[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 26 (Monday, March 11, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1715-S1726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 517, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding the Department of 
     Energy to enhance its mission areas through technology 
     transfer and partnerships for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       Feinstein amendment No. 2989 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     provide regulatory oversight over energy trading markets.
       Bingaman/Domenici amendment No. 2990 (to amendment No. 
     2917) to promote collaboration between the United States and 
     Mexico on research related to energy technologies.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thomas are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S1716]]

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak generally today about the 
energy policy in this country and especially about the energy bill we 
are debating in the Senate. I also want to offer an amendment--a 
noncontroversial amendment. I think both sides have been apprised of 
it. I would like to get it pending. I will not ask that we vote on it 
today. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment now pending be set 
aside so I might offer an amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 2993 to Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2993.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for training of electric power generation plant 
                               operators)

       In section 1501(a)(1), strike ``nuclear power industry'' 
     and insert ``the electric power generation industry 
     (including the nuclear power industry)''.
       At the end of title XV, add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 1506. National Power Plant Operations Technology and 
     Education Center.
       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     National Power Plant Operations Technology and Education 
     Center (the ``Center''), to address the need for training and 
     educating certified operators for electric power generation 
     plants.
       ``(b) Role.--The Center shall provide both training and 
     continuing education relating to electric power generation 
     plant technologies and operations. The Center shall conduct 
     training and education activities on site and through 
     Internet-based information technologies that allow for 
     learning at remote sites.
       ``(c) Criteria for Competitive Selection.--The Secretary 
     shall establish the Center at an institution of higher 
     education with expertise in plant technology and operation 
     and that can provide on-site as well as Internet-based 
     training.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amendment to 
establish a national energy technology training and education center. 
This amendment is critical, because, as of yet, no comprehensive 
education program exists for electric system operators. Meanwhile, our 
energy sector and electricity grid are becoming increasingly complex.
  These changes in the electric industry and changes in electricity 
market structures require educated, highly-skilled operators and 
technicians. In addition, electric system operators are essential to 
reliable and safe generation, transmission, and distribution of 
electric power. Education programs that provide training specific to 
the electric industry are rare, because of the way the industry has 
been structured and because, for example, most transmission system 
operators are promoted from within and trained on the job, rather than 
having had formal training.
  One goal of an energy training center, such as the one this amendment 
would create, would be to provide quality education programs for 
workers who often are unable to participate in college programs, due to 
their shift hours or other reasons. These programs would be offered via 
the Internet, for example, to accommodate these workers. The programs 
offered through this Energy Center would be directly related to the 
industry, to ensure that a pool of multi-skilled workers are trained to 
meet the future needs of the industry.
  The energy industry needs an Internet program to train power plant 
and other technicians to be experts in the various aspects of the 
energy industry. To respond to this growing need, a certificate and 
degree program is being developed in collaboration with regional 
transmission representatives, utility experts, the Electric Power 
Research Institute, and others. The objectives of this program are (1) 
to prepare well-trained electricity system operators who can adapt and 
be productive in power plant and process plant technologies and 
environments; (2) to provide anywhere, anytime learning opportunities 
through Internet courses for presently employed personnel who are 
unable to leave their workplaces to attend courses and/or are 
restricted by 12-hour work shifts or location in relation to the 
educational site, and (3) to provide an associate degree option in this 
field.
  Over the next 10 years, the demand for electric power is expected to 
increase by approximately 25 percent. Constraints on electric 
transmission line capacity will result in additional transmission line 
construction and improvements that will increase the need for skilled 
line workers. Due to technological advances, line operators will 
continue to need to update their knowledge base. Moreover, we will need 
specially trained people to ensure the continued reliability of our 
energy infrastructure.
  The Energy Center would:
  Work in conjunction with the North American Electric Reliability 
Council to promote flexible continuing education opportunities for 
system operators to help maintain their required certifications;
  Offer flexible education opportunities related to the security of the 
electric industry infrastructure and emergency preparedness;
  Provide flexible education offerings directly related to the 
generation, transmission and distribution sectors;
  Provide national communication to the electric industry by hosting 
conferences, forming national advisory boards, and facilitating chat 
rooms and web-casts; and
  Provide simulation opportunities for students to operate 
sophisticated control stations and distributive control systems in a 
supervised environment.
  This is an amendment to which I believe both sides will agree. We 
have had discussions with both sides. As I indicated, I will wait until 
later to ask that it be voted on. I don't believe it would require a 
record vote.
  This amendment would establish a national energy technology training 
and education center. Changes in the electric industry, and especially 
changes in the electricity market structures, require a different set 
of skills, a different education for operators and technicians of 
electric powerplants. In addition to trying to establish that, we would 
establish an energy training center, which would provide quality 
education programs for workers who were often unable to participate in 
other programs that would give them the kinds of disciplines that are 
necessary in this new energy climate.
  Let me talk more generally about the energy bill on the floor of the 
Senate. I spoke last week at some length about it. The energy bill 
includes four pieces. First, we need to produce more energy. All of us 
agree on that. We are going to have a disagreement on the issue of 
ANWR, but there is no disagreement over whether we should or whether we 
need to produce more energy. The answer is yes, of course, we must.
  We have had votes on the floor in recent months on the subject of 
opening up portions of the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida for 
additional energy production. I voted for that. We have also had 
discussions and votes and other legislative consideration in other 
areas to enhance incentives for the production of oil, natural gas, and 
coal to be used in an environmentally sensitive way to extend America's 
energy supply. We have to do that.
  The point is, if that is all we do when we come to the floor of the 
Senate in March of 2002, just to increase the supply of energy, this 
country will be consigned to a strategy that I call ``yesterday 
forever.'' Twenty-five years ago, when we debated energy, this is what 
we discussed; 25 years from now, when we debate energy, this is what we 
will discuss. It is a ``yesterday forever'' strategy--just dig and 
drill, dig and drill, and somehow, that represents America's policy. 
That is not enough.
  Digging and drilling is important. It is important to do it, and it 
is important to do it the right way, but there is much more to be done. 
So production, No. 1.
  Second, conservation. We waste an enormous amount of energy in our 
country. We need a title in this energy bill, which is included in the 
bill that is now on the floor of the Senate, that

[[Page S1717]]

talks about conservation--conservation in a range of areas.
  One important area in this legislation that will be controversial 
will be a new SEER standard for air-conditioners, called SEER 13. We 
will have people try to knock that out, but the fact is conservation 
means conservation in transportation, conservation with respect to 
efficiency of appliances, and a whole range of areas by which you can 
save a barrel of oil. A barrel of oil saved is just the same as a 
barrel of oil produced. So it is important for us, it seems to me, to 
be concerned about those areas.
  We also need to be concerned about additional production of energy 
from renewables and limitless sources of energy. That includes 
biodiesel, biomass, wind energy, and a range of others--especially 
something I am very interested in, called fuel cells.
  When I talked about ``yesterday forever,'' I talked about the fact 
that the automobile has not changed in a hundred years. You still pull 
up to the tank and put the hose in the tank and pump gas. They did it 
100 years ago, and we do it now. The internal combustion engine still 
sucks gas and uses oil. The fact is, we have some interesting work on 
the horizon suggesting to us, perhaps for the first time, that there 
will be significant changes. An article in Energy Tech Online by Drew 
Robb is titled ``Houston, We've Got a Solution; Fuel Cells Come Back to 
Earth.'' It talks about much of the initial fuel cell research that was 
funded by NASA, and although the technology of fuel cells showed 
enormous promise, sky-high costs kept any commercial interest pretty 
much as low ebb. Then, in the 1990s, investment poured in as a method 
of reducing toxic emissions and greenhouse gases, and we began to see 
some real progress. Commercial interests--many which are in the 
development of funding for fuel cells--now come from the transportation 
power generation and oil suppliers.
  I drove a fuel cell vehicle on the grounds of the Capitol Building 
some months ago. It did not make any noise. It did not have an internal 
combustion engine. It used oxygen and hydrogen that combine to create a 
fuel supply by which this automobile moved, and it pushed water vapor 
out the back end.
  That is a pretty good deal, it seems to me: A fuel cell engine, and 
the effluent from the back end of that automobile is water vapor.
  Does all of that make sense? It does to me.
  DaimlerChrysler, for example, plans to spend over $1 billion in the 
coming years on fuel cell research. In April of last year, it unveiled 
its hydrogen-powered car called NECAR 4, based on the Mercedes A 
series. They developed a prototype hydrogen fuel cell, which is one-
third the size of previous versions. Ford, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, and 
others are pursuing similar projects.
  The reason I talk about the fuel cell is because it is one of those 
new technologies that offers the promise of unlimited, clean, quiet, 
safe, and low-cost energy for the long term. It just makes sense for us 
to move in that direction if we can.
  How do we do that? As I said, we have been putting gas in our 
automobiles the same way for a century. Just because every debate in 
the Senate for 25 years has been a debate about doing more tomorrow 
that which we did yesterday--that is not a debate, that is just a 
thoughtless policy.
  I come from a State that produces a fair amount of energy. We produce 
oil, coal, some natural gas. We also have the capacity to produce a 
substantial amount of wind energy. Last Friday's vote in the Senate to 
extend the production tax credit for wind energy and renewables is very 
important. Taking the energy from the wind and using it to turn the 
blades of a new technology turbine, create electricity, and have that 
electricity course through transmission lines and be sent to somewhere 
in the country that needs it is a very important step in changing our 
energy mix from an overreliance on natural gas, oil, and coal to a 
reliance as well on limitless and renewable energy supplies.
  One of the amendments we are going to be discussing in the Congress 
in the next week or so will be what is called the renewable portfolio 
standard. That is creating an aspiration or a goal on the part of this 
country to have a certain percent of our energy needs coming from 
renewable energy sources by the year 2020.
  If we have a renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent, utilities 
will be required to sell 10 percent of their electricity from renewable 
energy by the year 2020. That makes good sense to me. We will have 
people in the Chamber of the Senate who think it is not a good idea. I 
think they are wrong.
  Recently, I was in that part of the world that has so much 
instability. I was in central Asia. I was in the ``stans'' countries--
Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan. One only has to go to the Middle 
East and central Asia to understand how fragile our energy supply is in 
this country. A substantial amount of our energy, 57 percent, comes 
from imported oil. A substantial amount of that comes from the Middle 
East and central Asia.
  If, God forbid, a terrorist tonight after midnight found a way to 
create an act of terror against the energy supply that comes from the 
Middle East, our economy would be flat on its back tomorrow morning. It 
is just that simple.
  Shouldn't we be concerned about that? Of course. The answer is yes. 
Today is the 6-month anniversary of the terror that was visited upon 
this country on 9-11 last year. We have talked a lot in these last 6 
months about American security, national security, and it is important 
to understand that national security also means energy security.

