[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 41 (Monday, April 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2664-S2666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, before the distinguished visitor
entered the Chamber, and before the vote and the statements were made
by the Senators from Wyoming concerning their nominee, I was discussing
problems in relation to the Alaska natural gas pipeline.
I think it is something on which the Senate ought to concentrate
because we are clearly going to have to have a gas pipeline to bring to
market the gas which was reinjected into the ground as Prudhoe Bay oil
was produced. To bring that to market--50 to 70 trillion cubic feet of
gas--we need a pipeline 3,000 miles long, gathering pipelines up to
1,500 miles long.
We are now in the position where there are only two steel mills in
the world that are capable of delivering this steel pipe as it is
designed.
Before the vote, I outlined the number of jobs that we have lost in
the steel industry and the situation with the American steel industry.
For this gas pipeline, we need 5.2 million tons of steel. We need $3 to
$5 billion in steel orders. We cannot get that steel unless the U.S.
steel industry gets back on its feet.
So for that reason, I started to think about how we could use some of
the cashflow from the development of ANWR to start the process of the
gas pipeline. As we examined that, we found the problem was not the
steel industry as much as it was the rights of those who have been
employed by the steel industry to have their medical care maintained.
And that promise was a benefit that was agreed to many years ago for
the contribution these workers had made to the military and civilian
infrastructure of the country. It is, as I understand it, a potential
lien against the steel industry as a whole.
We need to find some way to prevent these retirees from losing their
health care coverage so that it will not be a lien against the assets
of the steel industry as it tries to undergo consolidation now. The
consolidation must be done if we are going to have the steel necessary
to build the Alaska pipeline to bring our gas down to somewhere in the
Midwest.
I was commencing to tell the Senate about two messages that I
received today from a great friend whom I think is one of the most
capable engineers in the oil and gas industry, particularly with regard
to the pipelines and their design.
As I said, he told me there are only two steel mills in the world
that are currently capable of delivering this pipe. He further told me
that the pipe will require one-half of the world's capability to
produce the pipe during the period of this order.
If the producers restart their work on this project this year, it
would take until 2010 or 2011 for the gas to actually be delivered to
our Midwest--9 years from now.
There is over 18 months of work required to complete the design so
that it would be possible to order the pipe. For orders placed in 2003,
the last pipe materials would be delivered to the field in 2007. That
would enable the gas, if everything else goes well, to start being
delivered in 2010, as I said.
Now, we have linked these issues together because of both the funding
standpoint and the impact on national security and because of our
absolute need for steel to build our gas pipeline.
Opening up the North Slope of Alaska to the drilling in what we call
the 1002 area will bring a cash bid in 2003 and 2005. We propose to
make some of that money available to initiate the process of rebuilding
the industry and taking the first steps to assure that the legacy fund
of the steelworkers and the coal workers would be made whole.
Madam President, many people have argued with me about this. The
House bill put money into the conservation account. An interesting
thing about it is, if the amendment we have is defeated, the oil
industry will not proceed, the steel industry will not proceed, the
natural gas pipeline will not proceed, but not one of these radical
environmentalists will lose their health care coverage. The American
steel retirees are going to be the ones who pay the price in the long
run.
I received a second message from my friend just before I came back to
the Chamber, and that is that 30 percent of the pipeline materials will
need to be delivered to the site by 2005, with the remainder to be
delivered in 2007, as I said. I did not realize the steel chemistry for
pipelines of this size has never been used. It will be what we call an
X80-plus steel pipeline.
If the project proceeds in the first year, some of the pipe material
needed to be manufactured will need to be tested for weldability and
for fracture and burst analysis to assure the material chemistry in the
pipe is correct. The timing and cost of all of this is critical to the
pipeline project.
In addition to the pipeline pipe, there is a huge amount of normal
steel materials required for compressor stations and the largest
processing plant ever to be built.
The Alaska natural gas pipeline should be called the ``Full
Employment Project for 10 Years,'' maybe 15 years. It will require
every person who is capable of working on such an endeavor in the
United States and Canada for a period of over 8 years. It will not be
built unless we realize the preliminaries must be completed before this
pipeline can be built. It will bring down to what we call the South 48
the equivalent of a million barrels of oil a day, but it will be
natural gas--high pressure gas pipeline, 52 inches in diameter, 1-inch
thick.
