[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 42 (Tuesday, April 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2696-S2717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 517, which the clerk will report.
The assistant 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.
Kerry/McCain amendment No. 2999 (to amendment No. 2917), to
provide for increased average fuel economy standards for
passenger automobiles and light trucks.
Dayton/Grassley amendment No. 3008 (to amendment No. 2917),
to require that Federal agencies use ethanol-blended gasoline
and biodiesel-blended diesel fuel in areas in which ethanol-
blended gasoline and biodiesel-blended diesel fuel are
available.
Lott amendment No. 3028 (to amendment No. 2917), to provide
for the fair treatment of Presidential judicial nominees.
Landrieu/Kyl amendment No. 3050 (to amendment No. 2917), to
increase the transfer capability of electric energy
transmission systems through participant-funded investment.
Graham amendment No. 3070 (to amendment No. 2917), to
clarify the provisions relating to the Renewable Portfolio
Standard.
Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 3093 (to amendment No. 2917),
to prohibit oil and gas drilling activity in Finger Lakes
National Forest, New York.
Dayton amendment No. 3097 (to amendment No. 2917), to
require additional findings for FERC approval of an electric
utility merger.
Schumer amendment No. 3030 (to amendment No. 2917), to
strike the section establishing a renewable fuel content
requirement for motor vehicle fuel.
Feinstein/Boxer amendment No. 3115 (to amendment No. 2917),
to modify the provision relating to the renewable content of
motor vehicle fuel to eliminate the required volume of
renewable fuel for calendar year 2004.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 3132 To Amendment No. 2917
(Purpose: To create jobs for Americans, to reduce dependence on foreign
sources of crude oil and energy, to strengthen the economic self-
determination of the Inupiat Eskimos and to promote national security)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], for himself and
Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 3132 to amendment
No. 2917.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 3133 To Amendment No. 3132
(Purpose: To create jobs for Americans, to strengthen the United States
steel industry, to reduce dependence on foreign sources of crude oil
and energy, and to promote national security)
Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk an amendment to the Murkowski
amendment No. 3132.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 3133 to amendment No. 3132.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The underlying amendment was introduced by Senator
Stevens, myself, and Senator Breaux and, as a consequence, I think
deserves some explanation relative to the specifics that are in the
underlying amendment.
The items for consideration, some of which were in H.R. 4, include
specifically a 2,000-acre limitation on surface disturbance.
Specifically, an export ban of any oil from the refuge cannot under any
circumstances be exported, with the provision of authority for exports
to Israel. Further, we would extend the U.S./Israeli oil supply
arrangement, which is due to expire in the year 2004, to the year 2014.
We would further have a wilderness increase designation, adding a
million and a half acres of wilderness from the current refuge
management in the southern portion of the refuge.
Finally, there would be a Presidential finding--and this Presidential
finding is quite specific that the refuge would not be open until the
President makes a finding it is in the national security interest of
this Nation.
There would also be a triggering mechanism such as energy supply,
threat to strategic reserves not sufficient to cover.
I encourage my colleagues to reflect a little bit on how the
underlying amendment was constructed. A great deal of time went into
this effort by Members of both parties. I know there has been some
frustration about the manner in which this amendment has been brought
before the body, and I know there is a question of why we simply do not
introduce the House-passed bill, H.R. 4.
The reason is very simple. We have taken a radically different
approach because, as I have indicated in my opening remarks, the
amendment we offer today does not open ANWR, per se. Let me repeat, the
amendment does not give the authority to open ANWR. Rather, the
amendment grants the President the authority to open the area for safe
exploration only if he makes a determination it is in the national
security interest of this country. Obviously, the President has the
power, given to him in the Constitution, for extraordinary
responsibilities associated with the decisionmaking process, and it is
clearly appropriate in this time of crisis that the President be given
that authority.
[[Page S2697]]
I think it is fair to say for far too long Congress has proved itself
incapable of dealing with extreme and difficult issues that have
difficult political consequences, and this clearly is one of those
issues. However, at this time in our Nation's history we can no longer
afford, for our national security, to be held hostage to the massive
disinformation campaigns of some of the extreme environmental groups.
So we must move on. That is the responsibility of each Member of this
body.
Some who oppose opening ANWR are perhaps on autopilot right now and
are gearing up for their rebuttals, but I ask them to stop for a few
moments and listen to what conditions must be met should the President
decide this action is in the national interest of the Nation because
many of those who will be opposed to this amendment do not know what
they are fighting about.
If development is moved forward, the following conditions must be
met: As I indicated, only 2,000 acres of surface disturbance on the
Coastal Plain can occur. We have a chart that shows what the footprint
is. It shows the entire area of ANWR, which is roughly 19 million
acres, which equates to the size of the State of South Carolina. It
also recognizes there is within that 19 million acres both wilderness
and refuge. We are proposing to add to the wilderness. We are going to
increase it from 8 million acres to 9.5 million acres, and we are going
to reduce the refuge by that amount. So we are increasing the
wilderness.
What does 1.5 million acres equate to? The green area is the 1002
ANWR Coastal Plain. We are adding wilderness equal to that amount. That
is the significance of what we believe is a responsible proposal that
addresses the concerns of many who say in this area where you are
proposing drilling in 1.5 million acres there should be some
consideration to more wilderness.
The authorization of the footprint in the 1.5 million acres is
limited by the House bill, limited in this Senate bill, to 2,000 acres,
roughly 3.13 square miles. The area proposed is the little red dot. It
would be similar to a postage stamp being dropped on the floor of the
Senate Chamber. That is what we are looking at.
For those under the misunderstanding that this area of ANWR is
untouched, let me show a few pictures of the actual footprint. There is
the village of Kaktovik. There are roughly 3,000 people in that
village. They are American citizens, Alaskans. They have dreams for a
better lifestyle, job opportunities, running water, things we take for
granted. That is their community. It is in ANWR. They feel very
strongly about supporting this because it improves their lives and
improves opportunities for their children, including educational
opportunities.
This is a picture of the village meeting house in Kaktovik. Those are
real people, real kids. We have pictures of real kids going to school.
