[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11520-S11525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY SECURITY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we are all aware of the shocking
events that occurred on September 11. We are certainly aware of the
vulnerabilities that were shown to our Nation by this action. As we
reflect on the risk today, I think we would acknowledge that never in
our history have we, as a nation, been forced suddenly, shockingly, to
reevaluate almost every aspect of our life.
Americans must make a choice now about risks; we must make choices we
never thought we would have to make. From our mail to our shopping
malls to ball games, life in America is now a reflection, looking back
through the lens of terror. Surveying that risk, perhaps no single area
causes greater concern than that of energy as a consequence of our
increasing dependence.
We rely on safe, stable, affordable, and plentiful supplies of energy
to power our progress, but the choices made on energy have left us
vulnerable and exposed on two different fronts, two fronts that add up
to our Nation's energy security, and I will discuss those today.
A report detailing these risks was received yesterday by Gov. Tom
Ridge, head of Homeland Security. What he did was itemize some of the
risks we have at home. We have seen a great deal of publicity given to
the realization that about 20 percent of our energy is produced by
nuclear powerplants. We have about 103 reactors around the country
producing clean, affordable energy. The fact the energy is affordable,
reliable, and free of emissions such as greenhouse gases, is very
appealing. However, there is no free lunch. Nuclear power does create a
by-product that must be dealt with, but when managed responsibly and
stored safely this waste poses no threat and no risk to public health.
I might add, in the several decades of generating nuclear power in
this country, we have never had a casualty associated with the
operation of nuclear reactors for power generation.
So the industry, as well as government, has done an extraordinary job
of proving nuclear energy has a significant place in our energy mix.
In 1982, the Government made a promise to the American people to take
care of that waste and provide a permanent repository. The contractual
agreement was that the Government would take the waste in 1998.
Madam President, 1998 has come and gone. Today, after years of delay,
bureaucratic wrangling and $12 billion in taxes collected from the
ratepayers who depend on nuclear power, that promise made by the
Federal Government to take the waste remains unkept.
I don't know the opinion of the agencies regarding the sanctity of a
contract, but this was a contract. There are lawsuits pending for the
lack of fulfillment of the terms of the contract, somewhere in the area
of $40 to $70 billion. Instead of storing the waste in a central,
single, secure facility where we can concentrate all of our resources
on keeping it safe, nuclear waste is being scattered across the
country. We have it in our powerplants, we have outside some of the
plants storage in containers, casks designed for that storage, but
these are not permanent. We have shut down plants where the waste is
being stored. These plants were not designed for the permanent storage
of this waste or the shutdown of plants. We have 16 different plants
with a total of 230 containers now holding high-level nuclear waste on
an interim basis.
In South Haven, MI, dry-cask storage pads are 200 yards from Lake
Michigan. Twenty percent of the world's fresh water is in the Great
Lakes chain. On the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, dry-cask storage sits
less than 90 miles from Baltimore, near Washington, DC, with the U.S.
Capitol and three major airports. These containers are approved, but
there is no substitute for a permanent repository deep in the group,
out of harm's way where it was designed, and that is Yucca Mountain in
Nevada.
We have had several debates through the years on this issue. I
understand the reluctance of my friends from Nevada to accept the
reality that Congress made a designation, subject to licensing, that
the repository would be at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. We are still
waiting after years and years. We have had a Presidential veto. We are
seeing a situation of delay, delay, delay.
Back to the containers. They are approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, but there is no substitute for permanent repository. We
have waste at home, and 14 other plants are in the process of being
decommissioned, one in Massachusetts, two in Connecticut, and three in
California. We are getting more and more plants that are closed.
President Clinton vetoed a bill to accelerate the waste transfer and
move us ahead of our current opening date of 2012. That is the current
date. I recognize nobody wants the worst, but the reality is we have to
put it somewhere. The $6 billion expended on Yucca Mountain clearly
indicates Yucca Mountain was the favorite site. Unfortunately, our
previous President vetoed the bill, and the waste sits, no closer to a
permanent home. The waste is there, exposed and vulnerable, presenting
another target for potential terrorists, nestled in our communities,
beside our schools, homes and families. It is irresponsible to not
address this situation.
I don't want to prolong the argument relative to the issue of the
danger of this waste. It is being monitored by the best oversight
available, the best protection, the best security. Still, it is
[[Page S11521]]
not designed to stay where it is. We should put this waste in a central
repository, designed to take the waste and pool it until we meet the
determination of whether we will put it underground permanently or
reprocess it.
I will discuss the other risk relative to our energy, and that is the
risk overseas. Our risks grow greater as we leave the confines of the
United States, where at least we have some control over the choices we
have made. We rely on parts of the world where the leaders chose to
undermine peace, democracy, and liberty, and will work to undermine our
Nation, as well.
We are more than 56 percent dependent on foreign oil. We simply do
not have the flexibility to be independent, should the need arise. I am
not suggesting we can independently remove all of our dependence on
foreign oil, but we certainly have options, and the Senate must act on
the options. Unless we make the right choices now, the drivers relative
to our energy security are OPEC.
