[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 158 (Thursday, November 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11886-S11888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to share with my 
colleagues a situation developing that I think deserves attention as we 
contemplate the Thanksgiving recess and shortly thereafter, hopefully, 
the break for the Christmas holidays.
  Throughout the year, our new President has requested that Congress 
take up and pass an energy bill. The question of our Nation's energy 
security, the question of our continued dependence on imported oil from 
overseas, and the question of our vulnerability relative to terrorist 
activities here at home bring to this body the reality of taking 
positive action to correct that situation.
  The circumstances surrounding our vulnerability need some 
examination. That examination should focus, first, on the lessons of 
history.
  Many people in this body, and many young people in this country, do 
not remember 1973. They do not remember the Arab oil embargo. They do 
not remember the gas lines that were stretching around the block. They 
do not remember the inconvenience that was associated with that 
reality.
  What were the circumstances, then?
  We were 37 percent dependent on imported oil. The public was 
indignant at that time. They blamed the government. They blamed 
everybody. How could this country allow itself to become that dependent 
on external sources of oil?
  Today, we are 57 percent dependent on imported oil. The Department of 
Energy has indicated by the year 2010 we will be somewhere in the area 
of 66 percent dependent on imported oil.
  What do we do about that?
  There are two logical steps we can take. One is to use less oil by 
being more creative with technology, increasing efficiency; and the 
other is to produce more domestically.
  Where does America's oil come from? Fifty-seven percent comes from 
overseas. The rest of it comes from Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, 
Colorado, and my State of Alaska. However, it is important to note that 
Alaska has produced about 20 percent of the total crude oil produced in 
this Nation for the last 27 years.
  We had a great debate in this body in the early 1970s. That debate 
was whether or not Congress should authorize the building of an 800-
mile pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez to move the oil. There was a 
tie vote in the Senate. The Vice President, Spiro Agnew, broke the tie, 
and the pipeline was authorized. As a consequence, we have been 
producing for many, many years up to 2 million barrels of oil a day. 
Now that pipeline is producing a little over 1 million barrels a day.
  The important point to recognize, as we reflect on what we can do 
now--and what we can do now is to open up that small sliver of the 
Arctic known as the ANWR Coastal Plain--is what that will mean to this 
Nation's dependence on increased imports from overseas. It will reduce 
that dramatically.
  We do not really know what is in ANWR because Congress has never 
authorized the opening of this area. But the geologists estimate 
somewhere between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels. That may not mean much in 
the overall scope of things, but it is estimated that the current 
proven oil reserves of Texas are about 5.3 billion barrels. So this 
could be very, very significant.
  Let's compare it back to Prudhoe Bay because Prudhoe Bay is an actual 
experience. We have been there for 27 years. The experts indicated that 
field would produce about 10 billion barrels. Today, it is on its 13th 
billion barrel. It is still producing a million barrels a day.
  So when you talk about what might be in ANWR, whether it is 5.7 or 16 
billion, even if it is 10 billion, it is as big as Prudhoe Bay. It has 
a very significant potential in reducing, if you will, our dependence 
on imports.

  What is involved here? I have stood in this chamber numerous times 
and have indicated that you have to get a feel for the magnitude of the 
area. The ANWR area is a million and a half acres in the sense of the 
classification of 1002. I do not want to confuse Members, but what I am 
saying is that only the 1002 area--or a million and a half acres--can 
be authorized by Congress out of the 19 million acres that are in ANWR. 
Nineteen million acres is the size of the State of South Carolina, a 
pretty big piece of real estate. Out of that 19 million acres in ANWR, 
we set aside 8\1/2\ million acres in a wilderness in perpetuity. We set 
aside another 9 million acres in a conventional refuge, leaving this 
million and a half acres only for Congress to consider making available 
for exploration.
  The House passed an energy bill, H.R. 4. In that bill they authorized 
that only 2,000 acres of the 1002 area could bear a footprint of 
development. That reminds me of the Hollywood movie star, Robert 
Redford, who is very much opposed

