[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 165 (Monday, December 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12284-S12297]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              SENATE VOTES

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about two 
important votes we will have in a few hours, one on the Railroad 
Retirement Act and the other on the amendment introduced by the Senate 
Republican leader, which is an energy plan that includes authorization 
to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  I thank and congratulate my friend and colleague from Minnesota for 
the outstanding statement he made on this issue. I believe the debate 
thus far on the question of drilling in the Arctic Refuge has revealed 
a record that is not quite what the proponents of drilling have argued 
and portrayed. That, at least, shows we should not be pressured to pass 
such significant legislation in a hurried or cursory fashion. It is not 
wise for the Senate to rush into a decision that will have a permanent 
impact and, in fact, do permanent damage to our environment, our 
national energy strategy, and our national values while at the same 
time being of little value to the American people.
  I will discuss some of the contentions made by proponents of drilling 
our refuge and offer some comments.
  Proponents of drilling have argued that the Inupiat Eskimos in the 
town of Kaktovik are being deprived of their right to drill on refuge 
land that they own in fee simple. I was struck by that argument when it 
was made Friday when I was in the Chamber.
  I have done a little research over the weekend. I find that the 
Inupiat Eskimos have rights to the surface of lands adjacent to the 
town of Kaktovik. The Eskimos also were granted subsurface rights by 
Secretary of the Interior Watt to over 90,000 acres that are adjacent 
to their town. But those rights were speculative--only granting the 
right to drill if Congress authorized oil and gas drilling under the 
surface of the Arctic Refuge.
  A 1989 GAO report investigating the transfer of these subsurface 
rights found that the transfer actually resulted in a profit for 
Kaktovik even without any oil and gas development.
  The point I am making is that no promises have been broken to the 
Inupiat people. In fact, they were never granted the right to drill in 
the refuge. That has been clear from the beginning.
  I will work with all of my colleagues, as I know the occupant of the 
chair does, to do everything I can to ensure that the Inupiat people 
are able to continue to sustain and improve their quality of life. But 
we have to do so in a manner that is in our national interest and does 
not sacrifice one of our great national treasures. We must also realize 
that other Native Americans in Alaska strongly oppose any drilling.
  Last Friday I mentioned the plight of the Gwich'in of Arctic Village 
who depend on the Porcupine caribou herd to sustain their lives and 
their culture. Today I will read from a letter by the city of Nuiqsut, 
sitting in the shadow of the Alpine oil field on the North Slope. I ask 
unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              City of Nuiqsut,

                                      Nuiqsut, AK, April 11, 2001.
     Letter from City Council to Cumulative Effects Committee 
         Members.

     Patricial Cochran,
     Representative/Member, National Research Council, National 
         Academy of Sciences.
       Dear Sir or Madam: Thank you for coming to Nuiqsut and 
     seeking our input on the cumulative effects of oil and gas 
     development on our community and the North Slope. Your tight 
     schedule did not allow us to fully share all of our comments 
     with you, so we write today to summarize our thoughts and 
     supplement our comments. This summary is not meant in any way 
     to be a substitute for the heart felt comments you heard at 
     the meeting or the written testimony that was carefully 
     prepared for you and submitted to you at the meeting. It is 
     only a supplement to those thoughts and comments and a 
     request for further consideration of our views in the report 
     that you prepare.
       The impact of oil and gas development on our village has 
     been far reaching. As you now know first hand from your 
     visit, we are literally surrounded by the infrastructure to 
     produce oil and gas. This has affected our day-to-day lives 
     in several ways. Our ability to hunt and gather traditional 
     foods has been severely impacted by development, as you heard 
     from everyone who spoke at the meeting. You were provided 
     many examples of how various species have been affected, and 
     how we have had to react and adjust to those changes. You 
     were also told how the land that we consider ours and from 
     which we subsist has in some cases been lost because we did 
     not fill out the right paperwork and/or look at the right 
     maps.
       Additionally, oil and gas development has brought many more 
     people to our village that is not permanent residents, but 
     instead come and goes for work. Very few of these individuals 
     have integrated well into our community. There are widespread 
     feelings of distrust and frustration amongst villagers and 
     the workers who come from outside the community, despite 
     efforts to develop trust with one another. We do not fully 
     understand each other's cultures and we resent each other 
     still, despite our mutual efforts to get to know one another 
     and to get along.
       Development has increased the smog and haze in our air and 
     sky, affecting our health as well as the beauty of our land, 
     sea, and air. Drugs and alcohol traffic have increased as 
     development has grown; the ice road that reduces our freight 
     costs also increases the flow of illegal substances into our 
     community. The stress of integrating a new way of life with 
     generations of traditional teachings has led some to alcohol 
     and drug abuse, a phenomenon unknown before white people came 
     to Alaska and greatly exacerbated by the recent spate of 
     growth associated with North Slope oil and gas development 
     and for us in Nuiqsut, even more exacerbated by growth 
     associated with Alpine.
       However, like all Alaskans, we have also benefited from oil 
     and gas development. The State and Borough have more money to 
     spend on community facilities, schools, modern water and 
     sewer system, and similar projects. The City has also 
     received funds to mitigate some of the impacts of 
     development. At the individual level, we each receive a 
     permanent fund dividend every year that is funded by 
     excellent investment of

[[Page S12285]]

     state money, some of which came originally from oil and gas 
     royalties and taxes. We hope to have low cost natural gas 
     heating our homes and running our electric plant in the near 
     future because of a unique arrangement between Phillips, 
     Kuukpik--our local village corporation, the City, and other 
     community interests.
       But money and modern amenities are not in and of themselves 
     significant enough trade offs. We urge the Committee to 
     appreciate the reality that, in the eyes of most of us, to 
     date, the negative effects of oil and gas development have 
     equaled or outweighed the positives. We encourage you to 
     include with your findings information that will encourage 
     policy makers to work harder to shift the balance of much 
     more to the positive side. As was stated at the meeting, we 
     do not reject the cash economy and know that the clock of 
     time cannot be turned back. We wish instead to become fuller 
     participants in the cash economy and in the decisions that 
     are made about future development, while maintaining our 
     cultural ties to the past through our subsistence lifestyle. 
     This is the essence of self-determination.
       With that in mind, we urge you to include as a finding in 
     your report that one cumulative effect of development has 
     been that subsistence resources of local residents have been 
     displaced and altered, based on the information provided to 
     you at our meeting as well as testimony you have received 
     from state and federal agencies and other sources.
       Another cumulative effect that should be included in your 
     report is that we have not been provided with enough well 
     paying, highly skilled North Slope oil and gas jobs. Although 
     some steps have been taken to increase local hire, a lot more 
     needs to be done. Very few villagers are employed at Alpine 
     or even on the entire Slope. A long-term commitment needs to 
     be made to train villagers to get the skills to get and--
     importantly--to keep those jobs. Villagers and industry 
     representatives need to work together to develop a jobs 
     program in which villagers commit to working regular hours on 
     a long-term basis and industry commits to allow villagers to 
     take time off for subsistence activities without losing their 
     jobs.
       Further, we urge you to include as a finding in your report 
     that villagers have not been fully integrated into decision 
     making regarding where development has occurred and what 
     facilities will be used to extract the oil and gas from the 
     ground. We need to be consulted more often and more fully on 
     decisions that are made regarding permitting, the impacts of 
     development on the land, sea, air and animals, and choices 
     for placement of pads, roads, mines, pits, pipelines, and 
     other aspects of infrastructure development. If we are 
     consulted and listened to, we will work to get future 
     pipelines underground and/or well above the antlers of the 
     tallest caribou, to end use of fish bearing lake water for 
     ice roads, to prohibit seismic scaring of the tundra, to 
     prohibit offshore and other outer continental shelf 
     development, and to take other measures in response to the 
     cumulative effects that have already occurred to the land, 
     sea, air, and people of the North Slope.
       In conclusion, we again thank you for your interest in the 
     issues we face, and look forward to your findings. We 
     respectfully reiterate that we practice subsistence as a 
     lifestyle, not as a sport. We wish to continue to do so for 
     generations into the future. Only with careful consideration 
     of our input into future oil and gas development will that be 
     possible. We sincerely hope that a longer-term cumulative 
     effect of oil and gas development on the Slope is not the 
     total destruction of our subsistence way of life.
           Sincerely,
         City of Nuiqsut Council Members:
     Eli Nukapigak,
       Mayor.
     Rosemary Ahtuangaruak,
       Vice Mayor.
     Ruth Nukapigak,
       Member.
     Mae Masuleak,
       Member.
     Hazel Panigeo,
       Member.
     Rhoda Bennett,
       Member.
     Frank Long,
       Member.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. According to the Native Americans, the impact of oil 
drilling has been ``far reaching.'' They provide some specific 
statements:

       Our ability to hunt and gather traditional foods has been 
     severely impacted. Development has increased the smog and 
     haze in our sky, affecting our health as well as the beauty 
     of our land sea and air.

  Obviously, the people of Nuiqsut do not believe they have benefited 
from oil exploration, and they hope we will learn a lesson from their 
experience.
  We have also been asked to conclude that the wildlife in the reserve 
will interact happily with oil pipelines if they are built there. A 
picture was shown the other day of bears. I was advised that the bears 
in the pictures were not stuffed animals. Indeed, they were not. Unlike 
stuffed animals, they need real wilderness habitat to survive.
  I received a letter over the weekend from Mr. Ken Whitten, a retired 
Alaska State fish and game biologist who worked 24 years on the North 
Slope. Mr. Whitten felt compelled to respond to the proponents of 
drilling and specifically to the picture of a mother bear and cubs 
shown last week. I quote from the letter: Most bear cubs that have 
grown up in the oil fields have eventually been shot as problem bears, 
either in the oil field support area or at isolated villages and camps 
outside the oil field.
  Thus, the story of the three bears in the photo does not have a fairy 
tale ending. Three different bear groups, each consisting of a sow and 
two cubs, have been seen walking pipelines in the oil field recently. 
All three bears in one group and two cubs in another had to be shot 
last summer after they became habituated to human food and repeatedly 
broke into buildings and parked vehicles.
  I ask unanimous consent Mr. Whitten's comments be printed in the 
Record in full.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Comments of Kenneth R. Whitten on Remarks by Senator Murkowski