  When you take a look at what is happening in the Middle East today, 
look at what is happening in central Asia, then ask yourself: Does it 
make sense for the biggest, the strongest, the largest economy in the 
world to be this overly dependent on energy supplies from the Middle 
East and central Asia? The answer is no.
  How do we decide to change that? We pass legislation that has some 
real bite to it in a number of important areas. One of them is, as I 
mentioned, renewable portfolio standards by which we describe that we 
want the generation of electricity in our country in the future to come 
increasingly from renewable and limitless sources of energy.
  We can do this if we decide we want to do it, or we can just slip 
back into the same comfortable debate we have had decade after decade.
  Will Rogers once said: When there is no place left to spit, you 
either have to swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times. On 
energy there is really no place left. It is an indelicate way, perhaps, 
of describing our situation, but anyone who understands it understands 
we have a requirement to do this differently.
  It is our obligation now to make a difference with respect to energy 
policy. This is not the best time to be debating energy. I bought 
gasoline yesterday for $1.08 a gallon. In fact, go to a gas station 
these days and buy a gallon of gas or buy 4 quarts of water. They sell 
water now in quart jars in the cooler. It will cost you more to buy the 
4 quarts of water than it will a gallon of gasoline. It says a little 
something about priorities, I suppose. But it is not a great time to be 
debating an energy bill when gasoline costs less than water at a gas 
station.
  Nonetheless, we would be ill advised as a Senate to believe this is a 
good time for America's energy supply because somehow the prices are 
low and that reflects stability for the future. It does not.
  We must pass an energy bill now. In this next several-week period, it 
is the right thing for this Congress to pass a comprehensive energy 
bill. It ought not be a bill like that which the House of 
Representatives passed which, as I said, is a yesterday forever policy. 
It ought to be legislation that is balanced, that has all four pieces: 
Encouraging additional production, encouraging additional conservation, 
paying attention to additional efficiencies, and providing incentives 
for additional renewable and limitless supplies of energy.
  All four of those elements are part of a comprehensive and smart 
energy policy for this country. It is not a smart energy policy to do 
as the House of Representatives did and simply say we rest our future 
on the basis of increased production. That is not a smart energy 
policy.
  Senator Bingaman and my colleagues on the Energy Committee have 
worked

[[Page S1718]]

on this legislation. It has some significant points of disagreement, no 
question about that. ANWR will be hotly debated. My colleague from 
Alaska has a passionate feeling about that, as do some others. CAFE 
standards will be passionately debated, and the Senate will make 
decisions about both of them.
  In the longer term, the question of whether we succeed for this 
country in developing an energy policy that moves this country ahead, 
reduces its dependence on foreign sources of energy, and increases this 
country's energy and national security will depend on whether we pass 
legislation that is balanced in all four areas I have mentioned.
  At the start of my presentation, I offered an amendment. It is now 
pending. I believe it will be accepted by both sides at some point when 
they have considered other legislation.
  I thank the Senator from Alaska for allowing me to proceed. He has 
something like 564 charts or close to that. I suspect he will be making 
a long presentation on a subject about which he is very passionate.
  Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alaska, I have visited 
Alaska. It is a wonderful State. We might have disagreements about 
certain production in Alaska, but I think he certainly speaks 
aggressively on behalf of his view of those issues. I do think he is 
right on the point that we must produce more. The question is not 
whether; the question is how do we produce more and where do we produce 
more.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In response to Senator Dorgan regarding his amendment 
which covers powerplant operator training, the amendment establishes, 
as he has noted, a national center to address the need for training and 
educational activities of operators of electric generator plants.
  I think we would all agree we can improve this even though operators 
have been trained in the past. But I want to emphasize the amendment 
would improve the training of the operators and their ability to do 
their job safely and efficiently. Therefore, I have no objection to the 
amendment. My only concern is we have some norm that is reasonable in 
the training, but I want to assure the Senator we will accept the 
amendment in the spirit of moving along on the energy bill.
  I want to comment on several aspects of amendments which we are going 
to be taking up very soon. There are a couple of points I want to 
address specifically. One is the Akaka Hawaii oil study which makes 
technical changes to the study language which is contained in section 
1702 of the original Daschle bill. It requires the Department of Energy 
to assess the economic implications for Hawaii of its dependence on oil 
as a resource for most of its energy needs.
  I remind my colleagues the oil that Hawaii receives comes from 
Alaska. It comes in U.S. ships because the Jones Act mandates the 
carriage of commodities between two American ports has to be on a U.S. 
vessel. So this is a significant contributor to the American merchant 
marine inasmuch as it must use a U.S. vessel built in a U.S. yard with 
U.S. crews for the benefit of Hawaii.
  I want to assure the Senator from Hawaii that the amendment has been 
cleared by both sides. It is an amendment of a technical nature. It 
specifically requires the Department of Energy to assess the economic 
implications of the dependence on oil as its principal source of energy 
for the Hawaiian Islands. I have indicated I support the amendment.
  We should all be concerned about the economic dependence of our 
States on imported oil. Hawaii uses about 99.8 percent of its 
electricity needs generated from oil. Of the 50-plus million barrels of 
oil consumed in Hawaii, it comes primarily from Alaska. There is some 
that is imported as well, but the imported oil comes in foreign ships 
with foreign crews. As a consequence, the State Department indication 
on tourism indicated the transportation fuel prices caused 
substantially high impacts on the Hawaiian economy. Higher fuel means 
higher airplane tickets. Higher energy costs means higher hotel bills.
  So I agree with my friends from Hawaii, we should investigate our 
options to ensure energy security. I know the Senator from Hawaii has 
been working on the strategic petroleum reserve in case there are 
interruptions because of Hawaii's dependence on imported fuel, and I 
support that.
  There is also an amendment we can accept, and that is the Bingaman 
U.S.-Mexico energy technology cooperation. This amendment authorizes 
$23 million over the next 5 years for projects to improve energy 
efficiency and reduce environmental impacts of economic development 
along the U.S.-Mexican border. It is the same as a bill approved by the 
Senate in the 106th Congress. I am pleased to join with Senator 
Bingaman in supporting this.

  The program improves environmental quality and protection of public 
health along the southern border with Mexico, and it prompts energy-
efficient, environmentally sound, and economic development. As we 
address transboundary problems like air pollution and climate change, 
we are going to need these kinds of partnerships with other nations 
obviously, sharing the recommendations of Members from those States 
that join our southern border. Clearly, they know what is in the best 
interest of their area and their State. As a consequence, I respect 
that and, hence, support the Bingaman U.S.-Mexico energy technology 
cooperation.
  We have another amendment we will be taking up tomorrow, and it is 
the Feinstein energy trading market oversight. I think we are going to 
probably be having some spirited discussions on this amendment. I am 
anxious to learn a little more from the Senator from California. As I 
understand, the amendment could potentially disrupt both the electrical 
and natural gas trading markets. I hope that would not be the case, and 
perhaps this could be brought out in the debate, but if it is the case 
it could lead to significant increases in the price of electricity and 
natural gas to consumers throughout the country. It could also lead to 
energy price and supply problems on the level--I would hope not--of the 
California disaster of last year. It seems to have a nationwide 
application.
  I want to emphasize these could be cases because, frankly, we do not 
really know. The amendment has materialized without any hearings, 
without any witnesses, without any testimony from the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission and the SEC or the Justice Department. So we do 
not have any real analysis.
  We do not know what problem this amendment is trying to fix. On the 
other hand, I look forward to the debate. Perhaps we will be 
enlightened by the Senator from California. We do not know if this 
amendment actually fixes the problem, let alone recognizes the problem. 
We do not know if this amendment has the right problem. So we look 
forward to some clarification.
  One thing is clear, if this amendment is intended to prevent another 
Enron from occurring, in my opinion it will not work. Enron's collapse 
had nothing to do with the energy trading business. It was triggered 
when Enron's other business activities raised questions of accounting 
irregularities and conflict of interest among the company's executives. 
In other words, Enron's bankruptcy was not the result of unregulated 
energy trading. It was the result of Enron's bad judgment, bad 
accounting practices, a fundamental lack of honesty, and a loss of 
investors' confidence.
  Even if this amendment had been adopted 10 years ago, I do not see 
how it would have done anything but recognize the free market would 
dictate an environment where Enron still would have collapsed.
  Many other honest and legitimate energy trading businesses have done, 
and are continuing to do, the very same kind of energy trading in which 
Enron was engaged. They have not gone bankrupt.
  We all want information disclosure, and good corporate management. We 
all want to fix the problem and prevent

