[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 19 (Thursday, February 28, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1333-S1336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I received a letter in my office from 
the respected former President Jimmy Carter. I suspect this letter went 
to every Member. It was an appeal on the issue of the energy bill which 
has been laid down by the majority leader and will be taken up at some 
point, probably next week.
  In his letter, President Carter highlights the realization that every 
decade or so we have a great national debate about whether or not to 
preserve our national heritage. He indicated that in the sixties, it 
was over building dams in the Grand Canyon to oil drilling in Yosemite 
or Yellowstone. Clearly, there is no consideration for oil drilling in 
either Yosemite or Yellowstone, to both of which I would object. I know 
virtually every Member in this body would.
  President Carter indicates in his letter that the significant issue 
before us today is the fate of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, an area first set aside for protection by President 
Dwight Eisenhower. He is correct in that generalization, but what he 
does not add is that out of that area, so-called ANWR, there were 1.5 
million acres, or the 1002 area, left out specifically at the 
declaration of President Eisenhower for Congress to make a 
determination of the disposition.
  Since that time, the matter of opening ANWR has been debated before 
this body. Many of us will recall that in 1995, in the omnibus bill, 
ANWR had prevailed and President Clinton vetoed it.
  It is important to recognize the sequence of events because they are 
not necessarily as recounted in President Carter's letter. He states 
that he has enjoyed the extraordinary beauty of the peninsula and 
Beaufort Sea, watching the musk ox circle their young. He has wandered 
on the tundra near the Jago River as the caribou streamed through. He 
has watched this timeless migration from vital calving grounds. He has 
watched the dens of wolves, large flocks of Dall sheep, and isolated 
polar bears. ``These phenomena,'' he terms it, ``of the untrammeled 
earth are what lead wildlife experts to characterize the coastal plain 
as America's Serengeti.''

  I live there. I have spent all my life there. I have spent a good 
deal of time in the Arctic. His description is not without some further 
explanation.
  The difference with the American Serengeti is, of course, the 
wildlife concentration is virtually year round, and the caribou, which 
is a nomadic animal, moves through the area. It is quite inspiring when 
they move through the area, but they are not residents.
  In the wintertime, which is 9\1/2\ to 10 months of the year, there is 
virtually no activity of any kind relative to wildlife and bird life. 
Nonetheless, we have an obligation to address the compatibility of the 
natural wildlife and the wildlife experience of visitors and the 
realization that we also have a tremendous amount of reserves of oil in 
this area. There is a compatibility.
  President Carter further states:

       Having traveled extensively in this unique wilderness, I 
     feel very strongly about its incredible natural values.

  I do, too.
  He hopes Members ``will not be distracted by the argument that oil 
exploration and development will have minimal impact because the 
`footprint' of modern drilling technology will be small amid the 
1,500,000 acres of the coastal plain.''
  This is where we depart because what he fails to take into 
consideration is the people who live there and their thoughts and 
aspirations. I will perhaps go into that a little later.
  One realizes in his letter he assumes this area is an absolute 
wilderness devoid of any villages, devoid of any footprint, and devoid 
of any personal expression of attitude from the Eskimo people who live 
on the Coastal Plain, whether they live in Barrow or Kaktovik, or 
whether the activities in Prudhoe Bay have, in fact, been a 
distraction.
  He further suggests a precise measurement of activity in the 1002 
area would involve a web of drilling pads, gravel pits, access roads, 
and air fields. While these might not exceed 2,000 acres, they would be 
spread across a far wider expanse covering hundreds of square miles, 
connected by a network of what he calls modern transportation routes.
  As those who follow the debate recognize, that simply is not the 
case. We have developed the technology dramatically, and that 
technology is evidenced in the transition from Prudhoe Bay, which is 
the 30-year-old technology which uses large areas of surface for roads 
and so forth, to the development of Endicott, which came on as the 10th 
largest field, and the actual footprint was 56 acres.
  So the point is, we have this technology. It will be advanced if 
indeed ANWR is opened. It would be further advanced to have ice roads 
as the access for development of drilling, not roads. We would not open 
up gravel pits; that would not be necessary because we have technology 
now that allows us to move only in the wintertime and not leave a 
footprint in the summer. Further, the directional drilling technology 
suggests if we were to drill on the Capitol Grounds, we could focus on 
an oilfield as far away as the Reagan Airport, outside the edge of 
Washington, DC. That is the technology we have.
  So it is an entirely different set of circumstances. To suggest that 
somehow this would be an expanse covering hundreds of miles, with 
airports and so forth, is totally inaccurate.
  I have a picture. This is children in Kaktovik. To indicate where 
Kaktovik is, this is in the 1002 area. This is a village that has been 
there for a long time. There are real people there. They have hopes and 
aspirations. We have other pictures of Kaktovik which can give an idea 
of the realism that President Carter simply overlooks in his letter. He 
suggests this is an unspoiled wilderness. Here is a village that is 
actually in the 1002 area. There is an old radar site. Here is the 
community hall.
  These people happen to support opening the area. Why? They want a 
better opportunity. They want health care. They want toilets that 
flush. They want running water. They want to have opportunities for the 
children.
  It is one thing to simply address the environmental aspects, but that 
is hardly fair when you have to consider the fact that there are real 
people living here.
  I want to show a little bit about how we develop the Arctic and show 
some of the activity. Some of the technology we have developed--and I 
know the occupant of the chair is quite familiar with it--that is used 
now more often than not is called directional drilling.
  This was an article that appeared in the New York Times, and it shows 
how