       As a retired state fish and game biologist who worked 24 
     years on Alaska's North Slope, I am once again disappointed 
     that Senator Murkowski has misinformed his fellow senators 
     regarding the effects of oil development on the wildlife and 
     wilderness environment of the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge. In this regard, I'd like to comment on the Senator's 
     statements about bears and caribou and also on his continued 
     misuse of a photograph I took myself.
       On the floor of the Senate last Thursday, Senator Murkowski 
     showed a photo of three grizzly bears walking on top of an 
     elevated pipeline at Prudhoe Bay. What the Senator failed to 
     point out is that most bear cubs that have grown up in the 
     oilfields have eventually been shot as problem bears, either 
     in the oilfield support area or at isolated villages and 
     camps outside the oilfield. Thus the story of the three bears 
     in the Senator's photo doesn't have a fairy tale ending. 
     Three different bear groups, each consisting of a sow and two 
     cubs, have been seen walking pipelines in the oilfield 
     recently. All three bears in one group and two cubs in 
     another had to be shot last summer after they became 
     habituated to human food and repeatedly broke into buildings 
     and parked vehicles. The bears in the third family are all 
     currently alive, but unfortunately it is highly probable that 
     the remaining cubs, at least, will get into trouble next 
     summer and have to be killed. The major oil companies may do 
     a good job of keeping garbage away from bears and thus 
     avoiding conflicts, but bear problems are rampant in the 
     industrial support area where workers and visitors are not as 
     well regulated.
       Caribou are not attracted to the oilfields, despite Senator 
     Murkowski's assertion that caribou flock to Prudhoe Bay and 
     thrive there because they are protected from hunting. Caribou 
     generally avoid the oilfields during their calving period. 
     Later in the summer, larger groups occasionally enter the 
     fields, but have trouble moving through the maze of pipes, 
     roads, and industrial activity. Hunting is legally restricted 
     in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield only, and not in other North 
     Slope fields, although oil company policies discourage 
     hunting. Hunting occurs on state and federal lands around the 
     oilfields, but is conservatively regulated so as not to harm 
     the caribou populations. The caribou herd around Prudhoe Bay 
     has increased because of generally favorable environmental 
     conditions over the past 25 years, as have other caribou 
     herds on the North Slope. During a brief period of bad 
     weather in the late 1980s, caribou near the oilfields had 
     poor calf production compared to caribou in areas away from 
     the oilfields. The population declined at that time.
       Also on the Senate floor last Thursday, Senator Murkowski 
     showed a photograph over which he said he had previously 
     gotten into an argument with Senator Boxer. I took that 
     photograph. At various times Senator Murkowski has stated 
     that the photo is a fake or that it was not taken on the ANWR 
     coastal plain. In fact, that was the gist of his argument 
     last year with Senator Boxer. The photo was taken from a 
     rooftop at an abandoned DEWline station at Beaufort Lagoon on 
     the ANWR coastal plain. It looks across the lagoon to the 
     coastal plain filled with caribou and with snowcapped peaks 
     in the distance. After the dispute with Senator Boxer, 
     Murkowski had to admit that the photo was indeed from the 
     coastal plain, but he told reporters that the fact it was 
     taken from an old military site proves that the coastal plain 
     is not pristine wilderness (he was apparently unaware that 
     the site had been removed and no longer existed when he made 
     those remarks). Murkowski now claims he has confirmation from 
     the photographer that the photo was taken from a window in 
     Kaktovik village. The Senator just can't seem to get it 
     right. He now emphasizes that the mountains are not on the 
     coastal plain. The point he keeps trying to make is that the 
     ANWR coastal plain is a barren hostile place, with no 
     beautiful mountains or pretty scenery, and we should 
     therefore just go ahead and drill it. He can't seem to deal 
     with the fact that the plain is rimmed on the south by the 
     highest peaks of the Brooks Range, that many people find it 
     beautiful, and that during summer the coastal plain teams 
     with abundant wildlife.

[[Page S12286]]

       Senator Murkowski seems willing to go to any length to 
     convince us that we can improve national security and protect 
     wildlife by drilling the coastal plain, but there is 
     overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We can reduce our 
     dependence on foreign oil and protect wildlife through energy 
     conservation. The evidence for that is irrefutable.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I also contest a characterization of support for this 
proposal. Contrary to what has been said, it is clear that the American 
labor movement is not universally enthusiastic about this bill. In 
fact, the well of union support is drying up. Many unions, including 
the largest union in America, SEIU, and the United Steelworkers of 
America, see more jobs in investing in the technologies of the future.
  Why are the union members lining up in opposition to the drilling 
plan? The fact is a broad range of union members and leaders understand 
that a strategic long-term energy strategy is a much more effective way 
to help spur the production not only of energy but of permanent jobs in 
a wide range of economic sectors. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge 
represents a distraction from the real needs of our economy and the 
real needs of the working people of America.
  The other alternatives I cite: investments in efficiency, 
conservation, and alternative energy sources, are realistic, strategic, 
and ready to go. It is disappointing to me that in this era of dramatic 
technological progress in so many areas of human activity, we readily 
celebrate the advances, including in the fields of oil exploration, but 
fail to see the promise of this next age of alternative efficient 
energy technologies.
  According to a recent study by the Tellis Institute, investments in 
new energy technologies could result in a net annual increase in jobs 
in America of over 700,000 by 2010, rising to approximately 1.3 million 
jobs in 2020. Those are the technologies of the future, providing high-
paying, permanent jobs to America's workers.
  There is also another proposal for the North Slope of Alaska that 
will bring more jobs and more economic stimulus than drilling for oil 
in the refuge. That is the building of a natural gas pipeline to bring 
that energy source to the lower 48 States. According to estimates from 
the oil industry and from the State of Alaska, this project would bring 
hundreds of thousands of jobs to American workers and is far preferable 
to the proposed oil drilling in the refuge. In one sense, this is 
perhaps the first plan I have seen that is myopic and hyperopic. It may 
need bifocals. It fails to take the long-term interests of our economy 
and environment into consideration and simultaneously fails to deliver 
any immediate benefit to the American people. In fact, it is a short-
term distraction in what should be our real energy program strategy and 
a long-term danger.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
letter from the Secretaries of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy, 
Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                November 30, 2001.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       [Senator Akaka]: In this time of national crisis, we urge 
     the Senate to focus on the most important issues to the 
     country. Railroad retirement legislation and economic 
     stimulus packages are the wrong forum to be debating complex 
     energy legislation or deciding the fate of one of our 
     country's greatest wilderness and wildlife treasures--the 
     coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
     Majority Leader Tom Daschle has pledged to bring energy 
     legislation to the floor in the near future.
       We hope you will oppose efforts to attach energy provisions 
     to economic or national security legislation, and we strongly 
     urge you to vote against drilling in the Arctic Refuge 
     regardless of the legislative vehicle.
       Each of us, as former Secretaries of the Interior, made 
     decisions balancing the goal of developing the energy 
     resources of our public lands with that of conserving and 
     protecting the wildlife and wilderness resources of those 
     same public lands for future generations. In the case of the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we continue to believe that 
     the value of its unique wildlife and wilderness resources far 
     outweighs the potential benefits of development.
       It is worth noting that protection of this unique resource 
     was first proposed by our colleague Fred Seaton, who headed 
     Interior under President Eisenhower. Secretary Seaton 
     stressed the unique wilderness values of this `biologically 
     irreplaceable land,' which was ultimately set aside under 
     President Eisenhower's order `for the purpose of preserving 
     unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values.'
       In the forty years since the establishment of what was then 
     known as the Arctic Wildlife Range, the case for protecting 
     its wildlife and wilderness resources has only become 
     stronger. We have opened major portions of the Arctic slope 
     to oil development, which now dominates the landscape from 
     the Canning River all the way to the Colville. Most recently, 
     leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve has resulted in a 
     number of successful exploration wells west of the 
     Colville. Although industry practices and oil field 
     technology have both improved over the years, anyone who 
     has been to the Prudhoe Bay complex will tell you that oil 
     development there has permanently changed the character of 
     the land. In this context, protecting the biologically 
     richest and most pristine part of the coastal plain is the 
     right thing to do. Nowhere else on the American continent 
     can be found such a wealth of wildlife in an undisturbed 
     environment. The annual migration of the Porcupine River 
     Caribou Herd, on which the Gw'ichin communities of Alaska 
     and Canada depend for subsistence, remains one of the last 
     great wildlife spectacles on earth.
       Our park, refuge, and wilderness systems are a living 
     legacy for all Americans, present and future, and are widely 
     envied and emulated around the world. The Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge is one of the greatest of these treasures and 
     is clearly the most precious of the crown jewels of Alaska. 
     It must be protected.
           Sincerely,
     Bruce Babbitt.
     Cecil D. Andrus.
     Stewart L. Udall.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Secretaries point out the value of the land in 
question here, the Arctic Refuge. They quote the Secretary of the 
Interior under President Eisenhower. It was Eisenhower who originally 
created this refuge.
  That letter states that the area was:

     biologically irreplaceable land that should be put aside for 
     the purpose of preserving the unique wildlife wilderness and 
     recreational values.

  As the signatories' letter points out, the 40 years since Secretary 
Seaton's comments have only strengthened the case that this is a unique 
wildlife and recreational area of our country and deserves to be 
preserved. I ask my colleagues to please vote against cloture on the 
amendment, the Lott amendment to the railroad retirement bill.
  In summary, drilling in the refuge pales in comparison to more 
environmentally sound and strategic energy alternatives. Drilling in 
the refuge will do nothing to provide energy independence, providing a 
mere 6-month supply of oil that will not come on line for a decade. 
Drilling will do almost nothing to stimulate our economy, providing 
some short-term jobs when we can provide a much greater, longer term 
stimulus for our economy by undertaking projects such as the natural 
gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay and increasing our investment in new and 
emerging technologies.
  Finally, our values teach us that not every available natural 
resource should be exploited. Our values encourage us to respect the 
Earth, the treasures that the Good Lord gave us here in America, and to 
approach them with some humility, not to try to squeeze every last 
ounce of energy or anything else out of every square foot of Earth, 
regardless of the cost or the loss that is engendered thereby.
  Nature reminds us of our humanity. It inspires us. It helps to 
comfort us when we are hurt. It gives us opportunities for recreation.
  This is a time not to ignore but to recall the great American spirit 
of conservation which seeks, in every generation, to preserve the great 
natural places in America so those generations that follow us will 
enjoy them, have the right and opportunity to enjoy them as much as we 
have.
  I believe this expresses the interests and the values of the American 
people. I hope my colleagues will stand with those interests and values 
in voting against cloture on the Lott amendment when it comes up later 
this afternoon.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend will yield for a question.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I believe my time is up, but I will certainly yield 
for a question.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Does the Senator from Connecticut have any idea how 
long this issue has been before the Senate, how many hearings we held 
on this matter over the years?
  I think it is important because I believe the statement was made we 
should not be rushing into anything.