Nobody shovels the snow off the sidewalks in that community. Those are
happy Eskimo kids who dream about a better life. They dream about
having running water and sewer lines.
Let me show you a honey bucket. Many Members dismiss this, suggesting
this is a Third World situation, not something that occurs in the
United States. It does occur. It occurs in my State of Alaska. I will
share it. It is not the most pleasant sight in the world, but it
represents a reality, the reality of a people who want a better
lifestyle and jobs and opportunities associated with oil development.
That is a honey bucket. We don't have to look at it too long. It is not
too pleasant.
This area is permafrost. That means the ground is frozen year-round.
Water and sewer lines can only be obtained at great costs. We have that
in Barrow, AK.
It is important to see the contrasts in the Arctic. Contrast the
development of the responsible residents of the Arctic Eskimos and
primarily those in Barrow, Wainwright, and other villages. You cannot
go further north than Barrow, without falling off the top. The
significance is that community has a tax base, revenues. They have
jobs. They have running water and sewer lines, things we take for
granted.
In this debate, few Members are going to get down into the earthy
issues of what the people of my State want. That is a little beneath
the echelon around here, but it should not be. These are American
citizens. Their dreams are like yours and mine.
This map shows a small footprint in a very large area. We need to
recognize the arguments of today as opposed to the arguments of the
late 1960s. We built an 800-mile pipeline, from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez.
It is 800 miles long. It is one of the construction wonders of the
world at a cost of $7.5 to $8 billion. It was supposed to come in at
under $1 billion. The pipeline has moved 20 to 25 percent of the total
crude oil produced in this country in the last 27 years. It has
been bombed; it has survived earthquakes.
It has accommodated some of the animals. I will show Members what the
bears think of the pipeline. They are going for a walk. Why are they
walking on the pipeline? It is easier than walking in the snow. There
is a compatibility there because no one is shooting those bears. They
blend in with the modest amount of activity.
I point out that the infrastructure is already in place. The 800-mile
pipeline is operating at half capacity. The prospects for finding a
major discovery of oil in the 1002 area, according to the geologists,
range somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels. That is a lot of
oil.
But it is nothing if you don't compare it to something. What can you
compare it to? Let's try Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay is the largest
oilfield in North America. That is the harsh reality. It is almost 30-
year-old technology. If we have an opportunity to develop ANWR, we can
make that footprint much smaller because we went in 30 years to another
field called Endicott, which was 56 acres and produced 100,000 barrels
a day, coming on as the 10th largest producing field in North America
and now is the 7th largest.
Getting back to a meaningful comparison, if indeed the estimated
reserves are somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels, if it is
half, that is roughly 10, and what was Prudhoe Bay supposed to be? It
was supposed to be 10 and it is now supplying its 13th billion barrel.
When people say it is insignificant, is 25 percent of the total crude
oil produced insignificant?
There is more oil in ANWR than there is in all of Texas. I don't know
what that means to my Texas friends, but it is a reality.
This is a jobs issue. This is a jobs issue associated with project
labor agreements. This pipeline simply cannot be built without the very
important labor unions and their members. We don't have the skills.
Only organized labor has the skill. It is a very significant jobs
issue. That is why virtually every union supports this effort.
There is another issue that has clouded a lot of the debate. That is
the issue of oil exports. I have heard time and time again: You will
develop this area and export the oil to Japan. That is a fallacy. We
have not exported one drop of oil to Japan or any other nation since 2
years ago last June. We provide Hawaii with oil.
Where does our oil go? From Valdez, AK, down the west coast of the
United States, about half of it goes into Puget Sound. Some of it goes
into Oregon indirectly because Oregon doesn't have refineries. The rest
of it goes down to San Francisco and Los Angeles where it is refined.
That is where the oil goes.
We also have an exclusion for Israel from the export ban, and we
would extend the U.S. oil supply arrangement with Israel for 10 more
years. The expiration date is 2004; we will extend it to 2014.
Let me talk about environment protections, export, labor agreements,
and so forth because the amendment included almost 20 pages of
carefully drafted environmental standards that I suspect all 100
Senators should favor. These came in from environmental groups, from
the Department of the Interior, from the State of Alaska, the Governor,
and many others. Among them are the imposition of seasonal limitations
to protect denning and migration.
Let me show the area in the wintertime so you have an idea of what it
is like about 10 to 10 \1/2\ months a year. It is a very harsh
environment. Very harsh. There are no trees. There is ice, snow, and
occasionally when there is a whiteout, it looks like the other side of
the chart. One cannot see the difference between the sky and the
land. As a consequence, it is very hazardous
[[Page S2698]]
to fly in unless you are an experienced instrument pilot.
The point is, the limited activity associated with ANWR is primarily
in the very short spring when there is a migration through the area.
There is not going to be any development. There is not going to be any
activity. That is why the imposition by the Secretary of seasonal
limitations is so important. It is prudent management.
Further, there is a requirement of the lessees to reclaim the leased
land. If oil is developed there, it is going to have to all be
reclaimed. It further requires the use of the best commercially
available technology. That means the industry has to go out and get the
very best.
It requires the use of ice roads, ice pads, and ice airstrips for
exploration. Let me show you what an ice road looks like. That is an
ice road. It is going to a well in the Arctic, in the Prudhoe Bay area.
For those who suggest there is something unique about the Prudhoe Bay
area vis-a-vis the Kaktovik area--it pretty much looks the same.
The interesting thing here is this is new technology. We did not use
that in Prudhoe Bay because we did not have it. Now it is ice roads.
You make your roads out of ice--very limited activity.
One of the provisions is to prohibit public use on all pipeline
access or service roads. So you are not going to have visitors,
hunters, fishermen, and so forth.
I think we have another chart that shows what the same area looks
like in the summertime. That is roughly 2.5 months of the year. That is
all we really have, free of ice and snow. You can see the small lake--
there is a little well there. That is a pretty small footprint. I have
heard people say you are going to have jet airports, you are going to
have cities. That is absolutely preposterous.