[[Page S1719]]

another Enron from occurring, we want to protect the stockholders and 
employee pension funds, and not inadvertently sow the seeds of an even 
greater problem.
  Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us make sure we 
know what is being done. Let us fix the problem that needs to be fixed. 
Let us not make the problem worse.
  This amendment preferably should be introduced as legislation. 
Hearings should be held, with testimony from the FEC, the Commodities 
Future Trading Commission, the Department of Justice, and others. The 
committee of jurisdiction should consider testimony, weigh the 
evidence, and report a well thought out bill that really fixes the 
problem. I would encourage that we become enlightened because it is 
rather inconsistent to recognize that some of these bills that have not 
had a full evaluation could be dropped in conference, and that is not 
fair to anybody, particularly those who have worked so hard and 
presented responsible legislation.
  So let us not just satisfy a pile-on, so to speak, to do something 
regardless of whether it works or not. Our $200 billion a year electric 
power system is too important to toy with. Confidence in our future 
trading businesses is too important not to fix it properly, assuming 
there is something that needs to be fixed.
  As a consequence I remain open and yet somewhat guarded in my 
evaluation of whether this amendment is going to do anything other than 
pile on more criticism for the manner in which the Enron failure 
occurred.
  I would like to remind my colleagues, and staff particularly, that 
when Enron collapsed two things did not happen. First, we didn't see an 
increase in electric rates. Second, we didn't see a decrease in supply.
  The conclusion we can draw is, clearly the system worked. There was a 
transition where the open market simply picked up the volume that Enron 
was trading and transferred that over to other organizations to 
continue that function. I would hate to have seen a situation occur 
where you would have to get approval from FERC on who would pick up 
that additional responsibility after Enron's failure, as opposed to the 
clear and workable process that filled the vacuum left by Enron. When 
Enron failed, we didn't see price increases, and we didn't see a 
shortage of supply.
  I have a couple of other points I want to bring up relative to where 
we are going with this legislation. I doubt very much we are going to 
get anything introduced today on CAFE, although I had hoped that might 
occur. I gather the principals are still in the process of some 
discussion.
  I would like to comment briefly on the electric provisions pending in 
the Daschle legislation. I think we need to recognize that the process 
is going to require a good deal of input from Members and staff because 
it has not had the evaluation associated with a committee function. 
There was not an opportunity where a committee could meet and come out 
with a bipartisan opinion on various aspects of this complex piece of 
legislation. We are reconciling our different views on electricity, but 
one of the things to keep in mind is this industry is not broken. The 
Enron collapse is something else. Again, I add that the industry is not 
broken. It functions. We have not seen a shortage. We are not seeing 
price increases. There are those who suggest if it is not broken, why 
fix it? Sometimes Congress is the one fixing things, even when they are 
not broken.
  Let me first observe that there are ongoing discussions and 
reconciliation of various views on electricity. I am hopeful and 
optimistic that these discussions will bear some fruit.
  I would like to discuss the existing provisions in the pending 
Daschle bill as written. The current provisions exemplify the 
fundamental philosophical differences between authors of this provision 
and what I believe is a bipartisan majority of the Senate.
  First of all, the authors of the electric provision want more Federal 
Government participation and control by Federal regulators, which, in 
my opinion, micromanages the marketplace and preempts State regulation 
with Federal regulation--you have different regulations, not 
deregulation. Again, think about it--you have different regulations, 
not deregulation, and, further, to have the Government pick winners and 
losers rather than trusting the consumers to the obligation of the free 
market.
  There is one reason why these provisions do not have any committee 
blessing. The real reason, of course, is we haven't had any committee 
hearings. We haven't had any markups. We haven't reported anything out.
  That is the way the majority leader directed it, and he, kept the 
committee from proceeding with its responsibility of holding hearings 
and voting out action.
  I believe the bipartisan majority of the Senate wants electricity 
reform, wants legislation which specifically protects consumers, that 
tries to streamline regulation rather than making it more complex, and 
wants to enhance the competition while preserving State authority.
  Further, it ensures the reliability of the grid, allows regional 
flexibility, and promotes renewable energy and other types of 
generation.
  I am going to talk a little bit about renewable energy. There is a 
great deal of concern and interest in the aspects of renewable energy. 
I am going to take one example, which is something that is exciting to 
many of us; that is, the potential solar panels being utilized. Of 
course, you have to have some sunlight. In the winter in my State of 
Alaska, it is dark a good deal of the time. So a solar panel would not 
necessarily get you very far.
  As we look at the contribution of solar energy in relationship to 
oil, you have to look at an equivalent of what kind of footprint it 
would make. Here is a chart that shows 2,000 acres of solar panels that 
produces the energy equivalent of 4,464 barrels of oil a day. You have 
2,000 acres that would be covered solid with solar panels. That would 
be two-thirds of the State of Rhode Island.
  Two thousand acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would 
produce roughly 1 million barrels of oil per day. I think that gives 
you a little comparison, if you will, of the footprint associated with 
renewables in the sense of a meaningful and significant contribution. 
It is important. We want to continue to look toward the renewables in 
the future. But we should recognize that there is a legitimate 
tradeoff.
  We are going to debate ethanol, and it is certainly a significant 
renewable source of energy. It comes from corn, primarily. If we were 
to take 2,000 acres of ethanol farmland and plant corn, we would 
produce the equivalent of 25 barrels of oil a day from 2,000 acres. 
Take 2,000 acres of ANWR and it will produce 1 million barrels of oil a 
day.
  To produce a million barrels of oil, it would take corn fields 
covering the entire States of New Mexico and Connecticut. You would 
have to plant all the acres in the State of my friend, Senator 
Bingaman, in corn, plus all the acreage in Connecticut to get 1 million 
barrels of oil. In Alaska, you could get 1 million barrels of oil from 
ANWR's 2,000 acres.
  I have one more renewable energy source that might get the attention 
of some of my colleagues. In the State of the current occupant of the 
chair, the senior Senator from California, there is a wind farm located 
between Banning and Palm Springs in San Gorgonio. She is quite familiar 
with it. I have been through there many, many times. I don't know how 
many windmills there are on this wind farm, but it is significant. Some 
suggest it is a Cuisinart for the birds because while flying low they 
occasionally have a problem getting through there. On the other hand, 
higher flying birds don't have that problem.
  The point is, you can look at it and say it is a pretty picture, or 
you can say that there is a rather dramatic footprint that has its own 
attraction, but I think it is important to look at the equivalent 
energy.
  I understand this particular area is a little over 1,500 acres of 
wind generators, but 2,000 acres of wind generators produce the energy 
equivalent of 1,815 barrels of oil. Yet 2,000 acres of ANWR produces 1 
million barrels of oil a day. It would take about 3.7 million acres of 
wind generators--or all of the landmass of Connecticut and Rhode 
Island--to produce as much energy as the 2,000 acres of ANWR.
  My point in going through this demonstration is to identify that 
while renewables are important, they are simply not the answer for the 
volume of

[[Page S1720]]