What has OPEC done lately? We know they just planned to cut 1.4
billion barrels of production. Why? Clearly, to increase the price.
They want to have a price between $22 and $24. The way to do that is to
control the supply. That is just what they have announced they are
doing. They are cutting production.
We have resources at home, but our hands are tied. We do not seem to
be able to reach an accord on how to use places such as ANWR, in my
State, which hold the key to energy independence by reducing
substantially our dependence on Mideast oil. The Senate has approved
safe and limited exploration for ANWR, but President Clinton vetoed
that legislation in 1995. Had President Clinton not vetoed that bill in
1995, we would very possibly have as much as a million barrels a day
flowing from the ANWR area. That would offset the million barrels a day
we are importing from Iraq.
I have asked many times, how can we compromise our energy security
when on the one hand we import oil from Iraq and Saddam Hussein and at
the same time we are enforcing the no-fly zone over that country,
putting our young American people's lives at risk with a blockade in
the sky. With the oil money, he is paying his Republican guards to keep
him alive. He is also developing capability for a missile, with perhaps
a biological warhead. Where does he aim? Most of those items of terror
are at our ally, Israel. That may be an over simplification of foreign
policy, but one could reach that conclusion.
We could be far less dependent today if we considered the merits of
opening this area. Using conservative estimates, in the 6 years that
have elapsed since the President last vetoed the ANWR bill, that would
have been more than enough time to have researched that tiny sliver of
land, built the infrastructure on 2,000 acres, and gotten the oil
flowing.
I have a chart that puts it in perspective. It is important, as we
address this issue--and this Congress will address this issue either by
an agreement with the Democratic leader to allow time for an energy
bill to come up or it will be on the stimulus package because it
belongs there. I ask my colleagues to reflect what other stimulus can
they identify that generates somewhere in the area of $2.5 billion in
Federal lease sales, money to the U.S. Treasury, provides about 200,000
jobs throughout this Nation, and does not cost the taxpayers one red
cent? That is why this issue belongs on the stimulus package.
Think of the tankers that would be built in U.S. shipyards with U.S.
crews to expand the oil from Alaska, which is currently about 17
percent of all the crude oil produced in this country. We could be far
less dependent than we are today. We are only one supertanker terrorist
activity in the Straits of Hormuz away from serious disruption of our
oil supply.
Let me point out the reality associated with the ANWR issue. It is so
misunderstood. There is a threat that ANWR is at risk. What is ANWR?
This is ANWR in relationship to the State of South Carolina. They bear
a striking resemblance: about the same acreage, 19 million acres. That
is a big chunk of real estate. Of what does ANWR consist? It already
consists of three specific designations by Congress: 8.5 million acres
in wilderness classifications in perpetuity, another 9 million put into
a refuge, and Congress left out the 1.5 million acres, the coastal
plain, for determination of whether or not to open it for oil and gas
exploration. Why? Clearly, the extensive exploration in Prudhoe Bay
suggested the largest single deposit may be found in this coastal area.
We take that and move along a little further and recognize that the
House bill, H.R. 4, said: OK, we will open this area for exploration,
but the footprint can be only 2,000 acres.
That is 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. If you reflect on that,
what are the prospects? They say somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion
barrels. Prudhoe Bay has produced 13 billion barrels, and it was only
supposed to produce 10. This could equal, easily, what we would import
from Saudi Arabia for 30 years.
Some say it will take 10 years and some say it will take 7 years to
get this oil. It is estimated if the oil is there--here is the pipeline
that is already in, an 800-mile pipeline--we can open up this area
somewhere in the area of 18 months if we expedite the permitting
process because we already have some fields of discovery and a pipeline
approximately halfway over here. Put this in perspective. What is a
2,000-acre footprint worth?
This is an item from Petroleum News, Alaska, ``Gwich'in, Ensign Link
Up New Mackenzie Delta Drilling Company.''
A new native-controlled oil and gas drilling company has
been formed to provide oilfield services in a land claims
area of the Mackenzie Delta that is seen as a likely route
for any Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Gwich'in Oilfield Services, 51 percent owned by the
Gwich'in Development Corp of Inuvik Northwest Territories and
45 percent by Calgary-based Ensign Drilling, is expecting to
start operation this winter.
The Gwich'in Development settlement area covers 22,422
square miles and is governed by the Gwich'in Tribal Council.
Gwich'in Development Corp., wholly owned by the tribal
council, has a mission to build an investment portfolio that
offers business opportunities, employment and training to
Gwich'in residents.
I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Petroleum News, Alaska; Sept. 30, 2001]
Gwich'in, Ensign Link Up in New Mackenzie Delta Drilling Company
(By Gary Park)
A new Native-controlled oil and gas drilling company has
been formed to provide oilfield services in a land claims
area of the Mackenzie Delta that is seen as a likely route
for any Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Gwich'in Oilfield Services, 51 percent owned by Gwich'in
Development Corp. of Inuvik, Northwest Territories, and 49
percent by Calgary-based Ensign Drilling, is expecting to
start operations this winter.
The Gwich'in settlement area covers 22,422 square miles and
is governed by the Gwich'in Tribal Council.