[[Page S12287]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me clarify that the time of the Senator 
from Connecticut has expired. This will be charged to the time of the 
Senator from Alaska, who is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Factually, if the Senator doesn't know, I would like 
to advise him.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I can tell the Senator respectfully, I have been here 
13 years and I know it has been an issue all that time, and I know it 
was debated for some time before that. My point was, though, that I 
think some of the contentions made on the floor in the back and forth 
of the debate in the last several days at least leave uncertainty. In 
that spirit of uncertainty, we do better to come back and debate this 
proposal in full, as I guess we will, after the first of next year.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the edification of my friend from Connecticut, 
there have been 50 bills introduced on this topic. There have been over 
60 hearings. We have had 5 markups of committee jurisdiction, in the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Legislation authorizing the 
opening of ANWR has passed the House twice. A conference report 
authorizing the opening of ANWR passed the Senate in 1995. It was 
vetoed by President Clinton.
  If you review the history, I think it is a little misleading to imply 
that suddenly we are rushing into this matter without a good deal of 
debate and thought. It is the same exact argument that was used in the 
1970s, prior to the authorization of opening up Prudhoe Bay and 
building the pipeline. It was fostered by America's extreme 
environmental community which is again fostering the debate. There has 
been no sound science to suggest that opening Prudhoe Bay has resulted 
in an economic disaster or resulted in the decimation of the caribou 
herd, the central Arctic herd. These are alarmist tactics we have heard 
time and time again and it is evident Members are soliciting the 
support based on America's environmental community.
  Years ago, we had a full EIS on the opening. Still, at a time when we 
are looking at calamities in the Mideast--the situation in Israel, the 
danger associated with our national security--I find it extraordinary 
that Members would look for excuses rather than sound science in 
addressing the merits of this legislation.
  Had President Clinton not vetoed that legislation in 1995, ANWR would 
be on line now. When the Senator continues to use the ``6-month supply 
of oil,'' he is really misleading the American public. He knows that 
definition is only applicable if there is no other oil coming into the 
United States, imported or produced in the United States. I think we 
should keep the debate on a factual level as opposed to a misleading 
level.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Chair, it is my understanding we each have 
10 minutes, is that correct, in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I certainly understand the pro-
ponents----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Excuse me, Mr. President, may I interrupt. I think we 
have time remaining on either side; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I beg your pardon?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe there is time remaining on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senate will be in morning business 
until the hour of 4:45, at which time there will be 30 minutes equally 
divided on either side to debate the Lott amendment. Until then, 
Senators may proceed for 10 minutes each, time to be designated between 
the sides.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In total? One hour sixteen seconds remain.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I repeat, 1 hour 16 whole seconds--16 minutes, 
I am advised.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry. I did not hear. On the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes remaining on the other 
side.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will start again. I know the proponents--and 
certainly the Senator from Alaska stands out in this matter of drilling 
in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge--feel strongly about their position. But 
there are those of us who feel just as strongly the National Wildlife 
Refuge should remain, as it has always been, our Nation's last 
protected Arctic wilderness.
  The Senator from Alaska was asking the Senator from Connecticut about 
how long this has been going on. I have been here 11 years. I remember 
the first filibuster I was involved in was against this. We were 
successful. I think we will be successful again.
  In the last 11 years, I have heard a lot of arguments about why we 
should drill, but none of them hold up to scrutiny.
  In 1991, we had the debate on the energy bill, and we were told that 
the Trans-Alaska pipeline would run dry by the turn of the century 
without drilling the refuge. Today, even the oil companies acknowledge 
having enough oil to keep the Trans-Alaska pipeline flowing for at 
least another 30 years and perhaps another 40 years.
  In 1995, we were told drilling the refuge was necessary to balance 
the Federal budget. But we managed to balance the budget without these 
speculative revenues, and by the way, it would have stayed that way 
without the irresponsible tax cut passed earlier this year. Instead, 
what do my Republican colleagues do? It is not part of this amendment--
on the House side, $30 billion of tax credits for oil companies that 
made about $40 billion last year in profits.
  What other arguments have we heard? Earlier this year, we were told 
that we should drill the refuge to deal with California's electricity 
crisis. Never mind the fact the State gets less than 1 percent of its 
electricity from oil.
  Then we were told to drill to bring the prices down at the pump. 
Never mind the fact the prices are set on the global market and that as 
the Governor of Alaska has even acknowledged, there is a zero sum 
relationship between Alaskan oil and prices paid by working families 
for gasoline or home heating oil.
  I find it ironic that the same Senators who call for drilling in the 
Arctic Refuge have nothing at all to say about the wave of oil company 
mergers. I say to my colleagues, if you were so concerned about 
consumers and about the prices that working families pay at the pump, 
where were you when Exxon and Mobil merged? When BP took over Amoco? 
When BP took over Arco? And now when Phillips and Conoco are seeking 
Government approval?
  So what is today's flavor? What's today's argument? The Senator from 
Alaska says we need to drill the refuge as part of our campaign to 
combat terror--as a way to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Let 
us look at the facts:
  According to the oil industry's own testimony before the Senate 
Energy Committee, it would take at least a decade to tap even a drop of 
oil from the refuge. Furthermore, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated, 
with oil prices at $20 per barrel, there is only 3.2 billion barrels of 
commercially recoverable oil in the refuge--not in one field, but 
spread out in potentially dozens of small pockets all across the 
Delaware-sized Coastal Plain.
  I know the Senator from Alaska argues there's alot more than that. 
But here is what the USGS said in its report: ``We conclude that there 
are no Prudhoe Bay-sized accumulations in the 1002 area. . . .''
  The bottom line is this: Drilling the Arctic Refuge, even under the 
optimistic estimates, would be unlikely to ever meet more than 1-2 
percent of our oil needs, even at peak production. In fact, we could 
drill every national park and wildlife refuge in America and we'd still 
be importing the majority of our oil.
  The answer, clearly, is to look to the future. What can we do 
instead? By increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks by 
just 3 miles per gallon, we can save more than 1 million barrels of oil 
a day or five times the amount of oil the refuge might produce. This 
would do far more to

[[Page S12288]]

clean the air, reduce prices for consumers, and make us less dependent 
on imported oil.
  The fact is a focus on renewable energy and saved energy is our 
future: Households that generate electricity from rooftop solar arrays, 
farmers who harvest an additional ``crop'' by the winds that blow over 
their fields, or the biomass waste that is generated, and city streets 
inhabited by quiet and pollution-free electric vehicles.
  Do we want real energy security? Former CIA Director James Woolsey 
recently testified that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is one of the more 
vulnerable parts of our energy infrastructure; that, even if you had no 
environmental objection, it would not make a whole lot of sense to 
become more dependent on the pipeline.
  I don't know whether he is right or wrong. But I do think we need to 
become much less dependent on oil as a resource and that doing so will 
enhance our security, help consumers, and provide for a healthier 
environment.
  Renewable energy, alternative fuels, and increased efficiency are the 
keys to the future. They are, as Woolsey testified, less vulnerable to 
terrorism. They also make America less vulnerable to the wild price 
swings caused by the OPEC cartel. I certainly look forward to this kind 
of energy policy for our country.
  In conclusion, let me say this: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
is a national treasure worth far more as a lasting legacy for future 
generations than plundered for a short-term speculative supply of oil 
that will not enhance our security or help consumers. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on cloture and help us move onto the Railroad 
Retirement bill and other important matters at hand.
  There is a marriage we can make, and it has to do with this nexus 
between how we produce and consume energy and the environment. We can--
no pun intended--barrel, not down the oil path, we can barrel down the 
path of renewable energy: wind, solar, biomass, electricity, 
biodiesel--clean alternative fuels, safe energy, efficient energy use, 
small business, clean technology, keep capital in our community, stop 
acid rain in lakes, stop polluting the environment: the air, the water, 
and the land.
  This is a marriage made in heaven, and it should be made right here 
in our own country.
  I know the oil companies do not like this. I know that is not their 
future. But it is the future for consumers in our country. Coming from 
Minnesota, a cold-weather State at the other end of the pipeline, it is 
a no-brainer. When we import barrels of oil and natural gas, we export 
billions of dollars from our State--probably about $12 billion a year. 
That is not our future.
  We have an answer. A lot of it comes from rural Minnesota, it comes 
from farm country. It is a far better path. Put the emphasis on 
renewable energy policy and safe energy. Put the emphasis on small 
business, on technology, keeping capital in our community, and on the 
environment. As the Catholic bishop said 15 years ago, we are all but 
strangers and guests on this land. That is the direction in which we 
should be going.
  That is why I am strongly opposed to this amendment introduced by the 
Senator from Alaska.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am continually amused and continually 
astounded by the general statements by my colleagues on the other side 
who have never taken the time, despite the invitations that have been 
extended, to visit this area themselves and to talk to the Native 
people and see indeed that they, too, have hopes and aspirations for a 
lifetime opportunity of jobs, of health care, and education.
  The Senator from Connecticut made a comment about the letter he 
received. What he didn't tell you is that every child in that village 
has an opportunity to go to college. Believe me, that child would not 
have that opportunity without the oil activity associated with Alpine.
  This whole debate is a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen promulgated 
by America's environmental community, which uses this as a tool for 
membership and dollars. These are the same arguments that were used 27 
years ago against opening up Prudhoe Bay: You can't build an 800-mile 
pipeline across the length of Alaska because you are putting a fence 
across Alaska; the moose and the caribou won't be able to move from 
side to side; it is a hot pipeline; it is in permafrost; it is going to 
melt; it is going to break.
  Where would we be today without that particular project and Prudhoe 
Bay that has supplied the Nation with 20 to 25 percent of its total 
crude oil for these 23 years? We would be importing more oil. We would 
be importing it to the west coast and to the east coast in foreign 
ships, not U.S. flag vessels.
  I am just amazed at the general condemnation that somehow it is a 6-
month supply of oil. That is the falsehood. Everybody in this body 
knows it. They can figure it out. The estimate by USGS on the oil that 
is anticipated to be in ANWR is somewhere between 5.6 billion and 16 
billion barrels. Why don't they know? They do not know because only 
Congress can authorize exploration in the area.
  If there is no oil, which sometimes does occur, nothing is going to 
happen. But to say it is a 6-month supply is terribly misleading 
because it is totally inaccurate.
  If you cut off all the oil imports and if you didn't produce a drop 
in any other State, then it might last 6 months. But remember that 
Prudhoe Bay was 10 billion barrels of oil. It has produced over 10 
billion barrels of oil. ANWR is 5.6 billion to 16 billion. It is one-
half the median of 10 billion barrels; it would be as big as Prudhoe 
Bay.
  I am getting kind of tired of hearing these slanted stories relative 
to facts. They say it is going to be 10 years. That is absolutely 
ridiculous. We have the pipeline built. We need about 70 miles of 
pipeline over to ANWR. It is a matter of putting up the leases and 
doing the updating on the permits.
  Incidentally, that whole area has had a full environmental impact 
statement by the Interior Department.
  This is more effort to simply throw cold water on reality.
  I am sorry my friend from Minnesota is not here because he and I 
don't go out of this Chamber or leave Washington, DC, on hot 
air. Somebody has to put the fuel in that airplane or that train or 
that car. That is absolutely all there is to it. I wish we had other 
means of energy to move us around, but coal, gas, nuclear, and wind do 
not do it. We have to have oil. The whole world operates on oil. This 
is important, particularly at a time when we are seeing such grave 
circumstances associated with activities that affect the entire world 
occurring in Israel and the Mideast.

  So what are the arguments? One, I guess, is that it is a 6-month 
supply. I think we have addressed that adequately for the time being. 
The 10-years is out of the question. The Porcupine caribou herd is 
another. Clearly, most of the Gwich'ins who follow the Porcupine 
caribou herd are in Canada. There are about 800 in Alaska. Canadians 
are leasing their lands. They are developing their own corporation 
because they are looking for jobs.
  When we talk about caribou, since we are on the subject of these 
migratory animals, let's look at the experience we have had in Prudhoe 
Bay. That particular herd was 3,000 to 4,000 animals 15 years ago. It 
is 26,000 animals today.
  Every single issue on the other side can be countered, but that does 
not stop the opponents. The opponents simply want to kill this for the 
time being until it can come up again. But eventually it will pass 
because it is the right thing to do.
  I think it is fair to say that some do not want to see our President 
prevail on a few issues. Trade promotion is one. Energy is another. We 
are talking about stimulus in this country. You name a better stimulus 
than ANWR, creating 250,000 jobs, creating, if you will, revenue for 
the Federal Government of about $2.5 to $3 billion from lease sales, 
not costing the taxpayer one cent.
  What about other jobs? Nineteen double-hull tankers will have to be 
built. Some will be built on the east coast, the west coast, and the 
gulf, because under the law the old tankers have to be retired. These 
are double-bottom tankers. It is estimated it would pump about $4 
billion into the U.S. economy. It would take 17 years to build those

[[Page S12289]]

ships. That is what we are talking about when we talk about jobs.
  What about our national security? The more we become indebted to the 
Mideast oil-producing nations, the more leverage they have on us. It 
seems to me it is quite clear that there are a few people on this issue 
who clearly fail to recognize what is best for America.
  Our President has asked, time and time again, for an energy bill. The 
veterans: The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, 
the Vietnam Vets, the Catholic War Veterans; organized labor: The 
Seafarers International, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; 
the maritime labor unions; the operating engineers, the plumbers and 
pipefitters, the carpenters and joiners; the Hispanic community: The 
Latin American Management Association, the Latino Coalition, the United 
States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce; the 60-plus Seniors Coalition, the 
United Seniors Association; Jewish organizations, including the 
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and the Zionist 
Organization of America--I think we have a couple more that came in 
today that represent the opinions of America's Jewish lobby also there 
is the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance for 
Energy and Economic Growth.
  There are a few people whose voices ought to be heard who have 
expressed their opinion that it is in the national interest, the 
national security interest, to open up this area. I further refer to 
Americans for a Safe Israel. This is a letter dated November 13:

       Americans for a Safe Israel is strongly in support of your 
     amendment which would permit drilling for oil in the ANWR 
     area of Alaska. . . .
       We at Americans for a Safe Israel would be pleased if you 
     would include our organization among American Jewish 
     organizations in support of your amendment regarding oil 
     exploration in the ANWR.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                  Americans for a Safe Israel,

                                  New York, NY, November 30, 2001.
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: Americans for a Safe Israel is a 
     national organization with chapters throughout the country 
     and a growing membership including members living in other 
     countries. AFSI was founded in 1971, dedicated to the premise 
     that a strong Israel is essential to Western interests in the 
     Middle East.
       We have many Middle East experts on our committees, who 
     have authored texts on Israel and the Arab states and have 
     appeared in television interviews, forums, and on newspaper 
     op-ed pages. U.S. senators and representatives have been 
     guest speakers at AFSI annual conferences.
       Americans for a Safe Israel is strongly in support of your 
     amendment which would permit drilling for oil in the ANWR 
     area of Alaska. Your eloquence in addressing the Senate 
     yesterday and this morning should have convinced the 
     undecided that the arguments offered by senators in the 
     opposition, or by environmental activists, are not based on 
     the facts or realities in the ANWR and of our need for energy 
     independence.
       We at Americans for a Safe Israel would be pleased if you 
     would include our organization among American Jewish 
     organizations in support of your amendment regarding oil 
     exploration in the ANWR.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Herbert Zweibon,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, you have the Teamsters. I will read you 
a press release put out by the Teamsters today.