[[Page S1334]]

in one drill pad you can access a huge area that otherwise was 
unaccessible. This is called directional drilling. You do this through 
a process called 3D sizement. That has only come about in the last 
decade.
  Before, we used to have to drill down, and if we hit one of those 
pockets of oil--they are the dark areas--we would hit them or we would 
miss them. With 3D sizing, you can spot where these other pockets are 
and directionally drill from one pad. That is the technology of today. 
That is why President Carter's generalization that this area is going 
to be covered with roads and air fields and pipelines, and so forth, is 
totally inaccurate.
  Now let me show you how we operate. I said we are not going to have 
roads. We are not going to open up gravel pits. That is drilling in the 
Arctic. That is the same as in the 1002 area of ANWR. That is a winter 
road. It is a road that is frozen. It works fine. You have a drill pad 
that is on frozen ground. This ground is permafrost. It is frozen year 
round. On the surface, it does thaw, but remember, winter is just about 
9\1/2\, 10 months. So you have a long period of time when you can do 
development. This is what it looks like in the summertime as a 
consequence of not having to have a road into the area. That is a spot 
as well.

  So when he says the impacts on the fragile tundra, ecosystem, 
migratory waterfowl, and other wildlife would be devastated by oil 
activity, that is not necessarily true.
  The Senator from Louisiana knows how you operate in the State of 
Louisiana. You have numerous areas where you have oil and gas drilling. 
You have commercial shrimping. You have sport fishing. You have access 
for waterfowl because you consciously protect them. But there is a 
compatibility by doing it right and using technology. You do it in 
monuments that have been set aside by Congress, and you do it 
correctly.
  There is some suggestion that this somehow is of a magnitude to 
parallel dams on the Colorado River, that we have to make choices: We 
cannot have the untouched, sublime wilderness on one hand compatible 
with oil development.
  If we look at this map, we note that few people have an idea of the 
distance and the vastness of the State of Alaska. It is one-fifth the 
size of the United States. It overlays the United States dramatically 
in a proportional view that hopefully we have with us--but I guess we 
do not. It shows Alaska overlaying the United States. It shows an 
overlay, and Alaska runs basically from Florida to California. It runs 
from Canada to Mexico on a proportionate overlay. It is a big piece of 
real estate.
  We have this entire area of portions of Alaska associated with 
wilderness. We have 56 million acres of wilderness, and what we do not 
really reflect on in the issue of opening up ANWR is the fact there are 
already footprints in the area; there is a community of Kaktovikians, 
and the Coastal Plain is the green area that would be proposed to be 
leased. The rest of the 19 million acres is split between a wilderness 
area, which is about 8\1/2\ million acres. That is the light buff color 
on the chart, and the darker buff color is already in the wilderness. 
So we are talking about a very small area.
  We are also talking about, in the House bill, which authorized the 
opening, only 2,000 acres. That is the size of that little red dot in 
the chart. That is about the size of a small farm.
  So what does 19 million acres equate to? A lot of people do not 
recognize that. ANWR and the State of South Carolina are about the same 
size, 19 million acres. So we are talking about 2,000 acres out of 19 
million acres of development, which is hardly reflected in the 
President's letter to each Member. He says: Opening of the Coastal 
Plain for oil exploration and development would be, despite all the 
much-vaunted technological promises, severely damaging to wildlife and 
the ecosystem.
  Let me show what our evidence is in Prudhoe Bay. I am sure we have a 
chart of the caribou and the bear. This is Prudhoe Bay. We had about 
3,000 or 4,000 caribou in Prudhoe Bay when the development started in 
that particular area. Today we have over 20,000 caribou. The issue is, 
you cannot shoot them, you cannot run them down with a snow machine, so 
they propagate dramatically. And those are not stuffed; those are real 