Gwich'in Development Corp., wholly owned by the tribal
council, has a mission to build an investment portfolio that
offers business opportunities, employment and training to
Gwich'in residents.
Tom Connors, chief executive officer of the corporation,
said Sept. 10 that the deal with Ensign gives the community a
chance to participate in the development of oil and gas
resources.
Ensign president Selby Porter said his company's experience
and equipment make it the right choice to work with the
Gwich'in people.
``The development of a local work force and infrastructure
is key to the continued development of oil and gas resources
of the Arctic region of Canada,'' he said.
Formation of the new company was announced Sept. 6.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I also ask unanimous consent that two other articles
be printed in the Record, ``The Slick Politics of ANWR Oil'' by Paul K.
Driessen, and ``The Sacred Slope'' by Jack Stauder, Ph.D of the
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, relative to this issue.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Slick Politics of ANWR Oil
(By Paul K. Driessen)
A new Native-controlled oil and gas drilling company was
recently formed to provide oilfield services in the Mackenzie
River delta area of northwestern Canada, adjacent to Alaska.
According to Petroleum News Alaska, the company was created
to provide investment and business opportunities, employment
and training for tribal members. It expects to start
operations this winter, to expand oil and gas development
activities in the Arctic region.
[[Page S11522]]
This new enterprise, Gwich'in Oilfield Services, offers
some fascinating insights into the slick politics of militant
environmentalism.
The majority owner is none other than the Gwich'in Indians
Tribal Council. Those are the same Gwich'in Indians that for
years have been poster children for the cause of opposing oil
exploration in the flat, featureless coastal plain of
Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
But nearly 90% of the Gwich'ins live in Canada. Only 800
live in Alaska. The Alaskan Gwich'ins live some 250 miles
from the coastal plain, if one travels along the route
caribou follow in migrating to and from ANWR.
As the crow flies, the Indians' Arctic Village is 140 miles
across the all-but-impassable Brooks Range. Those majestic
mountains--the ones seen in all the misleading ads and news
stories opposing ANWR oil exploration--are 30 to 50 miles
from the coastal plain. (It's amazing how a telephoto camera
lens can make them look so close.)
The Gwich'in Tribal Council plans to drill in a 1.4-
million-acre land claims area governed by the Indians. This
is the same amount of land that's been proposed for
exploration in ANWR. The proposed drill sites (and a
potential pipeline route) are just east of a major
migratory path, where the caribou often birth their
calves, rather than awaiting their arrival in the refuge.
Back in the 1980s, the Alaska Gwich'ins leased 1.8 million
acres of their tribal lands for oil development. (No oil was
found.) Any reservations they may have had to the latest
leasing plans were apparently very muted.
It is hard to grasp how drilling for oil in their own back
yards is perfectly OK, but exploration on public and Inuit
Eskimo lands 140 miles away somehow ``threatens their
traditional lifestyle.'' It's equally hard to condone their
willingness to collect countless thousands of dollars from
environmental groups, to place full-page ads in major
newspapers, appear in television spots and testify on Capitol
Hill in opposition to ANWR exploration--and then lease more
of their tribal lands for drilling. But none dare call it
hypocrisy.
Government geologists say ANWR could contain as much as 16
billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's enough to replace
all our Persian gulf imports for 10 years or more. At peak
production levels, it could provide \1/10\ of total U.S. oil
needs. Developing this critically needed energy could also
create 735,000 jobs, save us from having to send hundreds of
billions of dollars to OPEC, and generate tens of billions in
royalty and tax revenues to defend and rebuild our nation.
All these benefits would result in the disturbance of about
2,000 acres--less land than the terrorists destroyed or
damaged in New York City--in a refuge the size of South
Carolina. And any drilling would be done in the dead of
winter, using ice airstrips, roads and platforms that will
melt when spring arrives.
Eskimos who actually live in ANWR want the same benefits
the Gwich'ins seek. As Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation president
Fenton Rexford notes, the Eskimos are tired of using 5-gallon
buckets for sanitation, because they don't have toilers,
running water or a sewer system. They also understand the
national security issues at stake here. No wonder they
support exploration by an 8:1 margin.
Bin Laden & Company just sent us a wake-up call from Hell.
In mere hours, they plunged us into an economic crisis and a
long, difficult war that must be waged both overseas and in
our own neighborhoods. Is there anyone who seriously believes
we can afford to continue letting a small band of politically
correct Alaska Indians and environmental militants hold the
United States hostage on ANWR oil?
It's time to face reality, toss bogus anti-oil arguments on
the ash heap of history, and support exploration in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
____
The Sacred Slope
(By Jack Stauder, Ph.D.)
This story bears telling first, for the silliness it
exposes about the conventional wisdom of liberal opinion on
campus today regarding environmental issues; and second, as
an example of how to challenge such silliness.
Last spring I arranged for myself to be appointed to a new
``Sustainability Committee'' being set up by the powers on
high at the University of Massachusetts, where I teach. I was
suspicious of what was intended on campus under that slippery
rubric.