       (Washington, D.C.) The International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters today renewed their call for a fair vote on a 
     comprehensive energy plan before the U.S. Senate. The action 
     came as the Senate was preparing to consider a series of 
     procedural votes related to petroleum exploration in the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Minority Leader Trent Lott 
     has proposed an amendment to railroad retirement legislation 
     that would allow for ANWR exploration while also banning 
     human cloning for six months. . . .
       ``Teamster members in the railroad industry have worked 
     hard for a secure retirement,'' said James P. Hoffa, 
     Teamsters General President. ``It is unfortunate that Senator 
     Daschle is jeopardizing [Senator Daschle is jeopardizing] 
     this important legislation by denying the ANWR exploration a 
     separate floor vote. These two pieces of legislation deserve 
     to be passed on their own merits.''

  I certainly agree with him.
  He further states:

       ``Exploring in the ANWR is clearly the right thing to do,'' 
     Hoffa said. ``It will reduce our reliance on foreign oil 
     while creating thousands of jobs for working families. A vote 
     on the energy package must not be delayed any longer.''. . .
       Unfortunately, the Democratic Senate leadership has 
     attempted to thwart the will of the majority by refusing to 
     allow an energy vote to come to the Senate floor.

  That is the factual reality. The Democratic leadership has precluded 
us from having an up-or-down vote on an energy bill. So here we are 
today on a Monday afternoon arguing the merits of a very complex 
procedural situation involving railroad retirement as the underlying 
bill with amendments for cloning and amendments for H.R. 4, the House 
energy bill.
  For reasons unknown to me, the majority leader has indicated he is 
willing to take up a bill when we come back after the recess, but he 
will not tell us that he is willing to conclude it. If he were willing 
to, say, take it up when we come back, with the assurance that we would 
have an up-or-down vote, and preclude any situation where they would 
simply pull the bill down and not bring it up again, I would find that 
acceptable. If he would give us a time certain, such as when we come 
back to take up the bill, and then perhaps have a final vote on it 
prior to the February recess--we have suggested that to him, but so far 
he has declined.
  I encourage, again, the majority leader to consider the merits 
associated with getting up an energy bill because the more time that 
goes by the more difficult it is to simply ignore the issue.
  We have seen the national farmer support groups--and I just read 
here: The National Energy Security Act low-income fuel programs and a 
provision for oil exploration and production of a tiny portion of the 
Coastal Plain in the Arctic Wildlife--the Senate needs to pass this act 
this year.
  There is more and more heat coming on this issue as the general 
public recognizes the reality associated with developing this 
particular area where there is a likelihood of a major oil discovery.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I see the senior Senator from Alaska is in the 
Chamber. He may wish to be recognized at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator 
from Connecticut was in this Chamber addressing the Senate concerning 
the days that President Eisenhower and his administration considered 
lands in Alaska. That is of particular importance to me because I was 
there. I was the assistant to Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton. I 
was in the meetings with President Eisenhower. And I am happy to tell 
the Senate what the President did and what the Secretary of the 
Interior did. Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman has been misinformed.
  The Eisenhower administration withdrew 9 million acres of the 
northwest corner of Alaska as the Arctic Wildlife Range. It was the 
Arctic wildlife range, not a refuge.

  At that time the order specifically provided that oil and gas 
exploration and development would be permitted under stipulations to 
protect the flora, fauna, fish, and wildlife of that portion of Alaska. 
Subsequent administrations did not issue such stipulations so no oil 
and gas exploration took place. However, as time went by and I then 
became a Member of the Senate, we dealt with the settlement of the 
Alaska Native land claims. Those claims were settled by an act of 
Congress in 1971. In that basic law, which we called the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act, there was a provision in section 17(d)(2) that 
required the study of national interest lands in Alaska.
  That was one of the requirements that was demanded of us, that we 
agree to the study of which lands should be set aside in the national 
interest because the statehood act of Alaska gave the right to the 
State of Alaska to select 103.5 million acres of public land, vacant, 
unreserved and unappropriated land. And the 1971 Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act gave the Native people of Alaska the right to take 40 
million acres of Alaska land, plus some additional lands that would add 
up to about 45 million acres.

[[Page S12290]]

  The Congress, at the time the Native Claims Settlement Act was 
passed, was worried that such selections might impede the national 
interest. And there was a review undertaken of what lands should be set 
aside in the national interest.
  We worked for several years to try and get the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act passed. In the Congress ending in 1978, 
we did achieve the passage in both the House and Senate of a bill to 
satisfy the requirements for the 1971 Act, that section 17(d)(2), as I 
mentioned.
  Unfortunately, at the last minute of that Congress, just prior to 
adjournment, my former colleague Senator Gravel objected to the 
approval of the conference committee on that bill and required the 
reading of the legislation which was an extremely long bill. We had 
already agreed to an adjournment resolution and, in effect, that killed 
the bill for that period of time.
  In 1979, when we returned, we started working again on the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act. And by the time we finished 
it, the bill had been changed substantially from what it was in 1978. 
One thing did remain the same: The Arctic National Wildlife Range was 
changed from a range to a national wildlife refuge, and it was more 
than doubled in size. Of the original 9 million acres, that land was to 
be part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But a section authored 
by Senators Henry Jackson of Washington and Paul Tsongas of 
Massachusetts provided a compromise to meet the Alaska objection about 
the denial of the right to continue to explore the Arctic Plain.
  That is what we call section 1002 of the 1980 act. It provided for 
the right to proceed to explore that 1.5 million acres to determine if 
it had the potential for oil and gas and to have an environmental 
impact statement presented to the Congress and approved by the 
President and by the Secretary of Interior.
  That has happened. As a matter of fact, there has been more than one 
environmental impact statement. Presidents Reagan and Bush asked for 
the right to proceed for the exploration. That was denied by the 
Congress at that time.
  When President Clinton was in office, the Congress approved 
proceeding with the leasing of oil and gas on the 1.5 million acres, 
and President Clinton twice vetoed the bill. So where we are today is 
we are still trying to fulfill a commitment that was made to Alaska by 
two Democratic Senators in 1980 that we would have the opportunity to 
continue to explore for and develop the vast potential of the Arctic 
Plain. We have been trying since that time, of course, to obtain 
approval of it.

  The area we have now, the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, originally contained just 9 million up here in the corner. As I 
said, that was opened to oil and gas leasing. It included the coastal 
plain. It was part of the original Arctic wildlife range. What we are 
trying to do now is to once again fulfill the commitment made to us in 
section 1002 of the 1980 act that the analysis and exploratory 
activities may proceed.
  Unfortunately, this has become the icon of the radical environmental 
movement in the United States. People insist on coming to the floor and 
trying to tell the American people that this area was never intended to 
be explored. The commitment was made to us, and it was made to me 
personally, specifically, by Senator Paul Tsongas and Senator Henry 
Jackson that it would remain open. That was one of the reasons we did 
not object to the passage of the bill in 1980. The two of us who were 
here in 1978 were still here in 1980 when this bill passed. Senator 
Gravel and I agreed, because of the representations made to us by the 
two managers of the bill, that this land would remain open and could be 
explored. And if oil and gas was discovered, it could be produced from 
that area.
  It is probably the largest source of oil area in the United States. 
It is a sedimentary basin. It is the largest, probably, that we will 
ever see in the North American continent. Yet it goes unproduced 
because of the opposition of radical environmentalists who try to tell 
the American public something that is not true. This land has not been 
closed. It has never been closed to oil and gas exploration. But in 
order to proceed with the development in terms of production activity, 
it takes approval of an act of Congress signed by the President.
  We have been after that now for 21 years--even more if you go back to 
1971. It is 30 years we have been telling the American public: This is 
probably the greatest place on the North American continent to produce 
oil to meet our needs.
  I, for one, hope we will have an opportunity to debate it and vote on 
the merits of this bill during this Congress. I congratulate my friend 
and colleague Senator Murkowski for all he is doing to bring it to the 
attention of the American people.
  When the time comes later on this afternoon, I will talk about some 
of the opportunities we have to meet our needs. Too many people 
consider oil solely as gasoline. Less than half of a barrel of oil 
becomes gasoline. As a matter of fact, the barrel of oil goes into 
everyday products. Fifty-six percent of a barrel of oil that comes out 
of the ground becomes other products besides gasoline: home fuel, jet 
fuel, petrochemicals, asphalt, kerosene, lubricants, maritime fuel, and 
other products. Everything from Frisbees to panty hose comes from oil. 
Yet people talk about how to have alternative supplies of energy.
  Where do you get the 56 plus percent of the barrel of oil that goes 
into products other than gasoline? You just can't get it. Look at this, 
items made from oil: toothpaste, footballs, ink, lifejackets, soft 
contacts, fertilizer, compact discs. As a matter of fact, there is no 
question that one of the most versatile products known to man is 
petroleum. A barrel of oil is a barrel of gold for our economy. We need 
to talk more about what it means to open up the Arctic wildlife area, 
the 1002 area, which was guaranteed to be made available to us for oil 
and gas development.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If nobody yields time, time will be charged 
equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for the 
opponents of the Lott amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 21 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to proceed for such time as I may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will speak to some of the comments we 
just heard. I must say, I am a little bit disturbed that the quality 
the debate is already, to some degree, seeming to move into sort of a 
personal characterization about who is representing whom. I heard one 
Senator from Alaska suggest that all this is is an effort to 
smokescreen, that it is a membership drive for environmentalists. My 
very good friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, suggested that 
radical environmentalists are driving this issue. Well, I don't know 
who he is talking about. I haven't talked to any radical 
environmentalists. In fact, the fundamentals of my decision on this 
issue are not based on environmental choices; they are based on energy 
choices, based on economics, and they are based on the realities of the 
choices we face in this country about oil.
  I completely agree with the Senator from Alaska that some wonderful 
products that all of us use every day are oil-based. Indeed, we are 
going to continue to make those products. There is nobody here who is 
talking about eliminating one of those products--not one of them. Those 
products don't spit out emissions from the exhaust on the back of a 
vehicle that is contributing to the problem of global warming. Those 
products are used and manufactured--many of them--in very different 
ways. No one that I have heard in this debate is talking about not 
drilling for oil or not using oil. This country faces--I don't know--a 
40- to 50-year transition in order to begin to be able to really shift 
away from our dependency on oil.
  It happens that that 50-year curve also coincides very precisely with 
the problems we face on global warming. Ask any of the leading 
scientists in the

[[Page S12291]]

United States--not Senators, not people who go out and do fundraising 
and represent interests in the U.S. Senate--what they can tell you 
about what we face in terms of potential catastrophic--and I underscore 
that they use the word ``catastrophic''--climatic shifts about 50 years 
from now. That is precisely the amount of time we face with respect to 
the potential for weaning ourselves from the dependency on oil.
  Now, I hope we can stay away from these characterizations. I don't 
represent any group. I represent the State of Massachusetts. I 
represent my oath of office as a Senator to uphold the Constitution and 
look out for the welfare of our country. I believe the welfare of our 
country is better served when we begin to create a true, independent 
energy policy--a policy that brings us to independence from reliance on 
oil. That is going to take a long time. I have no illusions about that.
  There is no windmill that is going to substitute for that tomorrow. 
There is no renewable or biomass that is going to substitute tomorrow. 
It will take a period of transition and work. It is important that we 
deal with the realities of this debate. The Senator from Alaska is 
absolutely correct when he says that a 6-month supply is not the 
appropriate way to talk about this issue because that represents if the 
United States were cut off from all fuel. He is absolutely correct. A 
6-month supply--if you indeed have the amounts of oil some people 
suggest might be there--is only a viable number if there were no other 
suppliers from other places in the rest of the world. None of us are 
presuming, given our relationship with Great Britain, Venezuela, 
Mexico, and other countries in the world, including our increasingly 
renewed relationship with Russia, and our own production--nobody is 
really looking at that as the potential.