Further, it requires there be no significant adverse effect on fish
and wildlife, which is referred to many times throughout this
amendment, and it requires consolidation of facility siting. It
requires the Secretary of the Interior to close certain special areas
of unique character and maybe close additional areas after consultation
with local communities.
Finally, surface disturbance of 2,000 acres of the Coastal Plain--
2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres in the Coastal Plain. And we are
adding 1.5 million acres of wilderness. That footprint is the size of a
postage stamp on this floor.
Let me chat a little bit about national security because I think that
is germane to our consideration. This amendment is a matter of national
security. I do not think we really reflect on the fact that this Nation
is at war. Just 7 months ago, our Nation was under attack. Regarding
our dependence on foreign oil, that attack has brought forth more and
more awareness of what the merits of reducing our dependence are and
the recognition that this is probably more important now than ever, as
we look at the chaos in the Mideast. Within the last few days, more
than 30 percent of our oil imports are currently threatened with the
self-imposed Iraqi embargo, and God knows what the political upheaval
in Venezuela will lead to, plus what is going on in Colombia with
threats to the pipeline. Those countries export a large amount of crude
oil to the United States. The point is, we can no longer rely on a
stable supply of imported oil.
I would like to refer to artwork painted by a famous artist who
hailed from New England, the State of Vermont. It was painted by Norman
Rockwell for the U.S. Office of War in 1943, entitled ``Mining
America's Coal.'' There is the coal miner. It is a picture of a coal
miner, and you notice his blue star pin, which shows he had two sons in
the war. This type of poster was displayed in America's places of
work--the shipyards, the factories--specifically to encourage war-
related industries to increase output.
We are at war now. Where are the posters? Developing our own
resources is just as important as it was in World War II. We need oil
to transport our families, but we also need it to transport our troops,
and we are going to need it in the future. The reality is that air
power and naval power cannot function without oil. In spite of what we
create around here, you do not fly out of Washington, DC, on hot air.
The Navy no longer uses sails; it is oil.
While the public can generalize about alternative energy sources, the
world--and the United States--moves on oil. We wish we had another
alternative, but we do not. In the meantime, the Third World developing
countries are going to require more oil, and so this Nation becomes
more vulnerable unless we are committed to reduce our dependence on
imported oil.
Some would hint that wind power is viable as an alternative to oil.
As I said before, you are not going to be able to move troops on wind
power or solar power. You are going to need oil.
As we look at our relationship with Iraq, opening ANWR will certainly
make us less dependent on countries such as Iraq.
Let me show you a picture of our friend Saddam Hussein. There he is.
I do not know how much attention is going to have to be given by
America and its elected leadership to recognize what this means. Saddam
Hussein is saying: Oil as a weapon.
What was the last experience we had with a weapon? It was three
aircraft used as weapons. What happened? Catastrophe for America.
America will never be the same: The two trade towers are gone; the
Pentagon; the heroic effort to try to take over the control of the
aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania. Aircraft are now weapons of war.
Oil is a weapon of war.
On the first day of April, Iraq's ruling Baath Party confirmed our
worst fears when it issued a statement saying ``use oil as a weapon in
the battle with the enemy.'' Of course they meant Israel. Outrageous
statements such as these confirm what we have been saying all along: We
simply must not rely on Iraq. We must reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.
What is the estimate? USGS, the Department of the Interior, suggest
that we could, by opening ANWR, reduce our current dependence, which is
1 million barrels a day from Iraq. That would provide this Nation with
a 40-year supply, equal to what we import from Iraq. Last year we sent
Iraq over $4 billion.
Here are the crude oil imports from Iraq to the United States in
2001: 283 million barrels. It has gone up each month. In December it
was 1.1 million a day.
Look at the irony of what happened in September. In September we had
an all-time high of almost 1.2 million barrels a day from Iraq. We all
know what happened in September.
We have a photo of our friend Saddam Hussein up here. Here he is:
American families count on Saddam Hussein for energy.
Every time you go to the gas station, you are in effect funding Iraq,
and Iraq is funding terrorism. Is there a connection there? Members
say: Senator Murkowski, this is not going to replace our dependence on
foreign oil. I certainly acknowledge that. But it is going to reduce
it. It is going to send a very strong message to the cartels of OPEC,
and the other nations upon which we depend, that we mean business about
reducing our dependence on imported oil.
In 2001, America imported a total of 287.3 million barrels of oil
from Iraq. Looking at a map of imports, according to the Energy
Information Administration, you ought to know who gets some of their
oil. There are different States. I will identify some of the States
because it causes a little reflection. That is just what it should
cause.
Mr. President, 48.1 million barrels of Iraqi oil were imported into
California; 4.9 billion barrels of Iraqi oil were imported into New
Jersey; 1\1/2\ million barrels into Minnesota; Washington; and the list
goes on. Don't think somebody else is getting the oil. It is going into
all of the States in red--New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Kentucky, Missouri, Minnesota, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas. That is where it is going.
To make matters even worse, Saddam Hussein recently announced that he
is increasing money relative to the suicide bombers from $10,000 to
$25,000. We revolt at even the thought of that. But you have to
recognize that is an incentive, and it is still going on. Since the
prices have been raised in the last month, we have had at least 12
suicide bombers who have been successful in their acts of terrorism in
Israel. Saddam Hussein is rewarding the acts of murderers who are
spreading terrorism
[[Page S2699]]
throughout the free world. One wonders if it will come to the shores of
the United States.
As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said:
Saddam's payments promote a culture of political murder.
That is a pretty harsh statement. It comes from our Defense
Secretary. I couldn't agree more. With facts such as these, it is
impossible for me to imagine why we would want to send one more
American dollar to this man.
I just looked at an article that appeared today, April 16, in the
Wall Street Journal. It is entitled ``Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
Praises Suicide Bombers, Urges Iran Oil Halt.''
It said:
Iraq's President Saddam Hussein who sends cash to the
families of Palestinian suicide bombers reiterated his
support for the attacks, Iraqi media reported Tuesday. The
Iraqi leader during a meeting with military officers and
engineers on Monday night--today is Tuesday, Mr. President--
said, ``Suicide attacks were legitimate means used by people
whose land is being occupied.''