Luckily, the Committee has done little so far except
receive rather pompous memos tinged with utopian musings
coming from a couple of professors at the Boston campus of
our state system, including a Professor B. (Names of
colleagues in this piece have been hidden to protect tender
egos; but otherwise all the quoted e-mail here has been
unchanged.) Professor B. regards himself as a great expert on
``sustainability.''
Anyway, the little controversy I will describe began with
an e-mail forwarded through a couple of leftist professors on
my campus. Its origins appear to be from one the endless
number of lobbying groups on the left. One of the burdens of
having left-wing friends, as I do, is that they often pass on
these lobbying efforts. This e-mail, however, was circulated
to all twenty or so members of our Sustainability Committee
as well as the professors in Boston by one of the sillier
members of our Committee. Bear with my account as you read
it; the fun begins after it.
Sunday, October 7: ``Is Nothing Sacred?''
From: Professor G.
Dear Friend of MoveOn, In this time of tragic urgency, our
leaders in Washington have pulled together and put all things
controversial and partisan aside for the sake of national
unity. Our friends on Capitol Hill are making sacrifices,
holding off on key issues that can be won only through
struggle, such as energy and campaign finance reform. Our
opponents have respected the national need for unity too,
until now.
But today we learned that Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-AK) is
breaking with this patriotic spirit by trying to tack one of
the most controversial issues in America onto the Defense
Authorization bill:
He wants to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, the heart of the last great wilderness ecosystem in
North America. This is a mistake, because:
Any oil found there wouldn't come on line for 10 years;
The refuge contains just 6 months supply of oil;
Existing fuel-efficient technologies could save more than
that;
Once it's gone, it's gone forever.
The Defense bill will be debated this Wednesday through
Friday.
Please call your senators now:
Senator John Kerry
Phone: 202-224-2742
Fax: 202-224-8525
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Phone: 202-224-4543
Fax: 202-224-2417
Be sure they know you're a constituent, and urge them to:
``Please--block--the vote on the Murkowski drilling
amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.''
Please call even if you think your Senators are solid
supporters of protecting the refuge. Many Senators simply
don't yet believe that Murkowski will do it, but our sources
are reliable.
America's entire environmental movement must rally now.
Please let us know you're making this call, at our website.
We'd like to keep a count. Thank you. Your call will matter.
Sincerely,
--Wes Boyd
MoveOn.org
September 19, 2001
[I was riled enough by this message to reply to all on the
Committee who had received it:]
Sunday, October 7: ``Re: Is Nothing Sacred?''
From: Professor Jack Stauder
Is it appropriate to circulate such partisan lobbying
action information throughout a university committee? I don't
think so. We shouldn't tire others out through incessant
propaganda, no matter how close to our hearts our causes are.
But if we are going to be wasting our collective time this
way, let me get in on the fun.
There are two sides to each controversy. I've actually been
to the North Slope of Alaska. I've never seen an uglier
landscape.
The proposed drilling area is a small speck in a vast
tundra: it would compare to the size of the township of North
Dartmouth within the entire area of Massachusetts,
Connecticut and Rhode Island put together. The ``great
wilderness eco-system'' would be virtually unchanged by the
proposed drilling. Nothing would be ``gone'' forever.
People can say any area is ``sacred'' if they want.
However, the Inupiat (Eskimo) of the North Slope, the only
people who have ever lived there or would want to live there,
are by a large majority in favor of drilling for the oil. Why
would people here in Massachusetts want to deny them their
wish? Few of us if any will ever go to visit this ``sacred''
place, if only because it is so inhospitable to all but the
Eskimo--cold and dark throughout the winter, a huge flat
marshland swarming with mosquitoes in the summer. Yet out of
spiritual arrogance some presume to tell the Alaskans what to
do with their land.
The oil deposit is estimated to be a quite substantial one,
otherwise there would be no interest in drilling there. One
should automatically distrust the misleading statistics and
factoids thrown out by environmental groups who make their
living propagandizing issues like this. The oil from Alaska
wouldn't meet all our needs, but it would make us that much
less dependent on the Middle East--a welcome goal.
And even if ``existing fuel-efficient technologies could
save more'' than drilling in Alaska could provide, this
statement is a non-sequitur, for doing either does not
preclude the other.
Should I go on and on? Should I tell you who to call in
Congress and what to tell them? No, I won't, because it's not
the business of the Sustainability Committee, in my eyes, to
serve as a propaganda vessel for anyone's ``cause'' or
``special interest.''
--Jack Stauder, Soc/Anth Dept
[As I rather expected, my questioning of a liberal
environmental icon--the sacredness of wilderness--brought a
prompt reaction, from none other than Professor B., to all
members of our committee. Note his condescending familiarity
towards me, although I have never met the man.]
Monday, October 8
From: Professor B.: ``Re: Is Nothing Sacred?''
To All, Jack's contention that the Sustainability Committee
shouldn't be used to lobby
[[Page S11523]]
issues is probably correct. On the other hand, if someone
wants to send an e-mail to everyone on her/his address book,
this a free country. I respect Jack for exercising his right
of free speech and expressing his views. Now I will exercise
mine.
