[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.

                          ____________________