energy we use to move America, whether it is in our automobiles, our 
planes, our trains, and so forth, and that there is a significant 
footprint associated with renewables. As indicated, for example, the 
wind does not blow all the time.
  So as we look at various aspects associated with the electric portion 
that covers renewables, I think we have to keep in mind, indeed, there 
is a tradeoff.
  The philosophical difference is apparent when you compare the 
electric legislation I had introduced earlier this year with the 
pending Daschle bill.
  My legislation was bipartisan. It was S. 388. We had three electric 
provisions: We had PUHCA, we had PURPA, and we had reliability. The 
PUHCA and PURPA repeal provisions promote competition by reducing 
Federal interference with the marketplace.
  The electric reliability provision protects consumers by creating an 
industry-run, Government-overseen electric reliability organization 
that has clear enforcement authority. Consumers will continue to be 
fully protected because, first, the States will continue to regulate 
retail rates, and, second, FERC will continue to regulate wholesale 
rates, which I feel quite comfortable with and which has worked quite 
well, in my opinion.
  Let me identify some of the provisions in the majority leader's 
electricity title which creates new Federal authority or preempts State 
authority.
  Section 202 expands FERC's jurisdiction over utility mergers and 
acquisitions.
  Section 203 gives FERC new authority to restructure the electric 
power industry with no guidance--absolutely none--from Congress.
  Section 205 gives FERC authority to order the construction of new 
transmission lines and to order the sale of electricity on its own 
motion.
  Section 206 gives FERC new authority over publicly owned utilities to 
order open access transmission. Although this section exempts all but 
the largest publicly owned utilities, we all know what happens in 
conference to those exemptions once the principle has been established.
  Section 207 gives FERC new authority to establish and enforce 
electric reliability standards, notwithstanding the fact that FERC, in 
my opinion, does not have the expertise in this area.
  Section 256 prevents States' consumer protection provisions if they 
go beyond or are different from Federal consumer protection provisions 
established by the Federal Trade Commission.
  Section 263 places a Federal mandate on the Federal Government to 
purchase renewable energy even if it is too costly or not available. 
Mind you, if it is too costly or not available, it still provides a 
Federal mandate on the Federal Government to purchase renewable energy. 
I have a hard time with that--even if it is too costly or not 
available.
  Section 265 imposes a Federal Btu tax in the form of what I consider 
an unrealistic, unachievable renewable portfolio mandate, which will 
cost consumers an estimated $12 billion next year.
  Madam President, I could mention other provisions, but I think you 
get the sense of my concern.
  But just as important as what is in Senator Daschle's electric title, 
is what is not in it. There are no incentives to build new 
transmission. We know our transmission lines are choking. There are no 
incentives to build significant new generation. Instead, the majority 
leader's bill places our future in the hands of conservation and 
renewable energy. Turn off the lights; put a windmill in your backyard.
  I have long had three principles for good electric legislation: We 
should deregulate where we can; we should streamline where we cannot 
deregulate; and we should not interfere with States' efforts to protect 
their own consumers.
  The electricity provision of Senator Daschle's bill, in my opinion, 
fails on all three principles. Moreover, it does not do anything 
significant to encourage the construction of new electric generation or 
transmission.
  Over the past several years, we have seen significant electric supply 
problems in various parts of this Nation due to inadequate generation 
of transmission. This became particularly acute in California and 
resulted in price spikes and electric blackouts.
  California is often cited as being on the leading edge of our future, 
and in many ways that is true. Yet I am worried. If you think the 
Federal Government can fix all the problems, then you should like the 
approach taken by the Daschle electric title. If you are like me, you 
would be somewhat worried about this approach.
  I mentioned earlier the need for bipartisan efforts in this regard. 
That would have been the case had the majority leader allowed the 
Energy Committee to initiate and complete its work. In fact, we had the 
chairman's mark on electricity pending before us when the majority 
leader preempted the committee.
  The Energy Committee has held 20 hearings on electricity in the 106th 
and 107th Congresses. Last year, the committee even held several days 
of business meetings exploring and marking up energy legislation. And 
last Congress, the Senate, in an overwhelming, bipartisan effort, 
unanimously passed reliability legislation.
  Regrettably, all that effort was thrown out the window when the 
majority leader stripped the Energy Committee of its jurisdiction and 
put energy legislation directly on the Senate calendar.
  I hope we are able to create an energy policy that enhances domestic 
energy supply, makes the supply more reliable and affordable, and 
reduces our dependence on imported oil. We need to foster a regulatory 
and investment climate that encourages new energy sources of all types. 
We are going to need them all. We are going to need oil. We are going 
to need natural gas. We are going to need nuclear. We are going to need 
coal, electricity, and certainly renewables.
  We need to encourage the construction of energy infrastructure, 
including transmission lines. I think that is what the administration 
stands for. That is certainly what I stand for. I know that is what the 
American people expect Congress to do.
  So I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman and other Members 
as we address an objective, from our opinion, to take a bill that is 
not of our liking and to change it by amendments, and work to get this 
bill into conference, because it is one of the priorities of the 
administration and certainly one of the priorities, I know, of Senator 
Bingaman and myself.
  Madam President, I am going to take a few minutes to enlighten 
Members on the concern over several articles that appeared in the 
Washington Post and the New York Times over the weekend that I think 
either blatantly misrepresent the facts in relation to the issue of 
opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to responsible oil and 
gas development or, indeed, are simply conscientious lobbying efforts 
to twist factual information to represent the editorial policies of 
various newspapers, specifically the Washington Post and New York 
Times.
  In Sunday's edition of the New York Times, it illustrates the height 
of misinformation that has clouded this debate. This is a picture that 
was taken from the New York Times of March 10. It is rather interesting 
to read this article because it is so inaccurate that one wonders just 
what kind of reporting and research was done.
  This was March 10, the Sunday edition, and it shows an extraordinary 
area under a title that reads ``Oil Industry Hesitates Over Moving Into 
Arctic Refuge.''
  When one looks at this, one has to reflect on what they are looking 
at because it says directly above the picture: Oil Industry Hesitates 
Over Moving Into The Arctic Refuge.
  This picture we are seeing says: Drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge could soon be legal, but it is far from certain how 
much oil may be found if exploration proceeds.
  The only problem is, that is not the 1002 area of ANWR that might be 
opened to responsible development. This is perhaps somewhere in the 
Brooks Range. It shows a valley, it shows mountains. It shows an 
extraordinary landscape. But it is very misleading because it is not 
the 1002 area. It is not the 1\1/2\ million acres in question.
  This is the area in question. This is what it looks like on a clear 
day.

[[Page S1721]]

  I have been up there. This is my State. I live there. You have what 
they call whiteouts where the wind and snow blow and you can't see the 
sky. It is all white. If the New York Times chose to put that as 
depicting the 1002 area, I would not have an issue. That is what it 
looks like; 10\1/2\ months of the year there is ice and snow on the 
ground. The Arctic Ocean is open for 40 days a year ice free. That is 
all.
  I am very disappointed that the New York Times did not show an actual 
portrayal and just threw a picture in of mountains and suggested this 
is the area being debated.
  It is important Members who are watching at least have some idea. 
This Coastal Plain is the green area. That is the 1002 area. That is 
the area where we are considering to whether open for oil and gas 
exploration. It consists of 1.5 million acres. Then this area down 
below, the wilderness area, is about 8.5 million acres. And the area in 
the dark buff color is about 9 million acres. I suspect this picture 
might have been taken somewhere in the refuge down below where the 
mountains are because that is the mountain area. I have said this area 
is 19 million acres, the size of the State of South Carolina.
  I also take issue with some of the narrative because they totally 
misrepresent reality. I will just read from the sixth paragraph:

       Oil companies and industry experts say it is cheaper and 
     more promising right now to exploit large reservoirs of oil 
     elsewhere in the world. And it is easier: many companies fear 
     that drilling in the wilderness area . . .

  There will be no drilling in any wilderness area, none whatsoever. 
This is a refuge. It is not a wilderness area. The Coastal Plain up 
there is the area in question. So when they characterize this as 
drilling in wilderness, it is a total inaccuracy. They should be taken 
to task for it.
  Let me show a couple more pictures relative to this ANWR area, what 
it generally looks like relative to what is there. We have one village 
up there called Kaktovik where real people live. This is the only 
village in the 1002 area and ANWR. You can see the Arctic Ocean out 
there in the white, covered with ice. And that is the way it is most of 
the year. This is in the spring. Again, I reflect on the reality that 
this doesn't look at all like the picture we had previously shown of 
the mountains because there are no mountains in the 1002 area. It is a 
Coastal Plain. It does not look like that. If you can somehow generate 
or pull out the Coastal Plain or an ocean anywhere near that area, 
obviously I will stand corrected.
  We have other pictures. This is some of the village activities and so 
forth. I think it is important to note how inaccurate some of this 
information is.
  I would oppose any amendment that would open the wilderness area of 
ANWR to oil development. But that is really not what this debate is 
about. As I have indicated, the 1002 area of ANWR is situated on the 
shores of the Arctic Ocean. It is several thousand miles from the lower 
48. Somebody asked me how many visitors visited ANWR last year. Roughly 
1,100 people have gone up to see for themselves. It is a remote area, 
and it has certainly been the target of frequent misinformation.