I disagree with two points that Jack made: one, the North
Slope is not ``their'' land, it is ``our land,'' and
furthermore, our children's land. Second, I am convinced that
focusing on the front end, i.e., the production end, of the
pipeline, especially the oil pipeline, does preclude
achieving anything near the easily achieved efficiencies at
the use end of the pipeline. I think I read from a reliable
source that increasing the fleet mileage of American
automobiles will save more oil in a short time than the most
optimistic estimates of oil to be obtained from the North
Slope. I also understand that the average fleet miles per
gallon of American made automobiles is the lowest in 25
years, largely due to SUV's not being held to the standards
of automobiles.
Now Jack, those of us who argue for a philosophy and policy
of increasing the efficiency of our economy over the Texas
mentality of ``we'll shoot, drill, and fight our way out of
this mess,'' and ``be damned with those pencil-necked liberal
flakes who want us to change our superior American lifestyles
of ostentatious, conspicuous consumption, and profligate
waste. Be damned I say. So what if we are only 5% of the
world's population and contribute 25% of the CO2 in the
world.''
Jack, you sound like the Montana Cattlemen's and the
Northwest Lumberman's Association's attitude that our land is
their land to do what they damned well please.
Now, by God, I have changed my mind. I think any
sustainability committee that is serious ought to go on
record as strongly opposed to increased exploitation of
finite resources and dangerous pollution when there are
scientifically and technically double ways to increase
efficiency of our economy, to say nothing of some of us who
strongly believe we are morally wrong in our consumption
habits. Yes, we do feel that the environment is a ``sacred''
trust.
Some of us even believe that there is a definite nexus
between American consumerism and the feeling of being
oppressed in some third world countries. A feeling so strong
as to even, at least partially, foster terrorism. Hope all is
well.
W. B.
[These predictable opinions of Professor B. offered some
targets too tempting to resist, although I restrained myself
from addressing his every point. Below is the e-mail I
returned, again to the whole committee, although it was
addressed to him.]
Wednesday, October 10: ``The Sacred Slope etc.''
From: Professor Jack Stauder
Dear Prof. B.: You make some interesting points in your
recent memo, but I think some clarification is in order.
You are certainly right that most of the North Slope, being
federal government land, in some sort of legal sense belongs
collectively to all American citizens. However, perhaps
because I am an anthropologist I believe it would be a bit
culturally arrogant to inform the Native Americans whose
ancestors have lived in that region for a couple thousand
years that (in your words) ``the North Slope is not `their'
land, it is `our land'.'' Native Americans (the Inupiat in
this case) tend not to appreciate this attitude from white
men.
The point I tried to make in my previous memo is that in
issues like this, of environmental protection and economic
development, I believe that the first consideration, out of
respect, should be paid to the views of the local people
actually inhabiting the place in question. After all, they
know their environment best, and have the most to lose or
gain depending on what happens to it. I trust their wisdom
more than that of lobbying groups based in Washington, D.C.
Perhaps you disagree.
Also, maybe because I grew up in the West (Colorado and New
Mexico) I was put off by your glib caricature of ``the Texas
mentality.'' We are encouraged in our university to celebrate
diversity, but it seemed to me your remarks smacked of
regional prejudice and mean-minded stereotyping of a great
state of our union--a state, by the way, that has for long
provided the rest of us with many valuable goods, including
the oil and natural gas that have moved our vehicles and
warmed our houses. We should be thanking Texans, not making
fun of them.
On other Western topics, you accuse me of thinking like
Montana cattlemen and Northwest lumbermen. I'm not quite sure
what you mean, although you seem to be down on these groups.
Do you want them put out of business? Do you want them to
stop producing goods for our use? Can we in Massachusetts
produce the beef and wood products we need and use? Again, as
with the Texans, I say let's thank these rural producers for
their efforts--not affect to despise them.
Would you not at least admit the possibility that these
hard-working Americans contribute much more of real value to
their countrymen, than do university professors firing off
vaporous memos by e-mail?
Finally, what am I to make of the sly statement you append
to the end of your last message: ``Some of us even believe
that there is a definite nexus between American consumerism
and the feeling of being oppressed in some third world
countries. A feeling so strong as to even, at least
partially, foster terrorism.''
I hope there is no insinuation in these words that somehow
Americans are responsible for what those squalid foreign
fanatics did on Sept. 11. I trust you are not one of the
``Blame America First'' fringe that hangs around American
campuses. But what are you getting at?
I can see how the terrorists might resent and hate the
United States for being such a prosperous, dynamic, creative
society--one that is open, democratic, tolerant of all
religions, and respectful of human rights and individual
liberties. After all, none of the Middle Eastern terrorists
come from societies with these characteristics. But why
should we feel guilty for the evil acts their perverted
ideology leads them to?
Where exactly does ``consumerism'' fit in? If we
voluntarily impoverished ourselves down to the level of, say,
Afghanistan, would other people feel less ``oppressed''? If
we ``increased the fleet mileage of American automobiles'' to
consume less oil, as you propose, do you believe that Osama
bin Laden will praise us to Allah and call of his
terrorists? Seems unlikely to me. Perhaps the Taliban
prohibits girls from learning to read so they don't grow
up to be seduced by the white sale ads of the Kabul
Macy's? Or what about the destruction of those large
status of Buddha? Perhaps that was in response to
information that monks of that faith were driving too many
SUV's around their lamaseries?