Moslems have been divided over suicide bombings, with some
saying Islam forbids any suicide, others condemning bombers
for attacking civilians, and others, such as Saddam,
supporting them without reservation. Saddam has made payments
up to $10,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers
since the Israeli-Palestinian clashes began in September
2000.
In his comments on Monday, Saddam also urged Iran to follow
Iraq in cutting off oil exports for 1 month to support the
Palestinians and to return 140 Iraqi warplanes and civilian
planes that escaped to Iran during the 1991 gulf war. Iran
claims only 22 Iraqi planes. He urged the Arab governments
not to yield to ``U.S.-Zionist blackmail'' in which Zionism
and those from that area are using Hitler's deeds against
Jews in addition to the September 11 order to subdue the
world.
Those are the comments of one who obviously is unstable.
Saddam gets roughly $25,000 from us, this Nation, for oil every 90
seconds that pass. That is one homicide bombing every 90 seconds. Think
about it.
What are we going to do about it? We are talking about it, but we
would like to ignore it because it is very unpleasant. He is rewarding
the acts of murderers who are spreading terrorism. As I have indicated,
our Secretary of Defense called it a ``culture of political murder.''
There are a lot of tensions in the Mideast. They are rising
exponentially each day and each hour. Why some of my colleagues would
be interested in continuing our reliance on oil from that part of the
world is simply beyond me, especially at this time when we can make a
commitment to reduce it.
I, for one, would find it very difficult to go back to my home State
of Alaska and defend that position, especially if I had to look into
the eyes of a mother or father such as the American depicted in this
Rockwell work who, as we speak, had a son or daughter overseas fighting
for America's freedoms.
I have stood on this floor and made the comparison time and time
again that as we import oil from Iraq, we are also enforcing an aerial
blockade and the no-fly zone over Iraq. We have bombed them three times
already this year. We take his oil, put it into our airplanes, and go
bombing. That may be an oversimplification with which the State
Department would argue.
But, by the same token, what does Saddam Hussein do with his money?
He keeps his Republican Guard well fed, and they keep him alive. He
develops weapons of mass destruction, and aims it at whom? We know he
has a missile delivery system capable of going to Israel. We know he is
developing biological weapons. We suspect he might be developing
nuclear weapons.
When are we going to address that threat? That is a real
responsibility for our President because, as we have seen with the
tragedies associated with September 11, had we known, we would have
taken action to prevent that. The same set of circumstances apply to
Saddam Hussein. There have not been U.N. inspectors in Iraq for over 2
years. He is in violation of his agreement with the U.N. He is a threat
to the world, and we are still depending on him.
Wake up, America. It is time.
In addition to the amendment being about national security, it is
also about the economic security of this country. It is projected to
create jobs--real jobs. We just came from a rally outside. We had
organized labor in support of this issue. We have had the veterans
saying they would much rather see us open ANWR than send American men
and women to foreign soil to fight a war over oil. A former Senator in
this body, Mark Hatfield, made that statement several times. He said: I
will vote for opening ANWR any day rather than sending another American
soldier overseas to fight a war over oil on foreign soil.
One of the interesting things about that particular study--jobs in
the area of 250,000--was it was conducted by a Massachusetts firm,
McGraw-Hill. The capability of that firm I will leave to those more
qualified than I and who reside in the State of Massachusetts. Some
have quibbled about the numbers, but it is a step in the right
direction. Every single new job created is important, especially in
these times, and especially for those who are in the unfortunate
position of being unemployed. These aren't service jobs working at
McDonald's; these are high-paying jobs associated with responsible
development of our resources--jobs created throughout America, not just
my State of Alaska.
One thing about the movement of oil, as I indicated, is that it goes
from Alaska and down to the west coast of the United States where it is
consumed. But it has to go in U.S. ships that are built in U.S. yards
with U.S. crews and which carry the U.S. flag because the Jones Act
mandates that the carriage of any goods between two American ports has
to be in a U.S.-flagged vessel. There are as many as 19 new double-hull
tankers to be constructed. That means jobs in America's shipyards--big
jobs, good-paying jobs. This is the largest contribution of tonnage to
the American merchant marine.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, could I just ask a strictly procedural
question of my colleague?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Please, without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague--so we can try to get a
sense of planning how we will proceed--what he would anticipate in
terms of how long he thinks he may be presenting the amendment. Then we
can get a sense of how we might go forward.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will probably be talking for another
20 minutes or thereabouts. There is a second degree pending, and
Senator Stevens is anticipating recognition to talk about his second
degree so I am guessing probably an hour.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska very much.
And I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, let me again make reference to the creation of what
this would do for America's merchant marine.
It would result in some 19 new double-hull tankers to be constructed
in U.S. shipyards, primarily in the gulf and the State of California
and, I would hope, in the State of Maine.
It is estimated that these tankers will pump about $4 billion into
the U.S. economy. That will create about 2,000 to 5,000 jobs in our
shipyards. And this isn't going to require a Government subsidy. These
are private funds that will build these ships to haul U.S. oil from my
State of Alaska to Washington, Oregon, and California.
Somebody did a little calculation and figured that is equivalent to
90,000 job-years just for the construction of the tankers alone. Also,
the equivalent in infrastructure to be used in ANWR will be constructed
not in my State but in the other States of this Nation--not in the
Arctic of Alaska. Therefore, Americans from all over the country will
be put to work in this effort.
The other alternative is to simply send the dollars overseas, which
affects the balance of payments and does not keep the jobs or the
dollars here.
Some opponents note that oil will not be flowing the day after the
ANWR amendment is passed. But what they forget is jobs certainly can be
flowing the day after. Americans could go to work constructing
everything that will be needed.
If you wonder about the numbers, listen to those who are in the
business, the unions. They will benefit from new ANWR jobs, and they
have been behind
[[Page S2700]]
this effort 110 percent. And why not? These are American jobs. These
are American unions. They have already had almost 30 years of
experience in the Arctic in Prudhoe Bay, and they know, firsthand, the
kind of jobs ANWR will create and they know how to do it right. So
let's put America to work.