  There are some cuddly polar bears that we occasionally see in ads. 
This is one of them. This was run in the Washington Post. This is 
something that appeared on May 15, 2001. It shows Phillips Petroleum's 
operation on the north shore, a very small footprint. That particular 
facility is producing about 100,000 barrels a day, which puts it in the 
top dozen of fields in the United States.
  The picture says: A polar bear and her cubs at rest in Alaska's 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That picture was taken near Barrow, 
roughly 900 miles further west. It is kind of interesting. I have never 
heard an environmentalist acknowledge what has been one of the greatest 
saviours of the polar bear; and that is, they are marine mammals and, 
under Federal law, they cannot be taken as trophies. You can go to 
Canada and Russia and take a polar bear, but you can't take one in 
Alaska. The Natives that live there occasionally take a few for 
subsistence, but very few. So for all practical purposes, they are 
protected. To suggest that some action associated with oil and gas 
might disturb their denning habits, is misleading, there is no 
scientific proof to prove that. I rest my case that the greatest 
contribution to the lifestyle of the polar bear in Alaska is that we 
can't shoot them.
  The interesting thing about this picture of the mountains is that it 
never even attempts to show anything like a Coastal Plain of ANWR or 
1002 area.
  The New York Times is in the business of selling papers and probably 
it looks a lot prettier to see those mountains than that blank white 
chart we just showed which is the way it looks a good deal of the time 
in a whiteout. As a matter of fact, you don't go out for a walk. You 
can get totally disoriented.
  One of the posters we have was supposed to show caribou in 
undisturbed ANWR. But what they didn't tell you, the photo was taken on 
the roof of a building in the small village of Kaktovik. That is the 
picture. That shows the Coastal Plain going back into the wilderness 
areas where the mountains are. The mountains back there are very 
beautiful. That is somewhere in the area of 60 to 90 miles away from 
the Coastal Plain. Again, it is a matter of trying to orientate people 
with some degree of accuracy. If you are evidently from the New York 
Times, you are not necessarily interested in accuracy. You are 
interested in simply communicating a point of view which represents the 
editorial policy of the newspaper.
  On the Coastal Plain, winter lasts most of the year. As a matter of 
fact, it is dark for 56 straight days. There is no sunlight. So clearly 
that would not do very well up there. It is not pristine. It is a harsh 
environment, and has a uniqueness and beauty all its own; but there are 
buildings, an airport, schools, and a radar installation.
  We have written a letter in the hopes that we can correct the 
inaccuracies associated with the New York Times article, and we think 
it makes sense to ensure our energy security by coming up with 
solutions. We have the technology to do it safely. What we need is a 
debate based on facts, not fiction, and the reality of what is and what 
isn't ANWR. Again, I refer to the chart that shows what it looks like 
most of the time. This isn't what the Times pictured.
  I would like to address the fact that the Secretary of the Interior 
also touched on the issue of accuracy in the debate on ANWR and 
directed a letter to Mr. Tom Brokaw, of ``NBC Nightly News,'' among 
others. She enclosed a tape--which they were free to use--showing the 
North Slope of ANWR in the winter, the only time when energy 
exploration would be allowed under the President's plan. The video was 
produced for Arctic Power, an organization funded primarily by Alaskans 
and our State government. She indicates she thinks it is important that 
you have a factual idea from the video of the actual part of ANWR being 
discussed so the viewers can have a more accurate understanding of the 
issue.
  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:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2002.
     Mr. Tom Brokaw,
     NBC Nightly News,
     New York, NY.
       Dear Tom: As the U.S. Senate debates President Bush's 
     bipartisan national energy strategy over the next several 
     weeks, I encourage NBC Nightly News to report about the 
     President's initiative to allow environmentally sensitive 
     energy production in the far north slope--commonly called the 
     1002 Area--of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
       Enclosed is a betacam tape, which you are free to use, 
     showing the north slope of ANWR in the winter--the only time 
     when energy exploration would be allowed under the 
     President's plan. The video was produced for Arctic Power, an 
     organization funded primarily by the Alaska State government.
       I think it is important that you have video of the actual 
     part of ANWR being discussed, so that your viewers can have a 
     more accurate understanding of the issue. Frequently during 
     the energy debate, I have watched television programs feature 
     video that resembles ANWR's Brooks Range. This area is 
     designated wilderness in the central portion of the Refuge--
     and is not the area proposed for energy development.
       Winter-only exploration in ANWR is just one example of the 
     President's commitment to impose the toughest environmental 
     standards ever applied to oil production. For example, the 
     administration will also require the use of ice roads that 
     melt away in the spring and protect the tundra.
       Morever, the administration will require directional 
     drilling and smaller production

[[Page S1722]]

     pads, so that energy exploration can be accomplished 
     utilizing just 2,000 of the 1002 Area's 1.5 million acres. 
     These stringent requirements must be adopted so we can reduce 
     our dependence on foreign oil and protect ANWR's habitat and 
     the wildlife that call it home.
       Please call Interior Department communications at 202/208-
     6416 with further questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gale A. Norton.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, I want to make reference to some of the refuges 
because some people make an automatic mental transfer that somehow this 
is a refuge. Therefore, there should not be any exploration occurring 
or any activity of any kind. This chart shows activities associated 
with oil and gas in various refuges. In California, there are four 
refuges that produce oil and gas. We only have one in our State of 
Alaska, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. There are nine in Texas and 
there are many in Louisiana. These are specific ones. In California, we 
have the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, the Sacramento 
National Wildlife Refuge, Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, and the 
Sutter National Wildlife Refuge, where oil production is taking place 
and some of them are involved in various other discoveries, such as 
gravel, desalinization, and so forth. So, again, saying we are somehow 
initiating an action in Alaska that is unique and unfounded doesn't 
face the sense of reality.
  I will conclude by making a reference to the Washington Post and New 
York Times then and now. As I have already indicated, the editorial 
policy of the Washington Post is not in support of exploring in ANWR.
  I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record, the Washington 
Post editorial December 25, April 23; April 4, 2001, 1987, and 1989, to 
be followed by editorials from the New York Times, March 2001, January 
2001, April 1987, June 1988, and March 1989.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 23, 1987]

                    In Alaska: Drill, but With Care

       Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an untouched 
     and fragile place that supports rare mammals and myriad 
     species of birds. It is also the most promising untapped 
     source of oil in North America. Should America drill for it?
       What Congress decided, in 1980, was not to decide. It 
     ordered a long study. The assessment is now in, and for 
     Interior Secretary Hodel the decision isn't even close: 
     leasing drilling rights to oil companies is ``vital to our 
     national security'' because it ``would reduce America's 
     dependence on unstable sources of foreign oil.''
       Mr. Hodel is guilty of oversell. A single discovery can't 
     save us from increasing dependence on Persian Gulf oil but 
     the potential economic benefit of development--perhaps tens 
     of billions of dollars of oil--outweighs the risks. The 
     unanswered question is whether environmentalists and 
     developers can cooperate to minimize damage to the refuge.
       The Interior Department estimates that between 600 million 
     and 9.2 billion barrels of oil are recoverable from a 20-by-
     100-mile strip along the Arctic coast. But no matter how 
     carefully done, development of the coastal strip would 
     displace animals and scar land permanently. Tracks of 
     vehicles that crossed the tundra decades ago are still 
     visible. No one knows whether the caribou herd that bears its 
     young near the coast would stop reproducing or simply move 
     elsewhere.
       Adversaries in this battle view development as ecological 
     catastrophe or energy salvation. Outsiders can wonder why 
     such apocalyptic fuss. An unusual environment would surely be 
     damaged, but the amount of land involved is modest and the 
     animals at risk are not endangered species. A lot of oil 
     might be pumped, but probably not enough to keep America's 
     motors running for an entire year. Ultimately, policy makers 
     must weigh the dollar value of the oil against the intangible 
     value of an unspoiled refuge.
       The most likely net value of the oil after accounting for 
     costs and assuming a future world price of $33 a barrel, is 
     about $15 billion.
       How much an untouched refuge is worth is anyone's guess--
     but it's hard to see how it could realistically be judged 
     worth such an enormous sum. If America had an extra $15 
     billion to spend on wilderness protection, it wouldn't be 
     spent on this one sliver of land.
       That doesn't mean, however, that developers should be 
     permitted to treat the refuge as another Bayonne. Elaborate, 
     necessarily expensive precautions are needed to contain the 
     disruption. Human and machine presence can and should be kept 
     to a bare minimum until test wells are completed. Dense 
     caribou calving grounds should be left alone until the 
     animals' response to change is gauged.
       A decade ago, precautions in the design and construction of 
     the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the land from 
     serious damage. If oil companies, government agencies and 
     environmentalists approach the development of the refuge with 
     comparable care, disaster should be avoidable.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, June 2, 1988]

                       Risks Worth Taking for Oil

       Can Big Oil and its Government regulators be trusted with 
     the fragile environment of Alaska's Arctic Wildlife Refuge? 
     Congress, pressed by the Reagan Administration to allow 
     exploratory drilling in what may be North America's last 
     great oil reserve, has been wrestling with the question for 
     years. Then, last month, opponents' skepticism was heightened 
     by a leaked report from the Fish and Wildlife Service saying 
     that environmental disruption in the nearby North Slope oil 
     fields is far worse than originally believed.
       The North Slope development has been America's biggest test 
     by far of the proposition that it is possible to balance 
     energy needs with sensitivity for the environment. The public 
     therefore deserves an independent assessment of the 
     ecological risks and an honest assessment of the energy 
     awards.
       No one wants to ruin a wilderness for small gain. But in 
     this case, the potential is enormous and the environmental 
     risks are modest. Even if the report's findings are 
     confirmed, the likely value of the oil far exceeds plausible 
     estimates of the environmental cost.
       The amount of oil that be recovered from the Wildlife 
     Refuge is not known. But it seems likely that coastal plain, 
     representing a small part of the acreage in the refuge, 
     contains several billion barrels, worth tens of billions of 
     dollars. But drilling is certain to disrupt the delicate 
     ecology of the Arctic tundra.
       Some members of Congress believe that no damage at all is 
     acceptable. But most are ready to accept a little 
     environmental degradation in return for a lot of oil. Hence 
     the relevance of the experience at Prudhoe Bay, which now 
     yields 20 percent of total U.S. oil production. Last year, 
     Representative George Miller, a California Democrat and 
     opponent of drilling within the refuge, asked the Fish and 
     Wildlife Service to compare the environmental impact 
     predicted in 1972 for Prudhoe Bay with the actual impact. The 
     report from the local field office, never released by the 
     Administration, offers a long list of effects, ranging from 
     birds displaced to tons of nitrous oxide released into the 
     air.
       According to the authors, development used more land, 
     damaged more habitat acreage and generated more effluent than 
     originally predicted. The authors also argue that Government 
     monitoring efforts and assessment of long-term effects have 
     been inadequate.
       It's important to find out whether these interpretations 
     are sensible and how environmental oversight could be 
     improved. The General Accounting Office, a creature of 
     Congress, is probably the most credible agency to do the job.
       But even taken at face value, the report's findings hardly 
     justify putting oil exploration on hold.
       No species is reported to be endangered. No dramatic 
     permanent change in ecology are forecast. Much of the 
     unpredicted damage has arisen because more oil has been 
     produced than originally predicted. Even so, the total 
     acreage affected by development represents only a fraction of 
     1 percent of the North Slope wilderness.
       The trade-off between energy and ecology seems unchanged. 
     If another oil field on the scale of Prudhoe Bay is 
     discovered, developing it will damage the environment. That 
     damage is worth minimizing. But it is hard to see why 
     absolutely pristine preservation of this remote wilderness 
     should take precedence over the nation's energy needs.
                                  ____