Seens to stretch. The only important product we consume
from the Middle East is oil, extracted by our technology, for
which the Middle East states are paid royally. It's oil. That
is why I suggested that, to free us as much as possible from
dependence on that oil, we develop our own resources--like
Alaskan oil. We can do this as well as ``increase efficiency
of our economy,'' as you desire. Again, there is no
contradiction between the two goals, and its seems self-
defeating and silly to pit them against each other.
No, I do not consider the 2000 acres of frozen tundra on
the North Slope, where the drilling would take place, as
``sacred''--except that it oil would help us meet our sacred
duly to protecting our families and keeping our nation
strong.
Your, Jack Stauder
Soc/Anth Dept., UMass Dartmouth
[My riposte was apparently too much for Professor B. He
threw in the towel, left the field, hung up his cleats--
whatever methaphor you might choose. He replied, not to the
whole Sustainability Committee, but only to me, that he could
not sustain more discourse on the issue.]
Thursday, October 11: ``Re: The Sacred Slope, etc.'' From:
Professor B.
Jack, I only partially read your e-mail retort. I think you
are missing the purpose of the Sustainability Committee.
Bantering words is a waste of time. Let's perform.
W.
I think he did read all my retort, and was wise enough to
see any further attempt to cross swords with my ``banter''
might lead to more humiliation of his half-baked ideas.
For our own edification, I think a couple of lessons might
he drawn from this otherwise trivial story, about how best to
combat environmentalism and its nonsense.
First, as I have learned from Rush Limbaugh: humor helps,
Irony, sarcasm, ridicule are useful tools in dealing with
opponents, especially those who cloak themselves in
pretentiousness airs of moral and intellectual superiority,
as environmentalists tend to do.
Second, don't give environmentalists a chance to claim the
moral high ground in any argument. Aggressively assert your
own principles--in this case, the valuable contributions of
resource providers, and the positive aspects of American
civilization.
Third, know your opponents and exploit the contradictions
in their beliefs. For example, a pious tenet of Prof.B.'s
liberal creed is that Native Americans are victims {time}
and ecological saints, to boot--with whom good left/liberals
must sympathize. Yet in this case the environmentalists want
to tell them what they can or can't do with their traditional
lands! No wonder he is too embarrassed to pursue an argument
on this score.
My gibes about ``celebrating diversity'' (regarding
Texans!) were certainly tongue-in-cheek, but highlighted
another contradiction in Prof. B.'s attitudes by pointing out
his use of prejudicial stereotypes, when good left/liberals
always condemn these {time} in the abstract. I was accusing
him in effect of being a bigot, of violating one of the
taboos of his sort in showing ``intolerance.'' Obviously he
didn't like being called out on these grounds.
Finally, questioning him about his opinions regarding the
United States put him in an impossible position. if he is
like most liftists--and the types of environmentalists that
foams at the mouth against ``consumerism'' and wants to use
``sustainability'' as a tool to shoehorn us into some type of
socialist utopia--then he must have hated the good, but true,
things I had to say about American civilization. Difficult as
it may be for most Americans to comprehend, the underlying
belief of U.S. leftists, including left-wing
environmentalists, is that America stinks--that our country
is malign, unjust, oppressive, imperialist, and altogether
hateful. This view explains why they give themselves the
license to tear down our civilization and to impose on us
their own utopian ideas.
However, Professor B. and the wiser radicals know,
especially in the wake of September 11, that they cannot be
so up front
[[Page S11524]]
with their anti-Americanism. So he had to grit his teeth and
refrain from replying as I more or less waved the stars and
stripes in front of him. It must have infuriated and
frustrated him.
Good, Let's hope he stays wordless, and that the
sustainability project molders in inactivity. But I wouldn't
be so sure. These advocates for environmental causes always
have a lot of time on their hands.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. These articles highlight the reality of the issue of
the Gwich'ins, which is a legitimate concern they have over the
Porcupine caribou herd, and the realization that now this issue has
taken on a new dimension because most of the Gwich'ins live in Canada.
There is a small portion who live in Alaska in this general area.
I might add, this line shows the division between the United States
and Canada. Here is the Canadian activity going on on the Canadian
side. This is primarily, of course, the home of the Gwich'ins. Nearly
90 percent of the Gwich'ins live in Canada. Only 800 live in Alaska.
The Alaska Gwich'ins live only 250 miles from the coastline. Our
Gwich'ins are down here in the Gwich'in area of the Arctic village.
What we have here is a massive public relations effort, funded by
extreme environmental groups, to suggest that somehow the Gwich'in
people's lifestyle is at risk in opening this area. They never
acknowledge what is going on with the same Gwich'ins on the Canadian
side, where they see an opportunity for better employment, health care,
a better way of life for their young people. It is important to
understand this issue is more than a public relations issue by the
Sierra Club and others, suggesting that somehow the Porcupine caribou
herd is going to be decimated by a mild amount of activity here, when
clearly this is the indication of the path of the migratory caribou
herds, and the Canadians run a highway right across the pass.