The things we have to talk about, as well, are projections because we
really do not know how much oil is in ANWR. There has only been one
well ever drilled, and it has been on the Native land at Kaktovik shown
up there at the top of the map I have in the Chamber. But there is one
well. The results of that well have been kept confidential by the
Native community, the State of Alaska, and the two companies, the joint
venture.
But geologists, based on 2-D seismic, prior to 1980, had some access
in the area. They have gone back and reviewed their analysis, and they
have come to the conclusion that, indeed, this area could contain the
largest amount of oil in North America.
Some are going to downplay the amount of oil in ANWR, but even
numbers from the Clinton administration, the U.S. Geological Survey
showed that the Arctic Coastal Plain clearly was North America's best
bet for a major oilfield. The Clinton administration's U.S. Geological
Survey estimated, in 1998, that there was a 5-percent chance of finding
16 billion barrels, a 50-percent chance of finding 10.3 billion
barrels, and a 95-percent chance of finding 5.7 billion barrels.
I want to put this in context. Texas has proven reserves of 5.3
billion barrels. So the projections indicate that ANWR, indeed, has
more oil than all of Texas. Is that significant to this body? Is that
significant to Members other than those from the State of Texas?
Even if the most conservative effort of 5.7 billion barrels proves to
be correct, it would still be the second largest oilfield ever
discovered in the 100-year history of the U.S. oil industry, and it
would be second only to what? Second only to Prudhoe Bay. If the 5-
percent estimate proves right--16 billion barrels--ANWR would be the
largest field ever found in North America. To anyone who knows anything
about oil and gas in this country, these numbers are truly staggering.
Some Members have come to this Chamber and have argued that there is
only a 6-month supply there. But I would hope all Members have
enlightened themselves on that argument because it is so misleading it
hardly bears a response. But for the benefit of those who might not
have come to grips with it, a 6-month supply assumes that there would
be no other source of oil, no other source imported, no production in
this country of any kind other than ANWR--no imports, no domestic
supply.
This is a bogus argument. We are going to produce oil. We are going
to continue to import oil. So it would only be a 6-month supply of oil
if there was no other oil produced domestically and none imported. So
that is a fallacious argument.
It is also important to look at how ANWR will impact our domestic
production. Along these lines, it is fair to recognize the Energy
Information Administration--which, by the way, provides impartial
energy assessment--recently provided an analysis of ANWR's effect on
domestic oil production.
This is what it said about the project: Assuming the USGS mean case
for oil in ANWR, there would be an increase of domestic production by
13.9 percent.
That is the answer to those who say the increase is of no
consequence--13.9 percent. They say: Assuming USGS's higher case for
ANWR, that would be an increase of 25.4 percent of domestic production.
An increase of domestic production by 25 percent is certainly
significant.
Let's put some of the ANWR projections into perspective.
If ANWR yields the Clinton administration's medium estimate of 10.4
billion barrels of oil, ANWR would then provide--and I want to go to
some States because it is important that States get some comprehension
of how much that would provide--it would provide Massachusetts with 87
years of its oil needs. That is based on the 117 million barrels used
in Massachusetts in 1999. It would provide Connecticut with 132 years
of Connecticut's oil needs; for South Dakota, roughly 479 years, based
on 21 million barrels it used in 1999.
How can Members from those States argue that ANWR is not projected to
have a lot of oil, with those numbers? It is a lot of oil.
We have heard from Members who are a little disillusioned with the
progress of the energy bill talk about CAFE. They say: The answer is
CAFE. If we would just go to CAFE, we could save millions and millions
of barrels of oil.
I think it is interesting to reflect a little bit about CAFE because
if the proposal of increasing CAFE standards is the answer instead of
opening ANWR, it reflects on a couple realities. The Senate has already
rejected the argument, No. 1, and, more importantly, the consumers
rejected that argument through their purchasing choices.
This is important to recognize. The top 10 most fuel-efficient
vehicles account for less than 2 percent of all vehicle sales. Think
about that. The public has a choice, and the top 10 most fuel-efficient
vehicles account for less than 2 percent of all vehicle sales.
What do we want to do here? Do we want to direct the public on what
kind of automobiles they have to buy? That is one answer. We could put
a tax on heavier automobiles; that is another answer. But the proposal
they have been pushing, known as the Kerry amendment, is simply not
acceptable to the American people, as evidenced by the vote on the
floor of the Senate.
It would force increases in fleet average fuel economy to 36 miles
per gallon by the year 2016. It would cause massive losses of U.S. auto
workers' jobs, roughly 200,000, as the debate pointed out. It would
cost several tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. It would
put American lives at risk in smaller, lighter vehicles. The Senate
took these concerns into consideration when it addressed CAFE several
weeks ago and rejected the Kerry amendment. Instead, the Senate voted
for the Levin-Bond approach, which resolved the issue in favor of
letting the experts--not the Congress, the Senate--at NHTSA do their
jobs.
Opening ANWR doesn't take away jobs or cost lives. Opening ANWR would
create jobs for hard-working Americans. When we get into the argument
of CAFE, be very careful and reflect on the debate that took place; it
would be a convenient copout for the argument against reality. The
world moves on oil. America moves on oil. As the Third World develops,
there is going to be more and more requirements for oil, until such
time as we obviously reduce our dependence by increasing production
here at home.
The time to act is now, and for those who suggest that somehow we are
rushing into ANWR, let me tell you, I have been in this body for almost
22 years. I have been with it all the time and so has Senator Stevens
and others. Amazingly, some of the biggest opponents of ANWR have
indicated we are rushing into this issue and we are moving it through
the system too fast.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of the same Senators
have been involved in this debate for years, as I have said. You can go
back to 1980, when Congress passed the Alaskan National Interest
Conservation Act and included the section 1002 area, which is up on top
in the green on the chart.