  This is a phony debate. The reason I say that is that I heard my 
colleagues trying to scare Americans into believing that they ought to 
somehow start digging in the Arctic because we are at war in 
Afghanistan, we have a threat in the Middle East, national security is 
at stake, and the military is at stake.
  We have heard veterans groups recited here. I am a cofounder of the 
Vietnam Veterans of America. I am a proud veteran. I am proud of my 
service. I know enough about the military and the military needs, the 
300,000 or so barrels a day the military might consume under these 
circumstances, to recognize that the 8 million barrels we produce in 
the United States is going to satisfy the needs in an emergency of the 
military.
  Moreover, Mr. President, let me suggest to you why this is such an 
artificial debate. There are more than 7,000 leases for oil and gas 
development in the Gulf of Mexico open for exploration and for 
development today. As I stand here on the floor of the Senate tonight, 
7,000 leases are open for exploration, more than 80 percent covering 32 
million acres, and are not producing oil. They are not drilling for 
oil. They could be. Anybody who comes to the Senate floor and says that 
today you have to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge because the 
United States is threatened is not telling the truth to the American 
people because the fact is that there are countless millions--32 
million, precisely, not countless. It is not just because they don't 
have oil that they are not drilling. They are not drilling because they 
are being mapped for future production or they are simply sitting idle 
by choice because the economics drive that choice.
  Individual companies that own leases have decided, for business 
reasons and most likely because of the oil price or infrastructure 
limitations, they are not going to develop those leases now. They are 
waiting for the price of oil to maximize profits. In fact, some 
companies--Exxon, to be precise--are letting their leases in the United 
States sit idle while they invest in Saudi Arabia and other countries.
  So don't let any Member of the U.S. Senate be cowed or stampeded into 
believing that this has anything to do with the current national 
security issue of Afghanistan or the Middle East. We have oil we could 
be drilling today.
  Moreover, 95 percent of the Alaska oil shelf is open for drilling--95 
percent of it.
  Here is an article from The Energy Report, July 30, 2001:

       Responding to increased industry interests in North Slope 
     gas, the State of Alaska plans to open up new acreage in the 
     North Slope foothills. . . .
       Governor Tony Knowles recently announced that beginning 
     next May the State would include additional acreage in the 7 
     million acre Foothills region in area-wide oil and gas lease 
     sales in its 2002-2006 leasing schedule. . . .

  Moreover:

       The Bureau of Land Management expects to hold a second oil 
     and gas lease sale in the northeast corner of the National 
     Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in June 2002. The agency will 
     reoffer approximately 3 million acres made available, but not 
     leased in the prior NPR-A sale in May 1999.

  There it is. So there is no rush here. In effect, what we have in the 
ground in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, should the United States ever be 
pushed to a corner and our back is up against the wall, we are at war 
or there is some circumstance where our allies have forsaken us, and we 
haven't been smart enough as a government to make the choices that we 
have today to move to alternatives and renewables and other forms of 
power, then we will have the most God-given ready natural Petroleum 
Strategic Reserve. Rather than buying it and putting it in the ground, 
it is in the ground, and we leave it there for that moment when the 
United States might need it.

  I believe the reason I am here opposing this--not at the behest of 
any group--is because I have for 30 years been watching the United 
States procrastinate. I remember as a young law student sitting in line 
at gas stations studying my torts and contracts while I was waiting an 
hour and a half to get gas. That was 1973. We were told: We have to be 
energy independent; we have to work at this.
  Then we imported 30 percent of our oil from other countries. Today we 
are over 50 percent. The fact is, there is one simple reality that our 
friends from Alaska avoid: 25 percent of the oil reserves of the world 
are in other countries. We use 25 percent. The United States of America 
uses 25 percent of the oil reserves, but we only have 3 percent. Any 
schoolkid can figure out that if you only have 3 percent of something 
and you are using 25 percent, you either stop using it or you are going 
to have to get it from those other people. That is exactly what we are 
stuck in today.
  No matter what figure we give the Senator from Alaska--if I take the 
top figure of the Department of the Interior--and say it is $16 billion 
and you amortize that out, 1 million barrels a day, 365 days a year, so 
it is 1 billion barrels every 3 years or so----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a 
question?
  Mr. KERRY. I want to finish what I am saying. We have very little 
time. We are going to have weeks to debate this when we come back in 
January, and I look forward to that debate to a great extent because 
that is when we are going to help America view the possibility of 
alternatives.
  For instance, in Europe, they have diesel engines. Their cars get 60 
miles to the gallon with a diesel engine. It is exactly as powerful as 
many of our cars. The cars can go as fast. If you want to break the 
speed limit with your 60-miles-per-gallon diesel, you can break the 
speed limit, but you get 60 miles doing it.
  We are going backwards. We used to get 27 miles per gallon. Now we 
are down to 22. We are doing worse than we were doing in 1973 when we 
said we would have to be energy independent.
  Mr. President, there is a long litany, all the way through the years, 
that world consumption of oil is about 70 million barrels a day. We 
produce 8 million barrels. The amount that we produce, even if we 
included additional oil from Alaska, will never be sufficient to impact 
the price of oil in the world market. So when my colleagues come to the 
Chamber and suggest we are going to somehow change the price or 
increase the supply on a long-term basis, that is not true, and I will 
document it.
  From 1972 to 1975, America produced more than 70 percent of our oil 
domestically. Oil prices climbed more than 400 percent when we produced 
it domestically. From 1979 through 1981, America produced more than 50 
percent of

[[Page S12292]]

its oil, and oil prices more than doubled. That spike was set off by a 
number of events: OPEC, the Iranian revolution, the Iranian hostage 
crisis, Middle Eastern production cuts, and the onset of the Iran-Iraq 
war.
  Through all of 1991, we produced 50 percent of our oil domestically. 
Oil prices doubled. In 1999, we produced slightly less than 50 percent 
of our oil. Oil prices tripled from the historic flows.

  The reverse has also been true. We have had low oil prices, and we 
have had high imports. When oil reached a near record low in the late 
1990s, guess what. Imports climbed over 50 percent.
  The fact is that U.S. production will not lower and stabilize the 
global price. Look at Great Britain. Great Britain is surplus in oil. 
Great Britain produces enough oil to export. They do not affect the 
global price as a consequence of even being independent. There is no 
British market for oil. Prices rise and fall in Britain with the world 
price, and we all know that for reasons of history, allegiance, 
economics, and national security, they are enmeshed in global affairs 
as we are.
  I will quote Lee Raymond, chairman and chief executive of 
ExxonMobile:

       The idea that this country can ever again be energy 
     independent is outmoded and probably was even in the era of 
     Richard Nixon. The point is that no industry in the world is 
     more globalized than our industry.

  The conservative Cato Institute has said:

       Even if all the oil we consumed in this country came from 
     Texas and Alaska, every drop of it, assume we didn't import 
     any oil from the Persian Gulf, prices would be just as high 
     today, and the main reason is that domestic prices will rise 
     to the world prices.

  That is the Cato Institute. Do not tell us in this Chamber this is 
going to affect independence. It is not. We cannot produce enough oil. 
Do not tell us it is going to affect world price because there is not 
an economist who suggests it will. Then the question is: So why are we 
doing this?
  There is a better way than this alternative. We need to wean 
ourselves from oil, and we need to engage in a program--H.R. 4 is an 
extraordinary giveaway program that does not do any of the things we 
need to do in energy policy to create a truly independent nation.
  I suggest this debate is going to be long, it is going to be 
interesting, and we are going to provide this country with a set of 
alternatives. I am all for helping the folks in Alaska. I admire the 
way both Senators are fighting for the people of their State, but we 
can find a better way to help the people in Alaska. There is an awful 
lot of oil. We should be building the natural gas pipeline tomorrow. If 
we want to help the people of Alaska, that is the best way we can 
create jobs.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am glad to have been here when the 
Senator from Massachusetts was speaking. He is a friend. We have 
visited one another and have shared the privilege of having wives who 
are great friends.
  I say to my friend from Massachusetts, I hope if I ever stand on the 
floor of the Senate and make a pledge on behalf of the people of Alaska 
to do something for Massachusetts that my successors will honor that. I 
stood here and debated with the predecessor of the Senator from 
Massachusetts for a long period of time in 1977, 1978, and 1979. We 
finally ended up in Senator Jackson's hideaway for 3 days around the 
clock, and I mean around the clock.
  We reached a conclusion, and that conclusion was an offer from the 
Senator from Massachusetts to me. It was: We will set aside 1.5 million 
acres up there so you can go ahead with that oil and gas development, 
but let us create this system of withdrawals in this State. Almost 100 
million acres in Alaska were set aside at that time.
  For 9 years in this Chamber we debated what was a national interest 
of Alaska's land. Nine years, Mr. President, and the Senator from 
Massachusetts, God rest his soul, Paul Tsongas, said in Senator 
Jackson's office: We can work this out. If you are willing to be 
reasonable, we will be reasonable. We will guarantee you that 1.5 
million acres will be explored. Look at his record. In fact, when the 
time comes to get down to debating whether or not this bill will pass, 
I hope it will be considered by the Senate as the Alaska pipeline was, 
as that 1980 act was: without filibuster. The pipeline was made 
available to people in the United States by one vote. Vice President 
Agnew broke the tie and gave us the Alaska pipeline, which has brought 
13 billion barrels of oil to the United States.
  I hear the estimates that we have nothing more than a 6-month supply 
in ANWR. That is ridiculous. At the time we were debating the Alaska 
pipeline, they told us there would be approximately 1 billion barrels 
of oil, if you are successful. We have already produced 13 billion 
barrels of oil, and we have a 15- to 20-year supply at the current 
rate, but that is not keeping the pipeline full.
  People say: Why do you want to go ahead with ANWR now? During the 
Persian Gulf war, there were 2.1 million barrels a day of oil sent to 
the south 48 from the Alaska pipeline. Today, it is 1.2. The pipeline 
is no longer full. The cost of Alaskan oil is going up because it is 
not full. We know there is oil to be produced.
  This 6-month supply theory is a very interesting thing. I will stand 
on the other side of my chart so my friend can see it perhaps. This is 
a chart that shows what happens with increased production. If we have 
no new production in Alaska, this is the flow of oil out to 2050. If we 
produce in the Central part of Alaska, this is the flow of additional 
oil. If we go through the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska--which 
is another area set aside, by the way, by President Harding after the 
Teapot Dome. It has never really been produced. Again, my friend does 
not like to be called a radical environmentalist. I think that is 
better than extreme environmentalist. In any event, this oil is not 
available to us because we cannot get in there to drill, either.
  The important thing is, this is ANWR. If ANWR comes in, this is the 
increase in oil over this period between now and 2050 to the United 
States. Look at it. It is more than what is there now. We believe there 
is more oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area which is 1.5 
million acres that was set aside for oil and gas production than we 
have in all of Alaska's remaining lands now.
  This area is the most important area for our energy sufficiency. I am 
not talking about energy independence. It may be we could not get to be 
energy independent, but think about this: This area is basically not 
available to us. Access to the major pieces of the Outer Continental 
Shelf is not available to us. The entire NPRA is not available to us, 
and ANWR is not available to us. Look what would happen in the next 20 
years if we did have it available to us. We would get up to the point 
where we are producing a great deal more, more than twice as much oil 
as we have available today from domestic production. Now that is energy 
sufficiency and it is energy independence in the sense of being able to 
exist through a period of crisis with our own production.
  My friend wants to ask a question. I am glad to answer any question 
he has.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, that very large increase 
of blue is based on the best assumption of what might be findable, am I 
correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. No, that is not correct. That is the medium assumption.
  Mr. KERRY. How many billions of barrels does that assume would be 
present?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is 10.3 billion barrels.
  Again, I point out to my friend from Massachusetts, the estimate for 
the existing area of Prudhoe Bay was 1 billion barrels. We have 
produced 13 billion so far.
  The mean estimate is 10.3. We believe it is a lot bigger than that. 
If oil is there, it is big. It is the biggest sedimentary basin on the 
North American continent if it contains oil. We do not know yet, but we 
will not know until we drill.
  The real point is, though, we can have a decided improvement in our 
ability to rely upon our own sources in the event of a crisis if we 
really go in and open up this area and it is producible. Remember, it 
takes an act of Congress to open up. It is the only place in the United 
States where the Mineral Leasing Act was qualified by a provision of 
Congress, and I agreed to that. That was a Tsongas provision. It will

[[Page S12293]]

take an act of Congress, passed by both Houses and signed by the 
President, to do this oil and gas exploration.