This is an open season when the caribou come through and as a
consequence we have the pot calling the kettle black, if you will.
It is important that Members take the time to understand this issue
and reflect on it. I am going to go through a couple of other points
relative to items that need evaluation. Some suggest there is no
footprint up here in ANWR, and as a consequence it is a pristine area.
That is totally false. This is the village of Kaktovik. There are real
people who live here. You can see their homes here, and so forth. This
is the spring breakup. It might not be a very pretty picture in the
sense of the color, but it shows you the Arctic Ocean, and so forth.
The winters are a little tough up there.
This is another picture of a village and this is in the 1002 area,
physically there. There are schools, a health clinic, there is an
airport. The village people and their lifestyle is as they have chosen
it to be there.
I will show you a little picture of the children going to school. It
is kind of tough up there in the morning. Nevertheless, these are
Eskimo children. You can see telephone polls, snow. Nobody shovels the
sidewalks off, I grant you, but they are there by choice. They are real
people living in an area where some people say there is no footprint.
It is totally inaccurate.
What we are looking at is the merits of trying to bring a fair
evaluation of the issue. Some have said: I am going to filibuster this
bill.
Think about it. What they are talking about filibustering addresses
the national energy security of this country.
Where is our President on the issue? On October 31, October 26,
October 17, October 4--he has made statements begging, if you will, and
I wish he would direct that this body pass an energy bill. The House
has passed H.R. 4.
Here is a statement the President made:
But there are two aspects to a good strong economic
stimulus package, one of which is an energy bill.
He asked for an energy bill each time that he has had an occasion to
speak on energy. Again in October:
I ask Congress to act now on an energy bill that the House
of Representatives passed back in August.
I ask unanimous consent these statements of the President on those
dates be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
President George Bush's Comments on Energy
October 31, 2001:
And I want the Congress to know that there is more to
helping our economy grow than just tax relief or just
spending. And there's two items I want to briefly touch on.
One is an energy plan.
Our nation needs an energy plan, an energy plan that
encourages conservation and encourages exploration. And I
believe we can do both in a responsible way. And we need to
modernize the infrastructure that develops energy from point
A to point B, from plant to consumer. We need to get after
it. It is our national interest that we have an energy plan,
one designed to make us less reliant upon foreign sources of
energy.
October 26, 2001:
Tax relief is an essential step, but it's not the only step
we should take. We need an energy plan for America. Under the
leadership of the vice president, we drafted a comprehensive,
commonsense plan for the future of this country.
It passed the House of Representatives. It needs a vote in
the United States Senate. Oh, I understand energy prices are
low right now. Thank goodness. But that shouldn't lead our
nation to complacency. We need to be more self-reliant and
self-sufficient. It is in our nation's national interest that
we develop more energy supplies at home. It is in our
national interest that we look at safe nuclear power. It is
in our national interest that we conserve more. It is in our
national interest that we modernize the energy infrastructure
of America. It's in our national interest to get a bill to by
desk, and I urge the Senate to do so.
October 17, 2001:
And I ask congress to now act on an energy bill that the
House of Representative passed back in August.
This is an issue of special importance to California. Too
much of our energy comes from the Middle East. 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.
October 4, 2001:
But there are two other aspects to a good, strong economic
stimulus package, one of which is trade promotion authority.
And the other is an energy bill.
And I urge the Senate to listen to the will of the senators
and move a bill--move a bill that will help Americans find
work and also make it easier for all of us around this table
to protect the security of the country. The less dependent
were on foreign sources of crude oil, the more secure we are
at home.
We've spend a lot of time talking about homeland security.
An integral piece of homeland security is energy
independence. And I ask the Senate to respond to the call to
get an energy bill moving.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is not just the Senator from Alaska crying in the
dark. We have heard from Gale Norton, Secretary of Interior, saying it
is in the national energy security interests of this country to reduce
our dependence, and the best way to do it is basically to open up this
area because we have the technology to do it. We can create American
jobs.
Also, we have heard from the Secretary of Energy, indicating the
significance of what this can mean to reducing our dependence.
We have had the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony Principi,
indicate that America's veterans who fought the wars--and I will
reflect on one comment made by a former Member, Mark Hatfield, who was
a pacifist and a good friend of ours. He said: I would vote for opening
ANWR anyday rather than send another American man or woman overseas to
fight a war in a foreign country over oil.
That is what we are doing. We did that in the Persian Gulf conflict.
We fought a war over oil to keep Saddam Hussein from going into Kuwait
and moving on into Saudi Arabia.
If we look at affairs in the Mideast now and consider the
vulnerability associated with that area and our dependence on Saudi
Arabia and the weakness of the royal family and Bin Laden's terrorist
activities that would disrupt those oilfields--we are sitting on a
situation very similar to what we saw maybe 30 years ago with the fall
of the Shah in Iran. That situation could happen, dramatically,
overnight.
We could face a terrorist attack on the Straits of Hormuz. Why are we
waiting?