The 1002 area required that the Department of the Interior report to
the Congress on the biological resources and the oil and gas potential
on the Coastal Plain of ANWR--this green area. The Department of the
Interior extensively researched the issue and, after 7 years, a final
legislative environmental impact statement was submitted to Congress
recommending that ANWR's Coastal Plain be opened. That was the
Department of the Interior, after 7 years of research.
Now, when we talk about CAFE and about increasing the vehicle fuel
efficiency standard, we want it to be done rationally, safe--not just
picking a mileage standard out of the air.
We talked about the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration. We talked about the fact that Democrats and Republicans
overwhelmingly rejected what was an arbitrary new standard because it
would force American families to buy unsafe cars in the name of fuel
efficiency. That was a conscious decision. The American people knew we
could get higher CAFE, but they didn't want to
[[Page S2701]]
trade safety for it. As a consequence, I don't want Washington ordering
American families to buy certain types of vehicles. We can talk about
solar and wind, and that isn't going to help us in this argument and we
know that.
Now, Congress has addressed ANWR. At other times, we have had
legislation introduced. We have had hearings. In 1995, a conference
report authorized the opening of ANWR and it was passed. So in 1995,
Congress passed ANWR, but it was vetoed by the Clinton administration.
If it had not been vetoed in 1995, we would have oil already flowing
from ANWR, as I speak today.
Now, there is a projection of revenue from the sale of royalties and
the royalty bids, and the lease bids alone will produce roughly $1.5
billion in Federal funds. This is not with any appropriation or
authorization. This is the private sector funding, if you will, this
level of activity in bonus bids and royalties. Where does the money go?
It goes into the Treasury basically because these are Federal lands.
This amount does not include the billions of dollars that will be
generated from royalties in the outyears because, again, we have been
producing in Prudhoe Bay for 27 years, to be exact.
ANWR is the only provision in this bill that generates any revenue. I
will repeat that. In this entire energy bill that we have labored over
for some 5 weeks, ANWR is the only provision that generates revenue of
any consequence, and this is from the private sector, not
appropriations. Many other provisions in this bill do the exact
opposite. They simply authorize new programs that would require further
Government spending.
Now, there used to be a policy around here--and Senator Stevens is
well aware of it; he has been here longer than I--that was evident when
I came here in 1981. Senator Scoop Jackson was certainly one who
fostered it. It was kind of the general feeling that if the two
Senators from the State supported an issue, the consensus was they
probably knew what was best for their State and what was best in
representing the people of that State. So don't forget, there is a
States right issue here. Don't forget what Alaska's attitude in this
is. The entire congressional delegation supports it, including the
Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and the Alaska State Legislature. Most
importantly of all, the Eskimo people, the residents, of the Coastal
Plain and nearly 75 percent of Alaskans support it.
There is a photo of some of the Eskimo kids who are looking to the
future. They want running water. They want to have an educational
opportunity, a job opportunity. It is important to remember this
because on many occasions other Senators have made passionate arguments
regarding activities in their States.
Although we talk about agricultural supports, and various other
issues, I am reminded of the Senator from Florida and his attitude
regarding lease sale 181 last summer, representing the wishes of the
people of Florida. As a result of the Florida delegation's advocacy,
the lease sale boundaries were scaled back by the administration.
Senator Stevens and I are doing the same thing. We are representing
the wishes of our State. It is unfair for people from other parts of
the Nation to obstruct the will of our citizens. Florida has said ``not
in my backyard'' and that is fine. They have a right to do that, and I
respect that. But there is a bit of a reciprocity here. Alaskans are
willing to have environmentally sound exploration take place in their
backyard, so why not let them?
We have a chart that shows development, if you will, on the east
coast and the west coast and, hopefully, we have it--yes. I think it
represents ``not in my backyard.'' If you look at that chart, you can
see the blue area off the east coast of the United States. That is
roughly 31 trillion cubic feet of gas. The only problem is, there is no
authorization or authority for exploration. That is from Maine to
Florida. That is off limits. They don't want it in their backyard. If
you go down to the gulf, there is a good portion of it.
On the west coast--Washington, Oregon, and California--no way; no
lease sales offshore.
If you go into the overthrust belt, in Wyoming, Montana, and
Colorado, there is a significant potential for oil production. It has
been withdrawn by the previous administration as a consequence of the
roadless area language.
If it is not in my backyard, where is it? One spot, obviously, is
Alaska, and I think we have made the case that clearly the State of
Alaska supports this.
We have had debates in this Chamber. I remember when the Senator from
California announced her displeasure with the current administration's
decision to appeal a case impacting 36 drilling leases off the
California shore. She stated that there is a disregard for States to
make decisions about their own environment.
The Senator from California proposes that leases be withdrawn from
California's coast and swapped to Louisiana's coast. She actually said:
We are going to swap it so that the oil companies can drill
where people want them to drill.
In other words, the industry can drill where there is support for it.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to apply to Alaska.
It is the old saying: Not in my backyard. The people of Florida and
California should remember that if oil is not found in other parts of
the country, there may come a time when we are forced to explore closer
to their shores. In fact, the Senator from Massachusetts has suggested
we focus on more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. He has even called for
four times more drilling in the gulf.
Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is fine, but I do not understand why
Members should think it is any better for the wildlife than development
in ANWR. It should be noted there are many more species in the Gulf of
Mexico than there are in ANWR.
Speaking of other Senators, let's look at the New England States. New
England enjoys the benefit of getting their natural gas from big
offshore platforms off Nova Scotia. When it comes to America getting
oil from its own land in ANWR, some of the Senators from the east coast
are trying to lead the challenge for the opposition. Although the
drilling for natural gas may be offshore, off the coast of Nova Scotia,
it requires onshore gas processing facilities on Canadian land.
Remember, whatever happens to Canada's environment is closely linked
with our own. If they really thought drilling for energy was so bad for
the environment, they would have sponsored a bill barring the Canadian
gas from entering the United States. But, obviously, charity begins at
home.
If there is concern about the effects on the environment, I would
think some of the Senators would have concerns with the effects of
offshore drilling on New England's fisheries, but that is never brought
up. When it comes to Alaska, they are standing in the way of something
that at least 75 percent of Alaskans support.