  The area remains subject to oil and gas exploration until it has been 
explored. This will not become part of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge until it is explored. It is reserved for oil and gas 
exploration, in effect, until we get permission to go in to see if it 
is there or not.
  Mr. INOUYE. Will my good friend yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. INOUYE. When we speak of ANWR, what are we talking about?
  Mr. STEVENS. We are talking about the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  Mr. INOUYE. How large is that acreage?
  Mr. STEVENS. It is 19 million acres. It was 9 million acres before 
1980 as the Arctic Wildlife Range.
  Mr. INOUYE. Of that, how much is proposed to be set aside?
  Mr. STEVENS. This entire 19 million acre area is the size of South 
Carolina. Of that, 1.5 million acres was set aside as the Coastal Plain 
for oil and gas exploration. Of that 1.5 million acres area, we need 
just 2,000 acres to reach the vast amounts of oil and gas.
  Mr. INOUYE. It is a small part of it?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Hawaii asked a very good question. At 
the time that Prudhoe Bay was developed, we did not have today's 
advanced technologies, such as horizontal drilling. We can access the 
oil and gas from the entire 1.5 million acre area of this sedimentary 
basin from just 2,000 acres.
  Mr. INOUYE. I recall during the pipeline debate many of my colleagues 
and friends were suggesting the pipeline would decimate the caribou 
flock. I gather now that it has increased tenfold.
  Mr. STEVENS. In parts of the State, it has increased nearly tenfold. 
In the area of the pipeline, this 800-mile pipeline, without question 
every one of the herds has increased by at least a magnitude of 4, some 
as much as 9 times. In fact, two of the herds now stay nearer to 
production areas because the food and the improvement of their habitat 
has been so great.
  By the way, because of acts of the oil industry, they went to our 
university and developed new strains of grasses and new approaches to 
vegetation, and those caribou herds do not migrate at all. The one that 
comes to the plain of the Arctic area into this 1002 area each year, it 
comes in from Canada. It migrates up. It spends 6 weeks up in the 
summertime. The Senator's question is very pertinent.
  Mr. INOUYE. The pipeline has not decimated the caribou flock?
  Mr. STEVENS. It has not, and this will not either because we do not 
do oil and gas exploration in the summertime when they are there. We 
have committed to be certain there would be no interference with the 
caribou migration.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for his questions.
  What I think is important to do is to make sure the people understand 
that because of the decline in the through-put of that pipeline, the 
Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline, we now are sending less than half of the 
amount it was designed to carry on an average day to the Lower 48. It 
was filled because of the discovery of the great Prudhoe Bay oilfield, 
and there was a second field discovered at Kuparuk. This area has 
produced, as I said, 13 billion barrels of oil so far. One of the 
sadnesses I have, as I have already indicated, is that we had a 
commitment. That 1980 act would not have become law if the Senators 
from Alaska had opposed it. The whole Congress knew that. It had almost 
become law in 1978 and my colleague objected, and we went back through 
the process. The process came to fruition at the end of 1980. The act 
passed before the election. President Carter did not sign this bill 
before the election. After the election but before leaving office, 
after President Reagan had been elected in the fall of 1980, President 
Carter signed it. In fact, he invited me to come to the White House at 
the time. President Carter signed that bill, and he and others now 
raise objection to the provisions of the law he signed into law.

  It is the feeling that one Congress cannot bind another, but the 
statement of a Senator representing a State and a party ought to be 
binding upon the Senate. We had exchange after exchange over the 1980 
Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act, and I thought those 
commitments were worth believing. I believed it when the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Senator Tsongas, said he would stand by this concept of 
a promise that this area would be explored and developed if it proved 
to have oil and gas. I trusted my late and dear friend Senator Henry 
Scoop Jackson of Washington when he called us up to his office and said 
we have to listen to Senator Tsongas because he is making an offer that 
is real; it was real.
  Twenty years later, I am still in the Senate arguing for the Senate 
to observe the commitments that were made to our State and to the 
people of the United States.
  While I have this chart, I hope everyone will understand--the Senator 
from Hawaii asked about it--this is the State of Alaska, obviously. 
Alaska is one-fifth the land mass of the United States, 20 percent. It 
extends from one end of the Lower 48 to the other. It is almost as wide 
as the United States, and from Barrow down to Ketchikan it is like 
going from Duluth to New Orleans. This is an enormous area.
  People ask: Why don't they go out here to NPRA and develop leases? 
Because there is no transportation system. It takes a monstrous 
development of oil to support an 800-mile pipeline and run it a full 
365 days a year. Currently, we are running half full.
  The wilderness area is the area colored in brown, the 1002 area on 
the Coastal Plain is in green. It was guaranteed to Alaska to be 
available for oil and gas exploration. With new technology, we propose 
to use just 2,000 acres. It is impossible to believe there is such a 
battle over that. I point out, in this we call the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain, set aside for oil and gas exploration, 
is a native village, the village of Kaktovik. Adjacent is the Sourdough 
Oil Field. And 100 miles west are the two largest deposits of oil and 
gas on the North American Continent today and they are both producing.
  Why do we do this? What is the national interest now? If ANWR is 
open, 735,000 jobs will be created throughout the United States to get 
parts, people, produce--everything that is necessary to develop an area 
and support its development that far away from what we call the 
contiguous 48 States.
  This is a forecast made and relied upon by the great labor unions of 
this country that I am proud to say are supporting our position that 
this area ought to be opened to oil and gas development. The Senator 
from Massachusetts said we should build a gas pipeline. Yes, we should. 
However, a gas pipeline is more affected by price than the oil 
pipeline. Gas in our country fluctuates in great variation. Just 18 
months ago we saw rolling blackouts in California and record high 
natural gas prices. Now that is not going on because of a different 
price structure and infrastructure for delivering the resource and 
varying market conditions.
  What we do not have is another enormous areas in the United States to 
explore and develop with the same potential of the Arctic Plain.
  Despite everything I have said, I will oppose the cloture vote for 
this amendment. I believe the underlying bill, the Railroad Retirement 
Act, is essential to a great portion of the families of our working 
people who have retired. I deplore the fact we have to have a cloture 
vote to get this bill acted upon. Having our own bill up there will 
mean, because of the passage of time, now we have to the end of this 
Congress. When we first started this we thought we had time to get H.R. 
4 considered and the Railroad Retirement Act passed, too. I don't see 
that happening now. I intend to vote against cloture, although our 
provision is in it, even though the ANWR provision is in H.R. 4. We 
ought to get down to the business that is very meaningful to a great 
number of families. There are some families in Alaska affected by 
railroad retirement issues, but only a few.
  The families of former railroad workers should be assured we are 
considerate of their needs and understand their position. I hope that 
bill will pass, go to conference, and be approved after a conference. I 
understand there are a couple of provisions to which the administration 
has objected. I hope they can be resolved. I don't think they

[[Page S12294]]

affect the basic provision of the retirement system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I comment relative to the statement by 
the senior Senator from the State of Alaska. Our President has asked 
specifically that the Democratic leadership pass three bills: Trade 
promotion, energy, and the economic stimulus bill. It seems to me the 
leadership has been reluctant to do so. The justification for that is 
beyond me other than, clearly, it is fair to say the objections, to a 
large degree, are centered around the energy bill.
  I will continue my dialog relative to what we are doing. It is Monday 
afternoon and we have an underlying railroad retirement bill with two 
amendments: One is cloning and the other is H.R. 4, the energy bill. To 
make sure anyone that perhaps has misunderstood the statements on the 
other side relative to the tax portion, in our bill there is no 
provision for tax increases. That $33 billion in the House bill is not 
in this version of H.R. 4. The inconsistency is because the Democratic 
leader has refused to negotiate on the requests of our President: Trade 
promotion, energy, and the economic stimulus. Instead, he is moving 
ahead, now with the railroad retirement and the farm bill next.
  Is it not rather interesting that we cannot at this time get an 
energy bill up when, clearly, we have a crisis in the Middle East? It 
is interesting to reflect on the comments associated with the 
leadership in the Senate. It is clear that the Senator is blocking a 
vote precisely for one reason. He knows Alaskans have the votes to pass 
out an energy bill in this body if given an opportunity. Has he given 
this opportunity to us? Clearly, he has not. He has indicated in 
several statements: My comment is we will raise the issue, debate it, 
and have a good opportunity to consider energy legislation prior to the 
Founders Day break in mid-February.
  If the leader would conclude by suggesting we would resolve it by 
then, in other words, by Founders' Day, or at some specific time, then 
I think we could have a fair vote. All we are asking is for a fair vote 
on the issue.
  He indicated further: There will be votes on ANWR, but I'm not at 
this point ready to commit to an up-or-down vote.
  He is saying we will have to overcome a cloture vote. We cannot have 
a simple majority vote. The inconsistency goes further. Senator Stevens 
references several items; I go back to a personal item, the attitude of 
the people living in the North Slope of Alaska. Those who have gone up 
there and taken advantage of the invitation have come back with the 
sincere appreciation and understanding that these people are Americans, 
they have a right to life, they have a right to look towards a future 
based on reasonable economic development prospects, health benefits, 
and so forth.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record upon completion 
of my statement a letter from the president of the Arctic Slope 
Corporation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit No. 1.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. He indicates:

       Dear Representative: The decision to allow oil and gas 
     development in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife has significant impacts on our effort to make a 
     success of the very directive of Congress in ANCSA. Our self 
     determination is at stake. It is fundamentally unfair, 
     dishonest, and potentially unlawful to deny us the right to 
     see our land and the small area of the Coastal Plain opened 
     to exploration of development. Congress made a deal with our 
     people and we have tried hard to play by the rules.
  Now it is denying us that progress.

  Here is a picture of a building in Kaktovik, including the community 
hall. There are two people, the boy on the bicycle and the older man on 
the snow machine, which represents the significance of the picture. We 
have some other pictures here showing some of the kids. I do this so we 
can get a feel for the real, warm, personal association of what this 
means to the people of Kaktovik.

  The letter further states:

       By locking up ANWR, the Inupiat people are asked to become 
     museum pieces, not a dynamic and living culture. We are asked 
     to suffer the burdens of locking up our lands forever as if 
     we were in a zoo or on display for the rich tourists that can 
     afford to travel to our remote part of Alaska. This is not 
     acceptable.

  I think that is an appropriate comment.
  Further:

       The Inupiat of the North Slope have lived and subsisted 
     across the Arctic for thousands of years. Learning not only 
     to survive, but to develop a rich culture, in the harsh 
     environment of the Arctic has instilled a deep respect and 
     appreciation in the Inupiat Eskimo people for that 
     environment and the animals that inhabit our area. We don't 
     need outside ``environmentalists'' telling what to do with 
     our homelands. Our own development standards and the controls 
     imposed by our locally controlled borough government will 
     ensure that these lands are protected. It is our people that 
     live in ANWR, particularly the Coastal Plain of ANWR. . . .

  He concludes this letter by saying:

       I beseech you to search in your heart to do what is right 
     for my people. Do not let the misguided intent of a few do 
     harm to the Inupiat Eskimo. Do not defeat the very Act you 
     passed a generation ago. Support the passage of legislation 
     to open the Coastal Plain of ANWR to oil and gas development. 
     I and my people--the real people--thank you for consideration 
     of our request.