                [From The New York Times, Mar. 30, 1989]

                  Oil on the Water, Oil in the Ground

       Does the Exxon tanker spill show that Arctic oil shipping 
     is being mismanaged? Should the industry have been better 
     prepared to cope with the accident? Should the spill deflect 
     President Bush from his plan to open more of Alaska to oil 
     exploration?
       Six days after the Exxon Valdez dumped 240,000 barrels of 
     crude into the frigid waters of Prince William Sound, 
     questions come more easily than answers. But it is not too 
     early to distinguish between the issue of regulation and the 
     broader question of exploiting energy resources in the 
     Arctic. The accident shouldn't change one truth: Alaskan oil 
     is too valuable to leave in the ground.
       Exxon has much to explain. The tanker captain has a history 
     of alcohol abuse. The officer in charge of the vessel at the 
     time of the spill was not certified to navigate in the sound. 
     The company's cleanup efforts have been woefully ineffective. 
     Local industries, notably fishing, face potentially 
     disastrous consequences, and the Government needs to hold the 
     company to its promise to pay. More important, Washington has 
     an obligation to impose and enforce rules strict enough to 
     reduce the risks of another spill.
       That said, it's worth putting the event in perspective. 
     Before last Friday, tens of thousands of tanker runs from 
     Valdez has been completed without a serious mishap. Alaska 
     now pumps two million barrels through the pipeline each day. 
     And it would be almost unthinkable to restrict access to one-
     fourth of the nation's total oil production.
       The far tougher question is whether the accident is 
     sufficient reason to slow exploration for additional oil in 
     the Arctic. The

[[Page S1723]]

     single most promising source of oil in America lies on the 
     north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east of the big 
     fields at Prudhoe Bay. But this remote tundra is part of the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and since 1980 Congress has 
     been trying to decide whether to allow exploratory drilling.
       Environmental organizations have long opposed such 
     exploration, arguing that the ecology of the refuge is both 
     unusual and fragile. This week they used the occasion of the 
     tanker spill to call for further delays while the damage from 
     the Exxon Valdez spill is assessed.
       More information is always better than less. But long delay 
     would have a cost, too: Prudhoe Bay production will begin to 
     tail off in the mid-1990's. If exploration is permitted in 
     the refuge and little oil is found, development will never 
     take place and damage to the environment will be 
     insignificant. If development does prove worthwhile, the 
     process will undoubtedly degrade the environment. But the 
     compensation will be a lot of badly needed fuel.
       Environmentalists counter that, at most, the refuge will 
     add one year's supply to America's reserves. They are right, 
     but one year of oil is a lot of oil. The 3.2 billion barrels, 
     if found, would be worth about $60 billion at today's prices, 
     enough to generate at least $10 billion in royalties for 
     Alaska and the Federal Government. By denying access to it, 
     Congress would be saying implicitly that the absolute purity 
     of the refuge was worth at least as much as the forgone $10 
     billion.
       Put it another way. Suppose the royalties were dedicated to 
     buying and maintaining parkland in the rest of the nation--a 
     not unthinkable legislative option. Would Americans really 
     want to pass by, say, $10 billion worth of land in order to 
     prevent oil companies from covering a few thousand acres of 
     the Arctic with roads, drilling pads and pipelines?
       Washington can't afford to assume that the Exxon Valdez 
     accident was a freak that will never happen again. But 
     neither can it afford to treat the accident as a reason for 
     fencing off what may be the last great oilfield in the 
     nation.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Apr. 4, 1989]

                        Lessons of the Oil spill

       Because of the gigantic oil spill off Alaska, conventional 
     wisdom declares, this country is now going to restrict oil 
     drilling much more tightly. Maybe so. But you will notice 
     that conventional wisdom isn't sayng anything about cutting 
     down on the consumption of oil. Americans have organized 
     their lives in ways that require 700 million gallons a day of 
     it, and they do not welcome suggestions to use less. But if 
     less oil is to be produced here in the United States, more 
     will have to come from other countries. The effect will be to 
     move oil spills to other shores. As a policy to protect the 
     global environment, that's not very helpful.
       The immediate cause of the Alaskan spill was slack and 
     solvenly management by Exxon. It is a familiar story. A 
     highly demanding industrial operation, set up with great care 
     and many safeguards, had been running smoothly so long that 
     people began to relax and get careless. Something similar 
     happened at Three Mile Island, the reactor accident 10 years 
     ago, which the conventional wisdom currently cites as a 
     parallel case to the Alaskan shipwreck. The nuclear industry 
     reacted with a vigorous improvement of both equipment and 
     training. The same thing is likely to happen on the West 
     Coast tanker routes.
       But that's not quite what the conventional wisdom means by 
     drawing the parallel. Its point is that Three Mile Island did 
     much to turn the country against nuclear power, just as it 
     expects the disaster in Prince William Sound to turn the 
     country against further drilling in Alaska, particularly in 
     the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and perhaps in any new 
     sites off the Pacific Coast as well.
       Because the United States has stopped building reactors, it 
     is now more reliant than ever on coal to generate its 
     electricity--which means pumping enormous volumes of 
     pollution into the atmosphere. The country cut back on 
     nuclear power, but it didn't cut back on its demand for 
     electricity--which is now rising half again as fast as the 
     government's forecast.
       All of the technologies for producing energy are 
     unforgiving. They punish incompetence savagely. That 
     frightens people. The conventional wisdom is now turning 
     against oil drilling, just as it has turned against nuclear 
     power and will turn against coal with its implications of 
     acid rain and a changing climate. But that same conventional 
     wisdom has not turned against the idea that energy for the 
     consumer should be plentiful, reliable and cheap.
       The first lesson of the oil spill is that it's time for 
     this country to get serious about energy conservation. The 
     second is that, since energy production is dangerous and even 
     a company as well equipped as Exxon can't be counted on the 
     maintain discipline, the government will have to do more of 
     it--and Exxon will have no one to thank but itself. The 
     lesson that conventional wisdom seems to be drawing--that the 
     country should produce less and turn to even greater 
     imports--is exactly wrong.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 23, 1987]

                          Caribou vs. Motorist

       It's the Caribou versus the motorist, again. Secretary of 
     the Interior Donald P. Hodel has recommended opening part of 
     the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil 
     drilling. That was what the oil companies hoped he might do. 
     A predictable shriek has gone up from the defenders of the 
     refuge. The decision is up to Congress.
       Environmental quarrels always seem to generate billowing 
     exaggeration. Another major oil discovery in Alaska would 
     certainly be convenient, postponing the effects of the 
     decline in Prudhoe Bay production that the government expects 
     within the next year or so. But it's not quite so vital as 
     Secretary Hodel suggests. With or without more Alaskan wells, 
     oil production in this country is likely to stay on a 
     downward trend.
       As for the caribou, however, oil drilling seems very 
     unlikely to be the dire threat to them that their friends 
     here in Washington claim. While the two cases are not 
     entirely comparable, the Interior Department points out that 
     the number of caribou around Prudhoe Bay, 60 miles west of 
     the refuge, has tripled in the 19 years since oil operations 
     began there. The aesthetic objections to oil drilling may be 
     substantial, but the caribou do not seem to share them.
       Preservation of wilderness is important, but much of Alaska 
     is already under the strictest of preservation laws. The area 
     that Mr. Hodel would open to drilling is 1.5 million acres, 
     running about 100 miles along the state's north coast near 
     the Canadian border. He points out that adjacent to it is an 
     area five times as large that remains legally designated as 
     wilderness, putting it off limits to any development 
     whatever.
       Human intrusion on the scale of oil exploration always 
     makes a difference in a landscape. But that part of the 
     arctic coast is one of the bleakest, most remote places on 
     this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling 
     would have less impact on the surrounding life.
       Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not crucial to the 
     country's future. But there is a respectable chance--about 
     one in five, the department's geologists say--that 
     exploration will find enough oil to be worth producing 
     commercially. That oil could help ease the country's 
     transition to lower oil supplies and, by a small but useful 
     amount, reduce its dependence on uncertain imports. Congress 
     would be right to go ahead and, with all the conditions and 
     environmental precautions that apply to Prudhoe Bay, see 
     what's under the refuge's tundra.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the editorial in the Washington Post 
indicates that we can't drill our way out of our ties to the world oil 
market. Well, I agree with that. They further state that they feel we 
can generate from conservation what we would potentially recover from 
opening ANWR. It is kind of interesting to see what they said back in 
1987. I will read a portion of it. The Washington Post, April 23, 1987:

       Preservation of wilderness is important, but much of Alaska 
     is already under the strictest of preservation laws. . . .

  We have 56 million acres of wilderness in our State.

       But that part of the arctic coast is one of the bleakest, 
     most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any 
     other place where drilling would have less impact on the 
     surrounding life. . . .
       That oil could help ease the country's transition to lower 
     oil supplies and . . . reduce its dependence on uncertain 
     imports. Congress would be right to go ahead and, with all 
     the conditions and environmental precautions that apply to 
     Prudhoe Bay, see what's under the refuge's tundra. . . .