Looking at other activities, in the State of Massachusetts, the ``big
dig'' has been dragging on for years. Some environmentalists are not
pleased with it, but the ``big dig'' has not been interrupted. Instead,
it has produced thousands and thousands of jobs in Massachusetts, and
that is good for Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Senators should
take credit for it. But why can't citizens of Alaska be permitted the
same rights?
Finally, let's not forget the only people who are located within the
boundaries of ANWR are our Native people. In fact, they reside on their
own land.
I am going to put up the picture of Kaktovik again because I think it
is representative of reality. Many people choose to overlook reality
and think there is no footprint, there is nobody there. That is not the
case. They are the Inupiats, a proud people, and they live in the
Kaktovik by choice. They have lived there for thousands of years and
support opening ANWR.
They graciously invited some of the most outspoken opponents of ANWR
to Kaktovik so they could see firsthand their way of life.
Unfortunately, the Inupiats did not get the courtesy of a reply because
of the intervention of the Sierra Club and some environmental groups
who used their influence, if you will--and I am being gracious--to not
allow the people associated with some of the villages that occupy the
Gwich'in nation even to go up and look at the prosperity associated
with the Eskimos in the Barrow and Wainwright area.
A number of invitations have been extended to Members of the Senate
[[Page S2702]]
from the Inupiat Eskimos. It is too bad Senators have not taken them up
on their offer because the Inupiats have a very interesting and
compelling story to tell. They are for self-determination. They want
the right to improve their lifestyle and that of their children, and
this amendment supports that right of self-determination and their
right to develop and live on their land as they please.
They have some 92,000 acres that have been held hostage by the
Federal Government long enough. The opponents often gloss over the fact
that the Inupiat Eskimos hold title to the land in the Coastal Plain.
They do not pay any attention to it. They assume those people up there
will just have to somehow work out their lives, but only Congress can
give them the authority to have access.
Without congressional approval to open the Coastal Plain, they are
unable to develop their privately owned land. There are the 95,000
acres consisting of the village of Kaktovik and the one well that was
drilled in that area. Responsible development will allow the Inupiat
Eskimos to provide for themselves, heat their homes, provide education,
and live in sanitary conditions.
Again, the plumbing in the Arctic is not sanitary. It is not
pleasant. There are honey buckets. They want a better lifestyle. They
believe responsible development in the area is their fundamental human
right to economic self-determination.
This amendment would still allow the Inupiat Eskimos to enforce
regulatory powers to make sure the wildlife and traditional
environmental values are respected and protected. After all, who is
more concerned about the caribou than the Native people who reside
there and live off them?
Let me show another picture about the caribou. It reflects the
reality. My colleagues have seen it before, but these are not stuffed
caribou, these are real caribou, and they are roaming the fields of
Prudhoe Bay. Nobody is running them down with a snow machine. Nobody is
shooting at them. They are protected, and they wander, and they
increase.
When we hear debate about the Porcupine herd--this is the western
Arctic herd right in the heart of the oil fields. When we started 27
years ago, there were 3,000 or 4,000 animals. Today there are 26,000
animals. We do not want to confuse the Inupiat Eskimo or the Gwich'ins
who live hundreds of miles away from the Coastal Plain, but we have
charts that show a little activity on the Canadian side because, as my
colleagues know, Alaska does share a border with Canada, and the
Gwich'ins are on both sides of Alaska and Canada.
It is known that while the Inupiat Eskimos living on the Coastal
Plain support opening ANWR, clearly the environmental groups have had
to search far and wide for someone to foster their cause, and roughly
150 miles south of Kaktovik beyond the Brooks Range outside the ANWR
boundary, they have found significant support, an Arctic village and
other villages, the basic traditional home of the Gwich'ins.
I admire and respect the Gwich'ins for their wishes, but I hate to
see environmentalists trotting this indigenous group around saying
opening ANWR will hurt their caribou. There is no evidence to suggest
that.
The greatest harm to the caribou--this is rather significant because
while it may seem confusing, everything on the right of the line
straight up and down is Canada and everything on the left is Alaska.
One can see the purple. This is the Porcupine caribou herd as they move
around during migration. They are on the edge of the 1002 area for a
short time during the short summer, but in their migration they do go
through Canada. They cross the Dempster Highway.
At the Dempster Highway during their migration, there is a
significant number of caribou that are taken for subsistence, sport,
and for, obviously, those who need them, the point being, the Gwich'ins
have under previous discussions entered into leases for their own land.
This is a copy of the actual lease, Native Village of Venetie. They
indicated a willingness in March of 1994 to lease their land. For
anyone who questions the details, I am happy to provide a copy of the
lease. I am simply saying they have a right to choose what they want to
do, but at that particular time they were willing to lease their land.
Unfortunately, there was not much interest in it because the prospects
for oil discovery were not in the area.
So I think what we should recognize is the central Arctic caribou
herd is a herd with which we have had experience. They have increased
from 6,000 to 26,000, increasing by more than four times. As the
environmentalists have addressed this argument, why, it is pretty weak
to suggest we cannot manage this herd for the benefit of the indigenous
people. I think it is fair to say, as we look at development, there is
no evident harm to these lands or the potential of anything of any
consequence affecting the lifestyle of those people.
As we have tried to address the concerns of the Gwich'ins, the
difficulty has been encouraging them to simply visit the Eskimos of the
Arctic to reflect on what development has meant to their standard of
living. What we have in this amendment are protections. We have
recommendations that require all the lands be returned to their natural
state, and we also have the recognition that, while the Gwich'ins have
been opposing activity on the Alaska side, they have been very
aggressively pursuing it on the Canadian side. The Gwich'ins in Canada
have formed development corporations, as they should. They have an
oilfield service company, which they have every right to do.
So this debate should not revolve simply around the Gwich'ins,
recognizing that many of them do not live near the Coastal Plain.
Instead, we should remember the Inupiat Eskimos who own land right in
the Coastal Plain. So there is a difference, and I encourage Members to
reflect on it.