  That is the reference in the reflection from the people who are 
affected by this action.
  We have little notes here, many of them supporting opening the ANWR 
development because it gives them opportunities. These are 
opportunities that your children and my children perhaps take for 
granted. What are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to be 
isolated? They have a landmass of about 95,000 acres I can show you on 
this chart. There it is, right in the middle of the 1002 area, right in 
the middle of the 1.9 million acres of land we are talking about. But 
95,000 is private land, owned by these Native people. Until Congress 
gives them the right to initiate exploration, they cannot even drill 
for natural gas on their own lands to heat their own homes. That is an 
absolute injustice. None of the speakers talks about the people of the 
area. They ignore the people. They do not want to acknowledge that 
there is any existence of a footprint of man up there. That is a rather 
blatant and I think inappropriate way to simply dismiss this matter.
  The assumption is this area has never been touched. It has been 
touched. There is the village of Kaktovik, the people who live there, 
their homes, their generators. They have a dependence on a way of life. 
By putting a fence around them and not allowing the appropriate 
opening, we clearly are disenfranchising them as some other class of 
American citizens. I find that terribly offensive.
  I think each Member should reflect a little bit on the realities. I 
have to acknowledge my expertise based on having visited the area, 
having met with the people, and having an understanding. But my 
opponents can just generalize and brush it off, that the concerns of 
the people of the area do not amount to anything.
  Furthermore, as we look at some of the statements that have been made 
about the coastal area--I am going to put up a chart. The statement has 
been made that 95 percent of the coastal area is open for leasing. That 
is absolutely wrong. That is absolutely wrong. Mr. President, 14 
percent of Alaska's arctic coastal lands are open for oil and gas 
exploration. There it is. It covers the entire breadth from the 
Canadian boundary, past Point Barrow, around to Point Wales.
  The fact is, only 14 percent of Alaska's arctic coastal lands are 
open to oil and gas exploration. These are the lands that are owned by 
the State of Alaska between the Colville and Canning Rivers. If the 
ANWR Coastal Plain were open to exploration, the total would only rise 
to 25 percent.
  The breakdown on that is that the ANWR Coastal Plain is 11 percent, 
ANWR is about 5, the National Petroleum Reserve is 52 percent. That 
area is not open. If you look at the area, you can see numerous lakes. 
There is legitimate environmental concern associated with activity in 
those areas, and that is why leases have not been granted by the 
Department of the Interior.
  As we look through the general discussion on this issue, all we want 
is an up-or-down vote on the issue of an energy bill. That energy bill 
should contain ANWR.
  The position we have been put in is rather extraordinary. As a 
Senator, I

[[Page S12295]]

resent it. The authority has been taken away from the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It has been 
taken over by the Democratic leadership; they say they will introduce a 
bill very soon, perhaps this week. But that bill has not had a hearing, 
it has not gone through the Energy Committee.

  We have had 14 years or more of ANWR in the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. We have had over 50 witnesses. We have had over 14 
hearings. We are ready to go with a bill that has already passed the 
House of Representatives. That is H.R. 4. That is what is before us 
now.
  As a consequence, what the Democratic leadership has decided to do is 
simply take away the authorization from the committee process and 
direct it simply from the office of the majority leader to the floor of 
the Senate.
  I do not know whether that is the kind of debate he is talking about 
at a later date, but I am not going to sit by and lose opportunities to 
object to unanimous consent request until we get some kind of agreement 
from the Democratic leadership that we can have an up-or-down vote on 
an energy bill in a time sequence that reflects the ability to complete 
it.
  The idea of coming in when we come back in January and starting a 
debate on the issue, and then pulling it down, is just not good enough.
  I think the support associated with this issue has gained a broad 
enough base that we could simply demand it, and the political downside 
to it, from those who are in opposition to it, I think is significant. 
What you are going to have to do is vote on what is right for America. 
If we do not develop this area in Alaska, we are going to bring in oil 
to California, Washington, Oregon--the west coast of the United States. 
Do you know how it is going to come in? It is going to come in foreign 
vessels, not come down in U.S. flagged vessels, as Alaska oil must come 
down under the Jones Act. It is not going to result in 19 new double-
hulled tankers being built to bring Alaska's oil down to the west 
coast. It is going to come down in foreign tankers with foreign crews. 
So we are looking at a stimulus package. We are looking at jobs.
  To suggest it is a 6-month supply, Senator Kerry already acknowledged 
that was not a fair association. To suggest it is a 10-year process is 
totally unrealistic. We could have oil flowing within 18 to 24 months 
because we only have to put in a lateral pipeline. To suggest the 
Porcupine caribou herd is going to be impoverished is absolutely 
without foundation, based on our experience with the central arctic 
herd that has grown from 3,000 to 26,000.
  Take them down the line. The emotional arguments used are based on 
environmental groups that use this issue for membership and dollars, 
and it has been great for them. The American public is starting to wake 
up now and say: Hey, wait a minute, why can't we open there? Don't we 
need the jobs? Don't we have a recession in jobs? This is going to 
create 240,000 jobs. We need to have jobs in this country. We need to 
build ships in our shipyards.
  I grant we are not going to eliminate our dependence on imported oil, 
but we can reduce it. Isn't that good for America? Isn't that good for 
the balance of payments? These are positive. That is why the unions are 
for it. The environmentalists are saying, no, you can't do it, but they 
give different reasons, none of which holds water or oil. They simply 
are a flash in the pan.
  When you start looking at the groups that support this, it is a broad 
group. It is the veterans. It is the unions. It is the senior citizens. 
It goes right down the line, on and on. These people are saying: Let's 
wake up to a reality. The reality is we need this action in the United 
States, and we need it now, and we should have it.
  As we look at the general list of those who support it, it is growing 
all the time. We have all the major Jewish organizations.
  Let's reflect on their individual interests. The Jewish organizations 
look at the future of Israel, as they should. They look at it very 
meaningfully because of what has happened in that part of the world. 
They know what funds terrorism. It is oil. The wealth of OPEC and the 
wealth in areas associated with that part of the world is accumulated 
primarily by one thing. That is the accumulation of oil. What funds bin 
Laden? Where did his association with Saudi Arabia and his background 
with those things come from? Those things came, very frankly, from the 
association with oil.
  As we look at the current situation with Saddam Hussein, how ironic. 
How inconsistent can we be? I have said this in this Chamber time and 
time again. I know the Chair recalls it. We are buying a million 
barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein. We are using his oil to go back and 
take out his targets. He uses our cash for an obvious purpose: To take 
care of his Republican Guard, and perhaps develop missile capability 
and aim it at Israel.
  What has happened? This should bear on the conscience of every 
Member. Within the last 2 weeks, we have lost two American sailors. 
They were doing their job. They were boarding a ship coming out of one 
of the ports in Iraq that was smuggling illegal oil. It was apprehended 
by the U.S. Navy. The ship sank, and two of our sailors drowned.
  Talk about connections and interactions. I will not make a direct 
link. But the pathetic part of this is that should never have happened. 
We should not be buying oil from Saddam Hussein. The U.N. in their 
oversight of that particular process should not be allowing blatantly 
illegal exports of oil out of Iraq. It is happening every day. It has 
cost us two lives.
  When we get down to voting on these measures, we have to look at what 
is right for the environment, right down the line: Can we open it 
safely? What is the footprint? It is 2,000 acres out of 19 million 
acres. It was said the other day Robert Redford has an 11,000-acre farm 
in Utah, as a matter of comparison. Can we protect the caribou? Yes. Do 
we need the oil? Yes. Do we need the jobs? Yes. Does it affect the 
economy of this country? Yes. Does it affect our balance of payments? 
It is a plus-plus-plus. Almost everybody can figure it out, except some 
people who are wedded to the dictate of America's environmental 
community.
  The most pathetic part of it is, with one exception, the speakers 
today have never chosen to visit the area. They have never chosen to 
talk to the people who live in the area. They have never thought to 
consider the personal relationship of these people and their own hopes 
and aspirations.
  As we look at the coming situation, I can honestly say I fear for the 
west coast of the United States because if they don't get their oil 
from Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, and Utah are going to get 
their oil directly from overseas in foreign flagged vessels built in 
foreign yards with foreign crews. It seems to me the most secure source 
you can get it from is a little north of the west coast. That happens 
to be in my State of Alaska.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen and one-half minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I think it is important for Members to recognize just what my 
position is in this rather awkward situation with railroad retirement 
and the energy bill.

  I regret that the majority leader has placed us in the situation we 
are now in, but we are here. I want to explain why I will oppose 
cloture on both the Lott amendment and the substitute amendment the 
majority leader offered. As a consequence, I will be voting against 
cloture.
  I will oppose cloture on the Lott amendment for two reasons.
  First, I have always said our national energy security demands a 
full, open, and honest debate. We have been precluded from having a 
full debate on this issue. The time may come when cloture needs to be 
invoked on the legislature on a particular amendment, but not at the 
outset. Cloture on the Lott amendment would limit that full, open, and 
honest debate. I don't believe it should be limited.
  Second, the authorization text of H.R. 4 was filed--the House-passed 
energy measure. This is not the text that I believe the Senate should 
enact without change.
  There are a variety of amendments that I believe the Senate should 
consider. One is an extension of Price-Anderson. That will be 
foreclosed as nongermane if cloture is invoked.
  As you may know, I am more than a little frustrated that we have been 
sitting around here when we could have

[[Page S12296]]

been debating an energy bill from the Energy Committee. But that 
opportunity was taken away by the Democratic leader.
  I am going to vote against cloture on the Daschle substitute because 
he has offered no other alternative apparently for the remainder of 
this year. If cloture is invoked, the Lott amendment falls as 
nongermane.
  Once again, the majority leader has frustrated the Senate and the 
American people in dealing with the energy policy. When I say 
``frustrated,'' I mean not allowing it to come up--taking it away from 
the authority of the Energy Committee, which has jurisdiction.
  Until we get this matter resolved, there is the only way that the 
Senate can debate energy policy--by defeating both cloture motions. If 
both cloture motions are defeated, where will we be? H.R. 10, the House 
pension reform bill, will be before the Senate, and the Daschle 
substitute on railroad retirement will remain intact. Pending will be 
the Lott amendment that adds energy legislation to the Daschle 
substitute, and that amendment will be open to a second-degree 
amendment.
  I fully support dealing with railroad retirement. In fact, I am going 
to vote for it.
  If the majority leader would stop this charade with our national 
security and provide an opportunity for the Senate to work its will on 
energy and proceed to conference with the House on H.R. 4, I would be 
happy to take my charts out of the back office. As it is, the closest 
we seem to get to the consideration of an energy bill is perhaps a lump 
of coal in the majority leader's stocking.
  The only way for the Senate at this time to have a full, open, and 
honest debate on energy policy is to defeat both cloture motions and 
begin that debate, which we are ready to do.
  I apologize again for the manner in which this has come up, but the 
majority leader has given us no alternative. Apparently he intends to 
proceed that way. We will have to use whatever parliamentary precedents 
are available to get this bill up, or get a commitment from the 
majority letter that he will allow an energy bill to be taken up at a 
certain time and conclude it by a certain time. I will not agree to 
simply take it up and not giving us some kind of inclusive date on it.
  I yield the floor.

