people say: That is academic, Senator Murkowski, because we are
looking at 7 to 10 years before development is complete. If we built
the Pentagon in 18 months and the Empire State Building in a little
over a year, and this body expedited the permitting
[[Page S11279]]
process--we already have a pipeline halfway from the trans-Alaska 800-
mile pipeline over to the 1002 area. It ends in a field called Badami.
We only have another 40 to 50 miles to go. We can have oil flowing in
18 months. There is absolutely no question about it.
The arguments being used are the same arguments that were used in the
late sixties opposing the opening of Prudhoe Bay. They are exactly the
same. Only then they said: You are going to run an 800-mile pipeline
from the Arctic to southern ports of Alaska, and it is going to be like
a fence. The caribou and moose are not going to be able to cross, it is
going to break and notwithstanding earthquakes. It is one of the
engineering wonders of the world, and it has provided jobs in this
country.
I am going to finish with one point, and that is the stimulus. We are
talking about a stimulus in this Nation. What does a stimulus mean? It
means different things to different people. To some it means jobs; to
others it means tax relief. I defy any Member of this body to tell me a
stimulus that is more meaningful than authorizing the opening of ANWR
because what it would do is it would provide hundreds of thousands of
jobs. Not government jobs, private sector jobs in shipbuilding, in
developing pipes and valves. It would start immediately. This would
come from the private sector in exploration, and those ships would be
U.S. ships built in U.S. yards.
What else would it do, Madam President? It would result in the
Federal Government getting probably $1.6 billion in revenue immediately
in lease sales because it is Federal land. The Federal Government puts
it up for lease, competitive bids. The estimate of the Federal share is
roughly in that area. That is a pretty good return to the Federal
Government to start out.
The last thing, as we look at this stimulus package, you are not
going to find anything in it except potentially ANWR which is not going
to cost the Federal Government one red cent. I challenge my colleagues
to find another project which would provide such a major economic
stimulus without costing the taxpayers money, and indeed bringing
significant revenue into the treasury.
I rest my case. I thank the Chair for her attention and wish her and
all a happy Halloween.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, will the Senator from Alaska yield for
a question? I want to get this straight. Right now when we buy oil from
foreign countries, the royalties, the labor, the pipes, and all the
construction and drilling, all the economic investment is in those
foreign countries; is that correct?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely.
Mr. SESSIONS. But if we were to open ANWR, the Federal Government,
just from the sale of the leases, would receive $1.6 billion?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is estimated the lease sale would bring the Federal
Government about $1.6 billion in revenue. It may be more. Nobody knows
because industry would competitively bid it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Would there be royalties paid each year after that
during production?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
Mr. SESSIONS. If there is production, the Federal Government would
receive additional royalties?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.
Mr. SESSIONS. Would the State of Alaska benefit from that?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, obviously. I also want to point out that a
sizable percentage of our deficit balance of payments, as the Senator
knows, is the cost of imported oil.
Mr. SESSIONS. And the workers even in Alaska are supposed to pay
Federal income tax.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. They do pay Federal income tax. They are all American
citizens, and they are subject to the same laws as the Senator from
Alabama and I.
Mr. SESSIONS. Instead of having workers in Saudi Arabia paying taxes
to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran, they would be paying taxes to the U.S.
Government.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely. This would be all U.S. labor. There would
be a prohibition on any of the oil that comes from ANWR being exported
out of the United States.
Mr. SESSIONS. I know there are people who have become emotionally
committed to this ANWR issue. I hope people will rethink it. As the
Senator from Alaska has explained repeatedly, we have such a small area
that needs to be produced, and wells are so much more sophisticated
today. One well can drain a much larger area than ever before. There is
a virtual pipeline there. That is important. The Senator mentioned a
threat from foreign dependence.
Was it not just a few years ago the price of oil per barrel on the
world market was around $13 and the cartel, since they had so much of
the oil, fixed the price and drove it up to as high as $30 a barrel?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It was a little over $30. As a matter of fact, they
basically came together and set a floor and a ceiling. The floor was
$22 and the ceiling was $25. If it goes up above that, that is fine for
awhile. Then they increase production and bring it down.
Of course, what has happened with this terrorist activity is less jet
fuel is used, less automobile gasoline. So we temporarily have a
surplus and we are seeing that, but now OPEC is reducing their supply.
Mr. SESSIONS. I guess the point is, these are supposedly our friends
who triple the price we have to pay for oil. We have to pay three times
as much money to foreign sources, and we get no more oil than we did
the day before they drove it up?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is true.
Mr. SESSIONS. If they can do that, if they are friends, if we were to
have some turnover in government or a war were to break out that could
deny some of this, we could see prices even higher than that on the
world market?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely. There is one other point that is obvious
to the Senator and to me, but it is overlooked by some, and that is we
have other sources of energy. We have natural gas. We have coal. We
have biomass. We have wind power, solar power. But because of our
technology, America and the world moves on oil. It is put in airplanes.
It is put in boats. It is put in trains, automobiles. For the
foreseeable future, we are evidently unlikely to find any significant
replacement for oil. So that is why we have become so dependent and our
vulnerability, to the extent of our national security, is at risk, as
our veterans are pointing out.
Mr. SESSIONS. Of course, the Senator is not overlooking conservation.
That is another way to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is a big part of this bill that the Senator
proposed.
I again want to express my appreciation to the Senator. I came to the
Senate 5 years ago and heard the Senator delineate this problem and
tell us over and over again what we were going to be facing in the
future. I think the events in recent weeks have validated the Senator's
warnings, the Senator's caution to America, the Senator's call for us
to do the smart thing.
I also believe if we can produce more oil at home, it would reduce
our deficit and help this economy recovery.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. As the Senate knows, symbolism is so significant. If
we were to make a decision to allow the opening of this particular
area, we would send a signal to OPEC that we mean business, that we are
serious about reducing our dependence. We are not going to replace
dependence, but we can reduce it dramatically by a conscientious effort
to keep these jobs at home, and, as we both know, the economic forecast
suggests there could be significant growing concern over loss of jobs
and this is the most significant single identifiable project to create
jobs that anybody has been able to pinpoint that does not cost the
Government any money or the taxpayer.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will ask one more question. The Senator has
challenged us now to name one more project anywhere in this country
that will produce as much stimulus as increasing our domestic oil
supply as this bill will do, and I think it is a challenge that ought
to stay out there and we ought to see if somebody can meet it. Not only
will it help us, it will actually produce income and not cost us any
money.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I certainly would challenge any Member to come up with
a stimulus that would provide jobs, not cost the American taxpayer
anything, and indeed bring revenue into the coffers. I thank my good
friend and wish him a good day.
[[Page S11280]]
____________________