caribou wandering around. So there is a compatibility.
  There is a compatibility with the bears. Here are the bears. I know 
the occupant of the chair has seen this chart many times. They are 
walking on the pipeline because it beats walking on the snow. You 
cannot shoot them. You cannot take a gun in there.
  People are concerned about polar bears and polar bear dens, but they 
never tell you it is against the law to shoot a polar bear in the 
United States. And Alaska is in the United States. You can go out and 
get a guide in Canada, you can get a guide in Russia, and take a polar 
bear, but not in the United States.
  Talking about conservation, one of the best ways is to make sure they 
are protected, and they are. So to suggest a mild amount of activity is 
going to displace their dens is absolutely balderdash.
  They talk about the wilderness qualities. You are talking about huge 
areas. Fifty-six million acres of wilderness is what we have in the 
State of Alaska alone. We are very proud of it. To suggest we cannot 
open this area is totally unrealistic.
  Let me show some of the other areas in the United States where we 
have oil and gas exploration. These two charts show oil production 
facilities in the Nation's wildlife refuges and wetland management 
districts. We have 9 in Texas, 12 in Louisiana, 4 in California. The 
other charts oil production in national wildlife refuges and wetland 
management districts. We have them in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, 
New Mexico, Montana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, one in Alaska, 
California, Kansas, Louisiana, and Michigan.
  We have oil and gas development and mineral development in refuges. 
It is common. Can we do it safely? That is the question. The answer is 
yes.
  Former President Jimmy Carter's letter fails to recognize people have 
dreams and aspirations and certain rights. He says:

       It is inherently fatal to the wilderness qualities of this 
     matchless example of America's heritage.

  The letter does not say there are 56 million acres of wilderness in 
Alaska, and we are proud. He implies somehow if the area is open to 
modest development, it will be detrimental.
  He makes another mistake when he says:

       Through compromises that began more than four decades ago 
     and were concluded when I signed the Alaska National Interest 
     Lands Conservation Act in 1980, 95 percent of Alaska's North 
     Slope has already been made available for oil exploration.

  We have charts that show the upper Arctic area. This chart 
illustrates the Arctic Coast from Canada, the area we are talking 
about, and next is the Prudhoe Bay area, and from Prudhoe Bay we go 
across the Naval Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The suggestion that 95 
percent is open is inaccurate; 95 percent of it is closed. I guarantee, 
one cannot get a drilling permit on public land in these areas. This 
area is the National Petroleum Reserve, and the dark area shows the 
concentration of lakes. That is where the bird life is. That is Lake 
Nestia Puk. That is a delicate area. The Department of Interior refused 
to open leases in those areas. They have leases issued which have been 
modestly successful, but to make the statement that 95 percent is open, 
and therefore why not leave the area, is false.
  The President has inaccurate information. He said we should not 
sacrifice the last 5 percent. Well, 95 percent is closed. Furthermore, 
in his letter he says this issue has assumed gigantic symbolic stature. 
He is right on target. It is symbolic. It has nothing to do with 
scientific evidence. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is 
enough oil to offset the amount of oil we import from Iraq or Saudi 
Arabia. Some have indicated that this issue is all about our national 
security. To a large extent, they are right. We are 58-percent 
dependent upon imported oil in this country. The ramifications of that 
are very real. As we increase our dependence, we are going to be more 
and more beholden to those who supply the energy.
  We have seen the power of OPEC in reducing the supply and the price 
goes up. I have discussed time and time again the issue of Iraq. We 
wonder how we will deal with Saddam Hussein. On September 11, we 
imported 1 million