[[Page S11887]]

to opening this area. He has a 5,000-acre farm in Utah. I mention that 
to put things in perspective. A 2,000-acre footprint out of 19 million 
acres, that is what we are talking about.
  I know America's environmental community is very much opposed to 
this. This is an issue that is far away. The American people cannot see 
it. They cannot see the good record of Prudhoe Bay or the contribution 
of the 27 years of production from Prudhoe Bay. So it is an ideal issue 
for America's environmental community. It is like a cash cow, if you 
will pardon the expression. They have milked it for all it is worth, 
and they will continue to do so because it is warm and fuzzy. They 
throw in a polar bear. They do not tell you that you cannot take a 
polar bear for trophy, cannot shoot a polar bear in Alaska because they 
are protected marine mammals. You can go to Russia or you can go to 
Canada if you want to shoot one. They talk about the porcupine caribou 
herd. They talk about the Gwich'in people. But they do not tell you 
that the Gwich'ins in Canada are leasing their land for oil 
exploration. They are developing their corporation and their 
opportunity for jobs, a better lifestyle, a better education, and so 
forth. They do not tell you that we have had experience with the 
central Arctic herd of caribou in Prudhoe Bay that was 6,000 strong in 
1978 and that is now over 27,000 because you cannot shoot them, you 
cannot take them.
  So every argument that the environmentalists use against opening ANWR 
is a bogus argument. These arguments are not based on sound science; 
they are based on emotion.
  What is this issue really all about? It is not about replacing 
imported oil, if you will, but it is about reducing our dependence on 
imported oil. If we made a commitment in this body to open up ANWR, one 
of two things would happen, or perhaps both. OPEC would, in my opinion, 
increase production because they would know that the United States 
means business about reducing its dependence on imported oil. As a 
consequence, you would see a stabilization in price.
  What OPEC has done now is they have put together a self-disciplined 
commitment of the countries that make up OPEC to have a floor and 
ceiling. The ceiling is about $28 a barrel, and the floor is about $22 
a barrel.
  If you do not believe that, just look at what OPEC did the other day. 
They decreased production a million and a half barrels. What does that 
do? It makes the price go up. We are caught in that leverage. Of 
course, right now, we have seen a tremendous reduction in oil demand 
because of the terrorist activities, lack of air traffic in this 
country, the reduction of people driving. But that isn't going to be 
the case forever. We are going to go back and begin to use fuel at a 
higher degree.
  I am all for alternatives. I am all for renewables. I am all for wind 
and solar. But let's face it, America and the world moves on oil. We 
have no other means of transportation currently available. Our 
airplanes, boats, and trains all move on oil. There is no relief in 
sight. We use heating oil to fuel our homes. So until we develop a new 
technology, America is going to have a continued dependence on oil.
  We have an opportunity here, in the stimulus package, to address a 
real stimulus. A real stimulus is opening up ANWR because here is what 
ANWR would do: It would provide at least 250,000 direct jobs.
  This isn't something the Federal Government has to underwrite or the 
taxpayer has to basically contribute to. These are private sector jobs, 
skilled labor, welders, pipe fitters, Teamsters, you name it. These 
unions support this. They are in contrast to the environmentalists who 
are opposed to it. This is the biggest jobs issue in the stimulus 
package.
  What else is there in this proposal? There is an opportunity for the 
Federal Government to garner about $3.3 billion in bonus bids as a 
result of this 1002 area being put up for lease. That is a lot of 
money. That can offset some of the responsibilities we have to address 
in response to terrorism, the cost of the war, security. There are lots 
and lots of things that we can use this revenue for.
  If you look at the jobs, if you look at the revenue and recognize 
that none of this is going to cost the taxpayer one red cent, we should 
consider the real merits of a stimulus package that contains a 
provision to provide the authority to open up this area.
  We have brought this to the floor time and time again. We have 
proposed opportunities for committee action. As the ranking member on 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I can only express my 
disappointment in the process. The Democratic leader has taken away 
from the authorizing committee, the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, and the chairman, the ability to address the formation of an 
energy bill in the committee. For some reason there is a terrible fear 
to have a vote on this issue in committee or, for that matter, on the 
floor.
  I know there are several Members from time to time who have ideas of 
Presidential aspirations. This body and the American people have a 
right to have an energy bill debated on the floor of the Senate and 
voted upon. The President has asked for it continually. He deems it as 
a stimulus. We don't seem to be able to move.
  What happened is--as a member of the Energy Committee, I am obviously 
pretty close to it--I thought we could proceed, have a markup in the 
committee, vote it out of committee, and take it to the floor. The 
Democratic leader intervened, took the authority away from the chairman 
of the committee. We have been waiting for the majority leader to come 
up with an energy bill and present it to us. He has not done it. We 
know it will not include ANWR. There is absolutely no question about 
that.
  Yet, here we are with a situation that is ongoing. Time runs and 
nothing is done. We face a crisis associated with our vulnerability and 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Let me add a couple more points that bear some reflection. Currently 
we are importing almost 1 million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. How 
can we justify on the one hand becoming more dependent on a source that 
was our enemy just a few years ago when we fought the war in the 
Persian Gulf and on the other hand, importing oil from that country and 
enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq on a daily basis? We are putting the 
lives of our men and women at risk in enforcing that. We occasionally 
take out targets in Iraq. I have said it before and I will say it 
again: We take their oil, put it in our airplanes, and enforce a no-fly 
zone. They take our money, develop missile capability, a biological 
capability, and aim it at our ally Israel. We don't know what they are 
doing because we don't have inspectors over there anymore. It is a 
grossly inconsistent policy.
  We have differences of opinion, of course. I respect my colleagues 
with regard to issues such as this. I find it ironic that the 
spokespersons who stand before this body communicating directly their 
feelings on the issue have never been up there. They have never taken 
the time. Each year Senator Stevens and I offer trips to ANWR. They 
don't come. Yet they are experts.