                             Exhibit No. 1


                                  Arctic Slope Regional Corp.,

                                     Anchorage, AK, July 30, 2001.
       Dear Representative: I am writing this letter on behalf of 
     my people--the indigenous residents of the North Slope of 
     Alaska. Thirty years ago the U.S. Congress put us on a path 
     to modern corporate development with the passage of the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and establishment 
     of our regional corporation--the Arctic Slope Regional 
     Corporation. Congress essentially told us (we rally had no 
     choice) to take some cash and land, in exchange for our 
     aboriginal land claims, and ``have a go at'' making those 
     assets into an economic enterprise. Despite the fact that 
     most of the potentially valuable lands for resource 
     development were off limits to our initial selection of 
     lands, we made the best of it and put together a land 
     portfolio with resource and habitat values. We now find 
     ourselves with our fate once again in the hands of Congress.
       The decision to allow oil and gas development in the 
     Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife has significant 
     impacts on our effort to make a success of the very directive 
     of Congress in ANCSA. Our self determination is at stake. It 
     is fundamentally unfair, dishonest and potentially unlawful 
     to deny us the right to see our land and the small area of 
     the Coastal Plain opened to exploration and development. 
     Congress made a deal with my people and we have tried to play 
     by the rules--now it is denying us that promise. The 
     corporate model imposed by ANCSA was an intentional decision 
     by Congress to avoid the path pursued with Native American 
     tribes in the lower 48 states and their history of broken 
     treaties. Now, however, we find ourselves in a situation of 
     having the commitments made in the potential benefits of 
     ANCSA for the Inupiat people being ``broken''.
       We have tried to keep our side of the bargain, even if we 
     did not have a choice and gave up many, many times the value 
     of what was received in return. The Inupiat people have taken 
     the values of the western culture and corporate America and 
     the traditional values of our people to blend them into a 
     culture that will survive far into the future. Our 
     subsistence lifestyles and ties to the land and sea continue 
     while we also participate in a cash economy. We have 
     made strides in educating our people and providing basic 
     services that simply did not exist in any form in our 
     communities when ANCSA was passed. ANCSA was a great 
     social experiment that has had many successes. But it now 
     appears that Congress does not want to keep its side of 
     the deal; it wants to defeat the very experiment it 
     mandated must be followed. By locking up ANWR, the Inupiat 
     people are asked to become museum pieces, not a dynamic 
     and living culture. We are asked to suffer the burdens of 
     locking up our lands forever as if we were in a zoo or on 
     display for the rich tourists that can afford to travel to 
     our remote part of Alaska. This is not acceptable. But, 
     maybe we shouldn't be surprised.
       The Inupiat people that live in ANWR, the residents of the 
     village of Kaktovik, are no stranger to the heavy hand of the 
     federal government. It was not that many years ago that the 
     U.S. military came to the village of Kaktovik and bulldozed 
     homes of people without the smallest amount of human dignity 
     or respect for the people living there. There was no 
     explanation, no compensation and no apology to the families 
     that were literally thrown out of their homes--and it 
     happened more than once. Anecdotal comments after the fact 
     indicated that the officials involved considered the Eskimo 
     people's homes ``just shacks'' anyway and the people 
     themselves hardly due treatment as human beings. These are 
     well documented but seldom told stories. This history hardly 
     gives the Inupiat people faith that they can expect fair 
     treatment at the hands of the federal government. To have the 
     purposes of ANCSA so boldly frustrated only makes this worse.
       The Inupiat of the North Slope have lived and subsisted 
     across the Arctic for thousands of years. Learning not only 
     to survive, but to develop a rich culture, in the harsh 
     environment of the Arctic has instilled a deep respect and 
     appreciation in the Inupiat Eskimo people for that 
     environment and the animals that inhabit our area. We don't 
     need outside ``environmentalists'' telling what to do with 
     our homelands. Our own development standards and the controls 
     imposed by our locally controlled borough government will 
     ensure that these lands are protected. It is our people that 
     live in ANWR, particularly the Coastal Plain of ANWR, because 
     we are traditionally a marine coastal and nomadic people. We 
     are fully capable of balancing development and environmental 
     protection for the long term value of the entire nation. For 
     us it's a matter of life or death; we do not eat without the 
     animals. Our life and our culture are tied to the land, the 
     sea and the animals. Even with the changes brought about by 
     ANCSA and a developing cash economy, our people maintain 
     these ties. But, do not ask us to give up all chances for 
     realizing the promises of ANCSA and bear the burden of 
     supposedly preserving an area for the entire nation. That is 
     patently unfair and misguided because it is not threatened by 
     the small amount of development that would actually occur for 
     oil and gas activities. Furthermore, none of this development 
     would take place in the areas of ANWR that are classified 
     already as wilderness where so many of the scenic vistas are 
     located that have been used to cloud the issue about 
     development on the more northern Coastal Plain.
       Much has been said about who are the ``real'' people of 
     ANWR that are at risk by potential oil and gas development. 
     It is the residents of Kaktovik that live there. While the 
     Gwichin to the south also use the caribou that migrate 
     through the ANWR area, they are not Inupiat which is 
     literally translated as the ``real people.'' Years ago we 
     might have feared development, but we have learned that 
     development and subsistence can coexist. The Gwichin chose to 
     opt out of the provisions of ANCSA, that was their choice. 
     Their position, which we still feel is fundamentally flawed, 
     should not be allowed to frustrate the commitments of ANCSA 
     that we did choose to accept.
       I beseech you to search in your heart to do what is right 
     for my people. Do not let the misguided intent of a few do 
     harm to the Inupiat Eskimo. Do not defeat the very Act you 
     passed a generation ago. Support the passage of legislation 
     to open the Coastal Plain of ANWR to oil and gas development. 
     I and my people--the real people--thank you for consideration 
     of our request. Quanukpuk.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Jacob Adams,

                                                        President,
                                Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today's vote on the Lott amendment will be 
the beginning of the debate on two very important issues. One of them 
has to do with an energy bill, which, as we all know, our majority 
leader has scheduled for debate in less than 60 days.
  This particular version contains drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, as my colleague has discussed for many days now.
  My view is that if there are other ways to have an energy policy that 
leaves the wildlife refuge intact, I am for it. I will point out ways 
to avoid drilling in such a refuge.
  The second issue that is combined with it deals with stem cell 
research.
  In our vote, we will answer the question: Should we in this single 
vote not only say yes to drilling in ANWR but also say yes to derailing 
stem cell research by stopping it dead in its tracks, really, without 
looking at it?

[[Page S12297]]

  I don't see any problem in banning human cloning. I think we would 
get 100 to 0 on that one. It is a very easy thing that we can do. But 
why would we want to derail stem cell research?
  I am certainly willing to vote no on the Lott amendment that contains 
both of these issues: Drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge and 
stopping stem cell research.
  The Senator from Alaska is quite open on the point of drilling and 
makes the case very well.
  He brings up a number of issues. First of all, he criticizes people 
who are for retaining the wildlife refuge if they have not actually 
gone to see it. Let me say that many of us have and some of us have 
tried. I sent one of my top environmental aides there and got a full 
report on it.
  The bottom line is, the Senator from Alaska and others have not seen 
every single national park, have not been into the Sierras in my State, 
into every little town. Yet they weigh in on logging debates. So that 
is a bogus issue.
  The issue is, How do we have better energy independence? I think I 
speak with some authority--a little bit, in any event--because in our 
State of California, we were hit with a horrific shortage of 
electricity, and it was even predicted we would have brownouts and 
blackouts and there would be rioting in the streets. The bottom line 
is, because the people in my State understood this, they began to be 
energy efficient, making very small changes in their daily lives that 
never even impacted on their comfort, really. We have saved about 11 
percent in our energy use. We avoided all of these problems.
  My friend talks about the creation of jobs. This is an important 
issue. I know some of the unions are backing drilling because of that. 
Let me say to my friend, the fact is, if you produce energy-efficient 
appliances, you create many jobs. If you produce energy-efficient 
automobiles--hybrid vehicles; so many other ideas; electric cars--you 
will produce jobs. Alternative energy in itself produces jobs, whether 
it is solar power, wind power, whether it is biomass--all of these 
create jobs, and not only good jobs, but the whole green technology is 
a technology that we can export around the world as the whole world 
looks for ways not to choke on gasoline fumes. We can do it. We can do 
it and meet our energy needs and become independent of imported oil.
  I find it so interesting when my friends from Alaska talk because 
they fought me when I wanted to make sure there was a ban on exporting 
Alaskan oil. We used to have that in place because I made the point, as 
many of my colleagues did at the time, that we needed that oil to stay 
home in America because we wanted energy independence. But both my 
friends fought to allow us to export Alaskan oil. I find it very 
interesting.
  So we have so many ways we can win this energy battle. One way is to 
raise the fuel economy standards of automobiles. Just take SUVs. If the 
SUVs met the same standard as a regular sedan, in 7 years we would save 
as much oil as there is in ANWR.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me repeat that. If we simply did one thing, and that is, got the 
SUVs to have the same fuel economy as a sedan--and, by the way, that is 
quite doable--we would, in 7 years, have ``produced'' enough oil to 
equal that of ANWR by saving it. By the way, that happens 
exponentially. In the next 7 years, there is another ANWR. Every 7 
years you save another ANWR.
  So to stand in this Chamber and say the only way to become energy 
independent is by drilling in a refuge I just do not think stands the 
light of scrutiny.
  I am looking forward so much to having the debate on the energy bill, 
as Senator Daschle has promised. He is very interested in having that 
debate, as well, but he does not want to have that debate up against 
the December timeframe when we have so much to do relative to economic 
stimulus, when we are looking at bioterrorism. We must get the vaccines 
in place for smallpox. There is so much we need to deal with, including 
the appropriations conference reports. So I think Senator Daschle has 
done the right thing by setting aside a time, within 60 days, when we 
can have this debate.

  The President, using his Executive powers, overturned a rule that 
President Clinton put in place that said that air-conditioners should 
become more efficient. That particular rule was even supported by many 
of the people in the industry itself. By canceling that, we are again 
being beholden to Middle East oil. So there are so many things I want 
to talk about when that energy bill comes before us.
  In California, I drive a hybrid vehicle. If people look at you and 
say that sounds very strange, well, you fill it up with gas, just the 
same way you do any other car, and the computer within the car knows 
when it is more efficient to be running on gas or running on 
electricity. When you step on the brake, it charges the battery. So we 
are getting about 50 miles to the gallon.
  As someone who has been sharply critical of the increase in oil 
prices, finally they have come down. I am convinced regulatory agencies 
will not do a thing about high prices. We had them cold on what I 
believe was very close to price fixing. We had them cold on harassing 
independent station owners who wanted to lower prices. We had them cold 
on that. But we could not move the regulatory agencies.
  One way you fight back is you drive a car that gets 50 miles to the 
gallon. You can do it. You can buy it pretty cheaply. I encourage 
people to do that. So I do look forward to taking up the energy bill.
  On the issue, again, of stem cell research, this is one that is so 
important. I have seen a list of the groups that oppose Senator 
Brownback's 6-month moratorium. I think it is very important because 
sometimes you learn a lot from supporters and opponents.
  Let me read to you the list of opponents to the 6-month moratorium on 
stem cell research: Alliance for Aging Research, Alpha One Foundation, 
American Academy of Optometry, American Association of Cancer Research, 
American College of Medical Genetics, American Infertility Association, 
American Liver Foundation, American Physiological Society, American 
Society for Reproductive Medicine, American Society for Cell Biology, 
American Society of Hematology, Association of American Medical 
Colleges. All of these, and more, oppose, very strongly, a 6-month 
moratorium on stem cell research.
  Here are some others: Association of Professors of Medicine, 
Biotechnology Industry Organization, Coalition of National Cancer 
Cooperative Groups, Cure for Lymphoma, Genetic Alliance, Harvard 
University, Hope for ALS, the International Foundation for Anticancer 
Drug Discovery--and it goes on--the Juvenile Diabetes Research 
Foundation International--those folks came to visit many of us in our 
offices--the Kidney Cancer Foundation, Medical College of Wisconsin, 
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, National AIDS Treatment Advocacy 
Project, National Patient Advocate Foundation, Research America, 
Resolve, Society for Women's Health Research, and it goes on.
  So the bottom line is, we have a chance today, by voting against the 
Lott amendment, to send two very important messages: Yes, we want an 
energy policy, but we want it to be well thought out. There can be 
differences on whether the Alaska Wildlife Refuge is pristine, whether 
it is worth saving. I am willing to get into that debate. That is a 
fair debate. But wouldn't it be an interesting debate to find out what 
our other options are and then to decide if it is truly worth the 
gamble? People I know and respect say it isn't worth the gamble. And on 
stem cell research, clearly, it is time to continue this research while 
we ban human cloning. The Brownback amendment does not do that.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am aware that the other side has until 
4:45. I ask unanimous consent to speak as though we had reached 4:45, 
which starts the time running for our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.




                          ____________________