  April 4, 1989:

       But if less is to be produced here in the United States, 
     more will have to come from other countries. The effect will 
     be to move oil spills to other shores. As a policy to protect 
     the global environment, that's not very helpful. . . .
       The lesson that conventional wisdom seems to be drawing--
     that the country should produce less and turn to even greater 
     imports--is exactly wrong.

  I had an opportunity to meet with the editorial board of the 
Washington Post, and I asked them why they changed their position from 
1987, 1989, and 2001. Their response was rather interesting. They 
indicated they thought President Bush was too forward in pushing the 
development of a national resource on domestic areas of the United 
States and, therefore, they were in opposition. I didn't accept that, 
but that is the rationale they gave me.
  The New York Times is also very interesting because back in 1987, 
April, they said:

       Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . the most 
     promising untapped source of oil in North America.
       A decade ago, precautions in the design and construction of 
     the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the land from 
     serious damage. If oil companies, government agencies and 
     environmentalists approach the development of the refuge with 
     comparable care, disaster should be avoidable.

  June 2, 1988:

       . . . the potential is enormous and environmental risks are 
     modest . . . the likely value

[[Page S1724]]

     of the oil far exceeds plausible estimates of the 
     environmental cost.
       . . . the total acreage affected by development represents 
     only a fraction of 1 percent of the North Slope wilderness.

  They did a little licensing there because it is not wilderness.

       But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine preservation 
     of this remote wilderness should take precedence over the 
     nation's energy needs.

  The last was March 30, 1989:

       Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground.
       The single most promising source of oil in America lies on 
     the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east of the 
     big fields at Prudhoe Bay.
       Washington can't afford . . . to treat the [Exxon Valdez] 
     accident as a reason for fencing off what may be the last 
     great oilfield in the nation.

  I went up to New York and asked the editorial board why they changed 
their position and that, too, was rather enlightening. They said, well, 
the editor of the editorial board had been transferred to California 
and, as a consequence, they had changed their position because they had 
a change of the editor of the editorial board.
  It is interesting to see how these major newspapers change their 
opinions on national issues, and one can only guess at what the 
motivation was. We will have to leave that for another day and perhaps 
another explanation.
  I ask unanimous consent that an editorial called ``A Better Energy 
Bill,'' which appeared in the Washington Post today, also be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          A Better Energy Bill

       As the Senate opened debate on an energy bill last week, 
     the White House fired a shot across its bow. The bill on the 
     Senate floor is not comprehensive energy legislation, said 
     the Office of Management and Budget, because it doesn't do 
     enough to increase domestic oil production, failing in 
     particular to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
     drilling. The administration opposes the higher automobile 
     fuel efficiency standards that are in the bill, and it 
     objects to a provision that would require facilities that 
     emit large quantities of greenhouse gases to register those 
     emissions. The administration is right that the House and 
     Senate are heading in different directions, but it's wrong on 
     the relative merits. The pro-conservation tilt of the Senate 
     bill makes it the better measure.
       It's possible neither version will become law. While all 
     sides agree on substantial sections of the legislation, 
     divisions over Arctic drilling and fuel economy are deep. 
     Even if the Senate can pass a bill, it is likely to be so 
     different from the House version that a conference committee 
     will have trouble bridging the gaps. The issues that were 
     driving debate when President Bush put his energy plan 
     together last year have faded: Prices for oil and natural gas 
     are down, and California no longer is suffering from rolling 
     blackouts. Since Sept. 11 the rallying cry is national 
     security. But it's worth remembering that both drilling in 
     Alaska and auto fuel efficiency standards would take years to 
     bear fruit. And neither the House bill nor the measure now 
     before the Senate would make the country energy independent. 
     Imported oil now provides 57 percent of U.S. needs; left 
     unchecked, imports are expected to make up two-thirds of 
     consumption by 2020. The energy measures aim to reverse that 
     trend, but the best either side predicts from the range of 
     measures in either bill is to bring imports back under 50 
     percent of consumption, not eliminate them. As long as the 
     economy and most modes of transportation rely on oil, America 
     will remain economically tied to the world oil market.
       But it makes ecological sense to reduce dependence on oil, 
     foreign or domestic, and on other fossil fuels, so there's 
     merit in the Senate bill's emphasis on conservation, new 
     technology and new sources of energy. Raising auto fuel 
     efficiency standards, unchanged since 1985, would help. So 
     would the bill's proposed tougher efficiency standards for 
     new air conditioners and its demand that, by 2020, 10 percent 
     of electricity come from renewable sources; several states 
     already have used this kind of requirement to boost 
     generation from wind and other renewable sources. As debate 
     opened Wednesday, Alaska's Sen. Frank Murkowski broadly 
     described these initiatives as an ``unacceptable intrusion of 
     the federal government into the marketplace.'' But they're no 
     more of an intrusion than the Republicans' tax breaks for 
     drilling. The difference, as Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman 
     (D-N.M.) said, is that his bill's incentives seeks to bring 
     about change that wouldn't occur otherwise. The Republican-
     favored approach renders more profitable activity that likely 
     would take place anyway, or (as in the case of Alaska) 
     encourage activity that we'd be better off without.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters 
to the editors of the Washington Post and New York Times dated today 
also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     The New York Times,
     New York, NY.
       To the Editors: I was deeply concerned by the misleading 
     photograph that accompanied your recent article discussing 
     the safe exploration of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge (ANWR).
       The presence of such a large mountain range in your picture 
     tells me that the photograph is not located in the area of 
     ANWR discussed in the story. In fact, it is probably more 
     than 75 miles off the mark.
       This would be not unlike using a photo of the Philadelphia 
     skyline for an article about New York City. At the very 
     least, it's like using a picture of the Meadowlands for a 
     story about JFK International airport. They are simply not 
     interchangeable because they are two very different places.
       Fewer than 1,000 visitors a year have a chance to see for 
     themselves what is--and what isn't--ANWR. This remoteness 
     makes the ANWR debate the frequent target of incorrect 
     information and inaccurate portrayals.
       ANWR is composed of 19 million acres--an area the size of 
     all of South Carolina. The 17.5 million acres that is off-
     limits is the actual home to the mountains and wildlife that, 
     during a brief spring, make for some of the picturesque 
     photos we've seen. Let me be clear--this is not the area 
     where oil exploration will occur.
       If allowed, oil exploration will be limited to a flat, 
     barren portion of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain--a 
     section set aside for the express purpose of oil exploration 
     because of the tremendous oil reserves geologists believe 
     exist there.
       To help ensure our nation's energy security, we must make 
     certain that our energy solutions begin and end here at home. 
     We can do that by recognizing the vast energy resources that 
     exist on our shores and that our technology and ingenuity can 
     ensure their safe recovery.
           Very truly yours,

                                   Senator Frank H. Murkowski,

                                     Ranking Member, Senate Energy
     and Natural Resources Committee.
                                  ____

     The Washington Post,
     Washington, DC.
       To the Editors: I do not disagree with your statement that 
     ``as long as . . . most modes of transportation rely on oil, 
     America will remain economically tied to the world oil 
     market'' (``A Better Energy Bill'', March 11, 2002). We 
     should reduce our dependence on oil and especially foreign 
     oil. The comprehensive energy plan proposed by President Bush 
     and passed in the House includes a number of proposals to 
     spark the development of alternative fuel and help reduce our 
     future use of oil.
       But I disagree with your assertion that the safe 
     exploration of domestic energy resources in Alaska is 
     ``activity that we'd be better off without.'' Geologists tell 
     us that ANWR is believed to have more oil than all of Texas' 
     proven reserves--enough to end more than 30 years of Saudi 
     Arabian imports. American technology and ingenuity will 
     ensure its safety recovery with a minimum amount of 
     disturbance--just 2,000 acres.
       Domestic oil from ANWR has, in fact, been supported by this 
     paper before. In 1987, the Washington Post editorialized that 
     oil from ANWR ``. . . could help ease the country's 
     transition to lower oil supplies'' and that it could ``. . . 
     reduce its dependence on uncertain imports.'' Again in 1989, 
     the Post said ``The lesson that conventional wisdom seems to 
     be drawing--that the country should produce less and turn to 
     even greater imports--is exactly wrong.''
       What has happened since 1989? We fought a war over oil in 
     the Gulf. Our dependence on foreign oil has increased. The 
     Middle East has grown more unstable. And never before in our 
     history have we gained a greater appreciation of national 
     security and the impact of ensuring our energy security.
       Domestic energy production must be part of the Senate's 
     efforts to construct a national energy plan. Any plan that 
     fails is no solution at all.
           Very truly yours,

                                   Senator Frank H. Murkowski,

                                     Ranking Member, Senate Energy
     and Natural Resources Committee.
                                  ____

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In conclusion, Madam President, I think we deserve 
better from two of our leading newspapers than to have such gross 
inaccuracies perpetrated on the American public in the interest of news 
or formulating public opinion. I do not mind taking my licks as long as 
it is a fair portrayal, but when it is an unfair portrayal or it is 
journalism that reflects simply a prevailing attitude and ignores the 
facts, the only thing I can do is call it to the attention of Members 
and the public in the interest of fairness.
  I ask unanimous consent that a portion of the Sunday New York Times 
which factually mischaracterizes the issue of ANWR be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S1725]]