I find it very interesting that as I talk about this subject, the
commentators in the newspapers and whatnot say this is just a lot of
baloney. These people are trying to link two subjects together. These
are two subjects that have no individual answer. At the present time,
we don't have 60 votes on the amendment to allow the drilling to
commence in the 1002 area. We know that.
But the steelworkers and coal miners have no other cashflow either.
They can't look for another source of money to meet their needs for at
least 30 years. There are over 600,000 of them, and our proposal would
start a cashflow from this new oil brought into our market. And it is
money that is payable for the bidding process and from royalties on
this oil that would help the steelworkers, the coal workers, and the
industry to reconstruct itself.
[[Page S2665]]
We have been criticized about this all too often. I see my good
friend standing here in the Chamber who might take umbrage at this. But
during the time I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we
provided $17 billion for American farmers for emergency purposes
because of failures in various parts of the agricultural industry. That
was in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent by
the Department of Agriculture in the same period. What do you think
that money was used for? It was used to pay for the bills on the John
Deere tractors. It was used to pay for the farmers' health insurance.
It was used to pay for the cost of the agricultural community to
survive during bad times.
These are bad times for the steel industry. There is not one bit of
steel in my State. We have half the coal of the United States, but we
do not have any steel. We have raised a question of trying to find an
answer to the steel problem because of our own interest in the steel
industry in the future. If there is no steel industry in the United
States, we will not have an Alaska natural gas pipeline for years and
years.
I see no reason why we should be afraid to marry two subjects that,
if the supporters of each would get together, we would succeed. The
radical environmentalists of this country have overwhelmed the
Congress.
In 1980, my State faced the problem of a proposal to withdraw 104
million acres of Alaska for Alaska national interest lands. That is
what the name of the act was, the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act. In 1978, my former colleague, Senator Gravel, had
blocked that bill in the final minutes of that session, that Congress
that ended in 1978.
By the end of 1980, we were at the place where there was a bill, but
we said we would not support it, could not support it, unless we had
the right to explore in the 1002 area, which is known to contain the
largest reservoir in the North American Continent. And in a compromise
entered into in good faith between those of us who represented Alaska
and Senators Jackson and Tsongas, we got a bill passed which authorized
the future drilling in this area and provided an environmental impact
statement that showed there would be no adverse impact on the area.
Twice the Congress has passed such an amendment and twice President
Clinton vetoed it. Now President Bush, knowing the international
situation as it is, has said he wants this area opened to oil and gas
exploration. We are trying to carry that load of getting the approval
requested by the President of the United States. It is in the House
bill, but it is not in this bill.
I find it very hard to represent a State such as mine, a new State. I
have been in the Senate for all but 9 years that Alaska has been a
member of the Union. The one absolute agreement, absolute agreement
that we worked on for 7 years was the agreement to assure that this
area would be explored for its oil and gas potential.
When I was in the Department of the Interior during the Eisenhower
administration, I helped prepare the order to create the Arctic
National Wildlife Range. At that time there was no question that range
was created, and it was specifically stated that oil and gas
exploration could continue in that area, subject to stipulations to
protect the fish and wildlife.
When we got to this bill, the so-called ANILCA bill, the Alaska
Natural Interest Lands Conservation Act, we had the proposal to
withdraw all of this land, and the House of Representatives, in its
bill, closed this area to oil and gas exploration. The only basic
change that we made in that bill, as it came out of the Senate, the
only basic change that was absolutely demanded by the State of Alaska
and all of us who were elected to represent the State of Alaska--both
the State legislature, the Governor, and the three of us in the
congressional delegation--was that area had to be available for
exploration.
Senator Jackson, chairman of the committee; Senator Tsongas, author
of the substitute; agreed to amend that bill to allow for the
exploration and development of the oil and gas potential, and those in
the Chamber now who challenge that are leading the fight to break a
commitment that was made to a sovereign State. It was made to us as a
State that the area would be available for exploration if we did not
oppose any further the proposal to withdraw 104 million acres of land
for national purposes in our State.