[[Page S1335]]

barrels a day from Iraq; today it is 780,000 barrels. We are still 
maintaining a no-fly zone, an area blockade, over that country. We put 
the lives of men and women at risk each day enforcing that no-fly zone. 
We take out Saddam Hussein's targets, and he tries to shoot us down, 
but we are taking his oil. We take his oil, put it in our airplanes, 
and go back. But he takes our money and develops missile capability, 
maybe aimed at Israel. We have not had an inspector in that country in 
6 or 7 years. When will we deal with that? When we have an unfortunate 
issue such as a terrorist development that might emanate from there we 
will wish we would have moved sooner?

  These are the questions the administration has to deal with and each 
Member has to deal with in his or her own conscience. These are very 
real.
  From the Persian Gulf we get almost 3 million barrels; from OPEC 
producing countries, 5.5 million barrels of oil. That is where we get 
the oil. We need all the conservation we can get--CAFE, wind power, 
solar power--but America and the world moves on nothing but oil. We do 
not have the technology. We will continue to be more dependent.
  The question is, How can we relieve that dependence? Obviously, in 
the Gulf of Mexico and off Louisiana and Texas they have extraordinary 
technology. They are drilling in 2,500 and 3,000 feet of water. The 
record has been very good because we have that technology. Can we open 
up ANWR safely? Absolutely.
  This next chart is important. What we are doing is rather 
interesting. We have substantial prospects for oil and gas off the 
Atlantic Ocean, off our coastal States, including Florida clear up to 
Maine. Those States do not want development. That is fine if they do 
not want development. They have taken 31 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas that is believed to be off the east coast and said they do not want 
to develop it. We should respect that. Off Florida on the gulf side, 24 
trillion cubic feet, we have taken that off limits.
  Now the west coast--Washington, Oregon, California--they do not want 
drilling offshore where the risks are relatively high. There are storms 
and all kinds of bad things that can happen. We have taken the middle 
area of the country, the overthrust zone of Montana, to a degree, 
Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and said we will not allow any road access in 
public lands. We have taken that off. We take these off because the 
people do not want it. We should respect those areas where people 
support drilling. In my State of Alaska they do. We are not talking 
about offshore. We are talking about on land. There is a difference. 
There is much less risk.
  These are the arguments used that frustrate those in the Alaska 
delegation. It is fair to say we probably include Texas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama, who do want responsible development offshore. 
It provides a standard of living. It provides a tax base. Those are 
very important for working men and women.
  This is a jobs issue. If we open ANWR, we are putting up for lease in 
the area of 1.5 million acres out of 19 million acres. That will be 
competitive lease sale. Companies will put up money to have the 
opportunity to lease those lands. How much money? It is estimated 
somewhere in the area of close to $3 billion. That means $3 billion 
coming into the Federal Treasury. That, in itself, should interest our 
budgeteers. In addition, it is jobs for Americans at a time when we are 
losing jobs. It is payback time to American labor. These people are 
entitled to these jobs as opposed to sending our dollars overseas and 
bringing back the oil from Iraq or Saudi Arabia. We have the know-how, 
we have the technical ability, and we can bring these jobs home.
  How many jobs are we talking about with ANWR? Somewhere in the area 
of 250,000. Talk about stimulus; show me a better stimulus that does 
not cost the taxpayer a red cent. That is $3 billion in revenue and 
250,000 jobs, all paid for and put up by the private sector, not the 
government and not the taxpayer.
  These are some of the issues to which we should relate. It is a 
matter of what is in the national security interests of our country as 
well as the realism associated with sound jobs in this country.
  President Carter goes on to say the truth: We can drill in every 
national park, wildlife refuge, et cetera.
  We are not talking about that. We are talking about a small area, a 
footprint of 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. To suggest we can get 
there through conservation is unrealistic. It will be an interesting 
issue to watch the debate on CAFE. Some are going to say we are going 
to do it, and we will mandate the type of cars or public businesses. We 
are going to compromise safety. We are going to bring in more foreign 
cars. That is not the answer.