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 9, 2002]

         Oil Industry Hesitates Over Moving Into Arctic Refuge

                          (By Neela Barnerjee)

       More than three decades ago, the world's largest energy 
     companies led the charge to drill for oil on the North Slope 
     of Alaska. But now, as the debate rages over opening the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, those 
     same companies remain surprisingly silent.
       Drilling in the Arctic refuge, which has already been 
     approved by the House, has become a touchstone issue for the 
     Bush administration, and the issue promises to produce a 
     nasty fight in the current debate over the energy bill in the 
     Senate. Publicly, the biggest multinational petroleum 
     companies, like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and 
     ChevronTexaco, back the Bush administration's assertion that 
     developing the oil in the Arctic refuge is critical to the 
     American economy. But privately, many large companies say the 
     prospect, solely on business terms, is not terribly 
     attractive.
       ``Big oil companies go where there are substantial fields 
     and where they can produce oil economically,'' said Ronald W. 
     Chappell, a spokesman for BP Alaska, which officially 
     supports opening the area to drilling. Using the acronym for 
     the refuge, he continued, ``Does ANWR have that? Who knows?''
       Oil companies and industry experts say it is cheaper and 
     more promising right now to exploit large reservoirs of oil 
     elsewhere in the world. And it is easier: many companies fear 
     that drilling in the wilderness area may be blocked by 
     persistent litigation, or that a future president or Congress 
     could put the refuge out of bounds once more.
       ``There is still a fair amount of exploration risk here: 
     you could go through eight years of litigation, a good amount 
     of investment, and still come up with dry holes or uneconomic 
     discoveries,'' said Gerald J. Kepes, the managing director 
     for exploration and production issues at the Petroleum 
     Finance Company, a Washington consulting firm for oil 
     companies. ``It's not clear that this is quite the bonanza 
     some have said.''
       Supporters and opponents alike of drilling in the Arctic 
     refuge have noted the reticence of the largest multinational 
     oil conglomerates on the issue. ``They are not present at 
     all,'' a Senate aide said.
       Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said that the 
     administration believed that oil companies would be 
     interested in exploration if the refuge is opened to 
     drilling. ``What's important is that we have this option due 
     to the vast potential to reduce our reliance on foreign 
     sources of energy,'' she said.
       The fight over oil drilling in the refuge has flared in 
     Congress every few years, and so far, opponents of drilling 
     have kept the area off limits. Now, proponents of drilling 
     smell the sharpest whiff of victory ever.
       They still face an uphill battle. The energy bill narrowly 
     passed last year by the House included a passage permitting 
     oil exploration in the refuge. But in the Senate, two 
     Democrats, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph I. 
     Lieberman of Connecticut, have threatened to filibuster any 
     amendment on drilling, meaning that proponents will have to 
     muster at least 60 members to force a vote. Given the 
     deepness of the divisions, the entire energy bill could 
     unravel if both sides tug hard enough at this single issue, 
     Congressional aids and energy industry executives said.
       The battle centers on drilling on the coastal plain of the 
     refuge, a narrow ribbon of land that stretches about 110 
     miles along the Beaufort Sea. Environmentalists and wildlife 
     biologists say that in the summer, the coastal plain teems 
     with caribou and millions of migratory birds. Drilling for 
     oil there, they argue, would ruin one of the few pristine 
     wilderness areas left on the planet.
       Those who back drilling are varied and formidable, 
     including a bipartisan array of politicians from southern and 
     western states, nearly the entire political establishment of 
     Alaska and several labor unions, led by the Teamsters. They 
     contend that the coastal plain is a snowbound wasteland, and 
     the oil there could be developed with little environmental 
     damage. They say the coastal plain's reservoirs hold about 16 
     billion barrels of oil, or enough to meet the country's 
     appetite for petroleum for a little more than two years.
       The oil companies themselves, however, are less certain of 
     how much oil lies below the coastal plain. No precise data 
     about the amount of oil in the plain is publicly available. 
     In the 1980's BP and what then was the Chevron Corporation 
     drilled an exploratory well on private land owned by native 
     tribes that is inside the refuge, but BP said that those 
     results were a proprietary secret. The United States 
     Geological Survey estimates that at oil prices around $20 a 
     barrel, the amount of oil that could be recovered 
     economically from the federally controlled part of the 
     coastal plain is 3.2 billion barrels.
       Of course, companies face severe difficulties in developing 
     oil fields overseas, from the rough winters in the North Sea 
     to the endemic corruption in Nigeria to the long-running 
     civil war in Angola. But the size of the discoveries and the 
     relative cheapness of exploiting them often make the 
     investments worthwhile. Within each oil company, prospects in 
     the Arctic refuge would be measured against fields elsewhere. 
     A political mandate to explore the region, executives of 
     several major oil companies said, would not necessarily 
     compel them to rush into the area.
       ``All our Alaska projects need to compete worldwide with 
     other Phillips projects,'' said Dawn Patience, a spokeswoman 
     in Alaska for Phillips Petroleum, the largest oil producer on 
     the North Slope. ``And it does come down to economics.''
       The calculus includes the usual factors like the cost of 
     producing oil and shipping it to market. But drilling in the 
     Arctic refuge holds significant political risks that would 
     lead to delays and with that, higher costs, oil company oil 
     officials said.
       ``There will be tremendous debate or delays due to 
     litigation,'' an executive with a major oil company said. 
     ``All that has to go into the assessment of whether that 
     project would be economically viable.''
       Still, there would be pressure on companies already working 
     in Alaska, like BP, Exxon Mobil and Phillips, to bid for 
     leases if the area is opened to drilling. The state, which 
     issues so many of the permits oil companies need to work in 
     Alaska, might take their indifference as a slap in the face, 
     said environmentalists and some industry executives.
       At the same time, smaller companies, particularly those 
     looking for a foothold in Alaska, might be willing to take on 
     the risks and aggressively pursue drilling in the refuge. 
     ``Smaller companies are involved in fewer places, and what is 
     a marginal opportunity for us is a big opportunity for an 
     independent,'' the executive with the major oil company said. 
     ``This is not a huge priority for us.''
       Even without lawsuits by environmentalists, the earliest 
     any oil from the wildlife refuge would make it to market is 
     2010, industry executives said. But development efforts could 
     drag out well beyond that date. ``To protect the refuge,'' 
     said Deborah Williams, executive director of the Alaska 
     Conservation Foundation in Anchorage, ``national 
     environmental law firms and Alaskan environmental groups will 
     find every opportunity to challenge drilling.''
       Oil companies know too well how projects can atrophy within 
     a web of litigation and political resistance. They hold 
     hundreds of leases for places where they cannot drill because 
     of litigation, Congressional action or a change of 
     presidential administration. Among them are Bristol Bay in 
     Alaska, the western and eastern seaboards of the United 
     States and the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico.
       The champions of drilling in the refuge are the State of 
     Alaska and the unions. In fiscal 2001, 82 percent of the 
     unrestricted funds in the state budget came from the 
     petroleum industry, which is also a major employer. But oil 
     production on the North Slope has fallen by half since its 
     peak of two million barrels a day in 1988, said Mark D. 
     Myers, director of the State Division of Oil and Gas.
       And as oil production dwindles, so might revenues and jobs. 
     ``The primary reason is job creation,'' said Jerry Hood, a 
     Teamsters union energy specialist. The Bush energy policy, 
     Mr. Hood said, ``is, frankly, a way to re-employ American 
     workers.''

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I see my friend from New Mexico, the 
chairman of the committee, with us today. I ask him if he knows what 
business we might take up today.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response to my friend from Alaska, 
my understanding is the leader intends that we remain in session until 
approximately 5 o'clock and then go out of session. I do have one 
amendment that I believe has been cleared related to U.S.-Mexico 
technology cooperation which both myself and Senator Domenici have 
sponsored. It has passed the Senate before. I hope to do that by voice 
vote in the near future.
  Then, as I say, the intent is to recess the Senate around 5 o'clock. 
Then tomorrow morning, it is my understanding the majority leader 
intends to have a vote at 10:30. I am not sure the subject of that 
vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, if I may respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe the Akaka amendment has been accepted by 
this side and the U.S.-Mexico amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, 
and Senator Dorgan has spoken on an amendment which we have no 
objection to on our side, but we are still clearing it at this time. I 
suspect that can be accepted, but I have to hold off. I anticipate that 
tomorrow we will go to Senator Feinstein's amendment, which I believe 
is pending. Then I hope we might get to CAFE.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I certainly agree with what my 
colleague has said. Unless there is other business at this particular 
moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S1726]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2990

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I call up for consideration amendment 
No. 2990 dealing with U.S.-Mexico energy technology cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment is one I offered on 
behalf of myself and Senator Domenici. It is an amendment that was 
adopted by the 106th Congress. It merely tries to ensure maximum 
possible cooperation between our two countries along our common border 
on issues related to health and energy production and to ensure that 
the Department of Energy environmental management technologies are used 
to help clean up serious and pressing public health problems along the 
border.
  This is an amendment that I believe has strong support on all sides. 
I believe it has been cleared on both sides. I urge it be adopted.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have agreed to it on our side, and 
I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? 
There being none, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2990.
  The amendment (No. 2990) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


     Amendment No. 2989 to Amendment No. 2917, As Further Modified

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order to return 
to the Feinstein amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________