People say, why are you exercised about that? Our whole rights as a
State were put aside until that issue was settled. The Alaskan people
were entitled to select lands for the public land as part of our
statehood act; the Native people were entitled to select lands in
settlement of their claims. Over 150 million acres of Alaska to be
selected to benefit Alaskans in the future, it all was put aside until
those 104 million acres were set aside. The only thing we asked out of
the 104 million acres was the right to explore this area, 1.5 million
acres on the Arctic coast. That agreement was made.
There are people here in the Senate who voted for it who now tell us
they are not going to vote to allow that exploration to take place. It
is enough to strain anybody's conscience, and my conscience is strained
because of the fact that I agreed to that proposition. I agreed to it.
I believed in the system. I believed that once Congress made a
commitment in law, signed by the President of the United States, it
would be binding even on future Senators. Apparently, it is not.
I warn all Senators, don't trust the Senate. Don't trust a commitment
that is made by your colleagues. Don't trust an agreement that you make
with the Federal Government. Unless we can get this area opened, there
is no way I will trust a future agreement that is made here in the
Senate Chamber with regard to future activity. I will insist that
anything that benefits my State must be done now, not dependent on
future Congresses in order to carry it out.
This is an unfortunate situation as far as I am concerned. I have not
said the last.
Let me put this back up so people will see it again.
Madam President, this is the introduction to section 1002, the
Jackson-Tsongas amendment, December 2, 1980. It specifically set forth
the agreement we had made:
The purpose of this section is to provide for a
comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the
fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impacts
of oil and gas exploration, development, and production, and
to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain in
a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish
and wildlife and other resources.
That is the situation. That is the Coastal Plain, 1.5 million acres,
part of the original Arctic Wildlife Range. That has never been
wilderness. The balance of the wildlife range is wilderness, but the
additions of the wildlife range are not wilderness. This is a concept--
I really don't know how to deal with it other than to say this was a
basic negotiated compromise between the State of Alaska and the people
of the United States. We were assured that the area would be open.
Now, that little red dot there on the chart represents the amount of
land we have agreed we would be limited to as we go into production--
2,000 acres of a million and a half acres is what we are asking to be
able to explore. We know where to drill now. The seismic work was
authorized by the 1980 act and has been done. We are ready to drill
now.
There is oil production right outside of that ANWR area. This is the
Prudhoe Bay area here and this is Kuparuk Field. This is essential to
our national security. At the time of the Persian Gulf war, that Trans-
Alaska pipeline, going from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, carried 2.1 billion
barrels of oil a day. Now it carries 950,000 a day. We make up the
difference by importing the oil from Iraq. As we buy the oil from Iraq,
Saddam Hussein sends $25,000 to the families of every one of the
suicide bombers. We are paying for the terrorism that comes from Iraq
because we continue to import oil that we could produce ourselves. We
know there is oil there. The problem is, not only do we know there is
oil there, but also in this big field up here, as we produce the oil,
there is associated gas.
There is 50 trillion to 70 trillion cubic feet of gas there that we
want to bring down to the 48 contiguous States. This chart will show
where it will go. There are two routes proposed. This green line is the
route. It is traversing a corridor that will come down the Alaska
[[Page S2666]]
Highway and across into Canada and then to the Chicago area. That is
3,000 miles, and 1,500 miles of gathering pipelines in the area.
There is no question that this gas is absolutely needed for our
future. What is the key to that future? I am back where I started. The
key is steel. If we don't have steel, we cannot build a pipeline. If
the steelworkers don't get that legacy fund fixed, there will not be a
consolidation of steel that will make a difference for us. We need the
steel industry to come back into its own and for them to be able to
deliver their portion of this steel. It will take half of the world's
production for a period of 7 to 10 years to build that gas pipeline.
That is why we are suggesting that we marry up the needs of the steel
industry and our needs, as the State that wants to pursue development
of that oil in the 1002 area, the million and a half acres.
I think we should do things in the national interest. I am sad to say
that it increasingly looks as if it is not going to happen. We are
still going to persevere and try to continue to convince people what
would be the right and just thing to do here. But, above all, I hope
every Senator will examine their conscience and answer the question of
whether or not, if a commitment was made to them concerning their State
by the United States in a law enacted by the Congress, suggested by two
colleagues in the Senate, what would their attitude be if when the time
came to validate that agreement, the Senate refused to do so?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
____________________