  Members have opinions on this, but they don't go up and see for 
themselves. They don't evaluate. They don't talk to the people who live 
there. My Native and Eskimo people have rights, too. There are 95,000 
acres of private land that they own in the 1002 area, the 1.5 million 
acres in question. The Native and Eskimo people have no access. They 
can't even drill for gas to heat their homes. Is that democracy? Is 
that fair and equitable? Should they not have the same rights as any 
other American who owns private land? This is a terrible travesty on 
the people of my State. It is unjustified.
  We are a big piece of real estate with a small population. We have 
real people. We have a village in the area. Some people say: This 
pristine area, it is an extraordinary area. It is a huge area. To 
suggest that a 2,000 acre footprint suddenly is going to have a 
disastrous activity associated with it is absolutely inconsistent with 
reality.
  We have a village there of 300 people. It has a little school, a 
health care facility, a little airport. These are real people. They 
have real hopes, real aspirations. They are very disappointed that this 
body fails to hear their cry and the Members who feel very strongly 
about this are refusing to go up and talk to them, to recognize that 
they are really there.

[[Page S11888]]

  I have said this before, as we look at terrorist activities, as we 
look at vulnerability, let's look at the Mideast for a moment. Look at 
Saudi Arabia. Some individuals predict that Saudi Arabia is setting 
itself up for what happened a few decades ago with Iran, the fall of 
the Shah, America's ally.
  Bin Laden's terrorist activities in the oilfields of Saudi Arabia 
could wreak havoc. What you would see is the price of oil skyrocketing. 
A couple of tankers in the Straits of Hormuz taken out by terrorist 
activities could accomplish the same effect.
  These are the real risks associated with our increased dependence. If 
you look at the terrorists who we can identify with the Trade Center 
disaster, a lot of them had Saudi Arabia citizenship, including bin 
Laden. Where does the money come from? You and I are associated with 
the business community. We know where it comes from. It comes from oil. 
That is the wealth of the Mideast; it funds terrorism. Make no mistake 
about it.
  A good friend of mine, a Member of this body for many years, Mark 
Hatfield, is a pacifist. He said: I would vote for ANWR any day than 
send another man or woman of our Armed Forces to fight a war on foreign 
soil, a war over oil.
  This Senator has been a good soldier. I have been here 21 years. I 
have lived with this issue for 21 years. I have asked for votes. We 
passed this bill in 1995 in both the House and the Senate. It was 
vetoed by President Clinton. It is not going to be vetoed by the White 
House this time around. The point is, we can't get the leadership to 
bring it up.
  I am going to have to filibuster something around here. There are a 
few things left to get some kind of a commitment from the Democratic 
leadership to get a vote on this issue in a timely manner. We have that 
right. All we want is a vote. We will take our lumps. But they don't 
want to vote on it.
  They don't want to vote on it, even to the point where they are 
fearful if I were to bring this up in committee and prevail, that 
somehow it would pass and it would represent a position of strength.
  Let me conclude by alerting Members that we are not going to let this 
issue go away. We are going to force a vote. If I have to force a 
filibuster, I will. This time this issue is going to come up before 
this body and be addressed once and for all.
  I thank the Chair for the time. I thank my colleague for his 
indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my distinguished 
colleague from Alaska, who has been here for 21 years. I can personally 
attest to that and take an affidavit to that fact because I came here 
on the same day that he did. We have worked together over the years and 
we have a curious relationship, in the sense that he is senior to me in 
the Republican caucus because it was done alphabetically, and ``M'' 
comes before ``S.'' I am senior to Senator Murkowski in the Senate 
because I come from a State that is somewhat larger population-wise but 
not geographically. But it is always a pleasure to follow Senator 
Murkowski on the floor or any other time.

                          ____________________