Let me tell you something. I mean this in all candor. This issue has
been a godsend to the extreme environmental community. It is an issue
that they have been milking for revenue and dollars and will continue
to do so until the very end. When it finally passes, they will move on
to another issue. It has been a cash cow because they refuse to argue
the merits of if it can be opened safely. It can. We have 30 years of
experience in the Arctic.
[[Page S11525]]
Where would we be today if we didn't have Prudhoe Bay?
The same arguments today being used against opening this area were
used 27 years ago against opening Prudhoe Bay: You are going to build a
fence across Alaska, 850 miles. The caribou are not going to be able to
cross it. It is going to break up the permafrost. All these arguments
failed because it is one of the engineering wonders of the world.
Let's be realistic. America's veterans have spoken. We have had press
conferences: The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS,
Catholic War Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans Institute. The
Veterans of Foreign Wars are for it. The seniors organizations support
it. The 60-Plus have come out in support of it, as have the Seniors
Coalition and the United Seniors Association; in Agriculture, American
Farm Bureau, and National Grange. Organized labor is totally aboard.
I know many Members have been contacted by organized labor--by the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, by union laborers, by the
Seafarers Union, Operating Engineers, Brotherhood of Plumbers and
Steamfitters, carpenters--and America's business. There are over 1,000
businesses that support opening up this area as part of our national
energy security bill.
I encourage Members to recognize the reality that we are going to get
a vote on an energy bill under one of two provisions. Either the
Democratic leadership is going to respond to the President's request to
bring up an energy bill before this body or work out some time
agreement that is reasonable. We can take it up, have amendments, and
have an up-or-down vote on it. It shouldn't be a filibuster issue.
Imagine filibustering on our national security. It has never been done
in this body before. We should have an up-or-down vote.
Let us recognize it for what it is. If we don't get the assurance
from the Democratic leader to take up an energy bill, then our other
opportunity is a stimulus bill. And it will be on the stimulus bill.
The House has done its job. It passed an energy bill, H.R. 4. It will
be on the stimulus bill.
When you think about stimulus, you think about what other stimulus
provisions we have talked about which will provide nearly $1.5 billion
worth of revenue from lease sales to the Federal Treasury. It will
employ a couple hundred thousand Americans in shipbuilding, and so
forth. It will not cost the taxpayer one dime. I challenge my
colleagues to come up with a better answer.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 10 minutes as if in morning business for the purpose of introducing
a bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before I do so, I would like to make a
couple of comments based on Senator Murkowski's observations.
I think he is absolutely right on point. About a third of Senate
Members are veterans. Several are veterans of World War II. One of my
comments will certainly not surprise them.
I ask the Senator if he remembers the story about how we won the
North Africa Campaign in World War II when some of the world's great
generals were pitted against each other: General Patton from America
and Field Marshal Montgomery from Great Britain on the Allied side, and
Field Marshal Rommel on the German side. History shows that Rommel was
not a Nazi. In fact, he was later forced to commit suicide for his
complicity in the events designed to kill Hitler.
But at that time, the state-of-art tanks were called Tiger 88s, with
88-millimeter guns in the Panzer Divisions, which outclassed anything
that America and Great Britain had in the North Africa Campaign.
Everybody knew it. Field Marshal Rommel, of course, was one of the
great minds of World War II. Unfortunately, he was on the wrong side.
History tells us that one of the reasons we won that campaign was
that we bombed the oil fields. When we cut off their oil, the tanks
stopped running.
I remind my colleagues that they still run on oil. They do not run on
wind power or solar power.
I am absolutely supportive of Senator Murkowski's belief that there
is a national security connection with being less dependent on foreign
oil. He mentioned the statistics and how dependent we are. It really
should not come as a big surprise to most Americans if we tell them we
are more dependent on Iraqi oil than we were before the war. In fact,
25 percent of the oil we import, as I understand, comes from the
Saudis, who every year divide much of the billions of America dollars
among the 300 members of the extended royal family, one of whom is Bin
Laden. It just defies common sense that because we cannot cut this
umbilical cord, we are actually paying people for oil so they can buy
weapons with the intent of killing.
I want to tell the former chairman that I am absolutely in support of
his efforts. When I was chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I had
many opportunities to visit with Native Alaskans and native peoples of
the North. I found that almost to the person, when they would come down
to lobby about ANWR, the Native Alaskans who are American citizens
supported opening of ANWR. The only ones opposed to it were the people
who were natives of Canada, Canadian citizens. There was no question in
my mind when I asked them how they got here and who paid their bills,
they were being spoon fed to us basically to get us to oppose something
that most American natives supported.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my great friend from Colorado. We have enjoyed
many meetings together in conjunction with his responsibilities as
chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. He has been an outstanding
proponent of American Indian opportunities.
His reference to history and what happened in North Africa is
certainly appropriate to our energy dependence on the Mideast. We just
need to look at the terrorist activities associated with September 11.
We have found that most of the individuals responsible for taking down
the buildings in New York were Saudi Arabian.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. CAMPBELL. That is right. I hope history doesn't repeat itself.
The only way we can prevent that is to become less dependent on foreign
oil.
(The remarks of Mr. Campbell pertaining to the introduction of S.
1644 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
____________________