  We need better mileage. There is no question about it. But you just 
can't get there from here because this particular CAFE is going to be 
effective in the year 2015, 15 years from now. Some of us are not going 
to be here to be held accountable.
  It is very easy to vote and say, yes, we ought to do that; get 37 
miles per gallon by the year 2015. Technically, they say you can't get 
there without a mandate by the Government telling you what kind of car 
you are going to drive.
  We will have that debate later. Nevertheless, I think we have to 
address the national energy security of this country.
  I am always reminded of the statement of Mark Hatfield, a very 
respected Member of this body from the State of Oregon, who stood here 
time and time again and said: I'll vote for ANWR any day rather than 
send a young man or woman overseas to fight a war on foreign land over 
oil.
  This is leaving us more dependent on foreign oil, and then we know 
just what happens. Some people forget what happened in 1973 during the 
Arab oil embargo, the Yom Kippur War, because, I guess, they were too 
young. We had gas lines around the block. People were indignant. They 
said: How could Government let this happen?
  We were 37-percent dependent on imported oil at that time. Now we are 
58-percent dependent.
  What does the Department of Energy say? In the year 2007, 2008, we 
will be somewhere up to 63 or 64 percent dependent. That is reality.
  I hope when Members reflect on their vote and recognize the pressures 
that have been brought about by environmental groups, by President 
Carter in his letter to each Member, and others, they reflect somewhat 
on accuracy, factual information, and not the emotional arguments that 
suggest this is only a 6-month supply; that it is going to take 10 
years to go on line; that it is not going to make any difference.
  They recognize reality. I hope they recognize their vote should be 
what is right for America, not what is right to satisfy the 
environmental lobbyists' desires to use this issue for what it has been 
used, and that is to generate a tremendous amount of membership and 
dollars. Once they lose on ANWR, they will go to another major 
environmental issue and that is understood.
  They make a significant contribution. But on this issue they are 
simply wrong. We can do it right. We can do it safely. It is a 
significant amount of oil because it is somewhere between 5.6 billion 
barrels and 16 billion barrels. If it is half that, it is as big as 
Prudhoe Bay, which has supplied the Nation with 25 percent of the total 
crude oil produced in this country in the last 27 years.
  I will have a chart later. I didn't want to run the risk of having 
one of my friends from Texas acknowledge that, indeed, ANWR has more 
oil in it than the proven reserves in one of our largest producer 
States, and that is the State of Texas.
  I think we have to keep the argument in perspective. We have the 
technology. We can do it right.
  When we get on the debate, I trust Members will reflect on the 
reality that this is one of the biggest jobs issues in the country. 
Organized labor feels very strongly about the reality of keeping these 
jobs in the United States.
  I will make one more point. As the occupant of the chair is aware, 
there is a great deal of shipbuilding in Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
southern California. There is a whole new fleet of tankers being built. 
They are being built because U.S. law mandates that the movement of oil 
between two States goes in a U.S.-flagged vessel built in a U.S. 
shipyard with U.S.

[[Page S1336]]

crews. Let me tell you, our oil that goes from the Port of Valdez down 
there, clear down to the west coast of the United States, primarily in 
the Puget Sound area, the San Francisco Bay area, and the Los Angeles 
harbor area--these new ships mean jobs in the shipyards, jobs on the 
ship, and U.S.-documented vessels.

  So it is a big jobs issue. The most significant portions of our 
merchant marine are these tankers that haul the oil.
  Washington, Oregon, and California are going to get oil. What 
happens? They will get it from Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. It is 
going to come over in foreign vessels that do not have double bottoms--
all our new vessels have double bottoms--and it is going to come over 
with foreign crews, and they are not going to have the deep pockets of 
Exxon. I point out what this means in terms of sound, high-paying U.S. 
jobs.
  Let's do what is right for America. I appreciate the time allotted to 
me and unless there is another Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized as in morning business for the purpose of introducing a 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1796 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________