Finally, the Inupiat argument is compelling. It is an important one.
My friend Jacob Adams, who is an Inupiat, is president of the Arctic
Slope Regional Corporation, one of the Fortune 500 companies, a very
successful corporation in my State, and I quote his statement:
I love my life in the Arctic. But, it is harsh, expensive
and, for many, short. My people want decent homes,
electricity, and education. We do not want to be undisturbed.
Undisturbed means abandoned. It means sod huts and
deprivation.
He also said:
By locking up ANWR, the Inupiat people are asked to become
museum pieces, not a dynamic and living culture. We are asked
to suffer the burdens of locking up our lands forever as if
we were in a zoo or on display for the rich tourists that can
afford to travel to our remote part of Alaska. This is not
acceptable.
I agree, it is not acceptable. I recognize this entire debate is
complex and sometimes puts Members in uncomfortable positions, but I
also realize this energy debate, especially in regard to ANWR, has been
used as a soapbox for some of the most extreme and crafty environmental
groups in our country, groups that have treasure chests to support
their agenda.
While the issues are complex and the debate has at times become
heated, the big picture can still be framed very simply. Is it not
better to have a strong domestic energy policy that safeguards our
environment and our national security rather than to rely on the likes
of Saddam Hussein to supply our energy? The answer is clearly yes.
I, unfortunately, realize that some in this Chamber have found that
ANWR has become a political issue. It is another piece of the political
puzzle. They could not be more wrong. I have been around long enough to
know that lots of people do things for their own reason, but when their
actions sell short the American family, the American service man or
woman, the American laborer, America's future and America's security,
we must not let their efforts succeed.
Do not sell short America's national security. We cannot keep relying
on increasing imports from foreign nations such as Iraq, which has
publicly said they will use oil as a weapon. How many times do they
have to say that before we believe them? Please do not sell America
short in order to support the extreme environmentalists' latest popular
cause, because we know once we authorize the opening of ANWR these
groups are going to move on to another cause. They are not created for
one specific cause.
[[Page S2703]]
By the way, do not worry about those environmental groups. They are
still going to be around, as I indicated. They will find another cause,
as I stated. Remember, energy is not about politics and an agenda. It
is about families across the Nation wondering if their jobs will be
there when they get up in the morning. It is about looking for our
Nation's independence.
I believe in a country that is dependent on no one but God alone. We
have every right to look out for our Nation's independence.
Our President, President George W. Bush, has asked time and time
again for the Senate to follow the example of the House of
Representatives and pass an energy bill. The House has done so. H.R. 4
has ANWR in it.
On numerous occasions, the President has expressed specifically his
strong support for opening ANWR. He knows it means more jobs for
America. It means security for our Nation, which is especially
important at this time. He knows as long as we are dependent on other
nations for our energy our very security is threatened and our future
is at stake.
So the task of this body is clearly to deliver to the President an
energy bill that reduces our reliance on foreign oil while at the same
time creates thousands of new American jobs. I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to recognize the weight of the task we are
starting on. Agendas need to be pushed aside and Members have to muster
the courage to do the right thing, even on difficult issues such as
ANWR. We need to do what is right for American workers, what is right
for our national security, what is right for the Inupiat Eskimos who
live in the Coastal Plain, and what is right for America's future.
There has been talk this amendment will put the environment in the
hands of big oil. Let me say something about big oil. Big oil is a
citizen of my State--Exxon, BP, a number of companies. In reality,
those companies are doing business in Alaska because they can make a
return on investment. They qualify as good citizens. They have the
capability to get oil all over the world and bring it to the United
States. Some have said: Where is big oil on the issue of ANWR? There is
Phillips Petroleum, other companies. We have not really seen much of
them. There is a good reason for that. They are international oil
companies. They will come to Alaska if it is open, but if it is not
open they will go wherever, and they will import the oil into the
United States. That development will not have the oversight that
Alaskan oil development will.
Make no mistake about it, Prudhoe Bay is the best oilfield in the
world. One of the things I find very frustrating is Members do not seem
to care where oil comes from, as long as they get it. But if we can
develop it at home, with our environmental laws, both Federal
Government and State, is that not in the best interest of Alaska? So we
should make sure we recognize big oil for what it is.
The talk that this amendment will put the environment in the hands of
big oil is unrealistic. In reality, the environment will be directly in
the hands of the American worker who will be working up there, and he
and she knows how to do it.
If Members oppose the lease amendment, they are really saying to the
American worker: I don't trust you. Instead, send the right signal and
do the right thing. Vote for the American worker and show them we trust
them to be good stewards at work, that we trust them to take pride in
their jobs, and we trust them to help America keep strong and safe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. REID. I ask the Senator from Alaska to yield.
Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to do that.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader has asked me to announce
there will be no rollcall votes tonight. It is my understanding the
Senator from Alaska will speak for a considerable period of time this
evening, is that not correct, I ask Senator Stevens?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes. I don't know how long.
Mr. REID. We have had a number of inquiries. I think it would be
appropriate we announce there will be no rollcall votes. The majority
leader authorized me to do that.
Has the Senator from New Mexico entered the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I am informed the Senator from Alaska objects to any
unanimous consent agreement and, therefore, he would go ahead and speak
today. Tomorrow I will seek recognition when we get back on the bill.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have just had a marvelous experience
across from the Capitol grounds. We had a press conference attended by
the leaders of organized labor, many Senators, a great many members
from organized labor, and members of the Alaska Native community. We
ought to take time to see whether that settles in with the American
public. Three of the greatest labor leaders in the country were there
and another representing the fourth. They say they want this project to
go forward. They want this area to be drilled.
The concept of extended debate is to give a chance for the public to
listen to debate on an issue and to determine whether they should
contact their Senators about the issue. I hope that can happen. I hope
it is still possible to have the country listen to the leaders of
organized labor, listen to the leaders of the State of Alaska and
consider whether or not it is safe to drill in the area set aside 21
years ago for just that purpose--to drill in the 1.5 million acres on
the Arctic Coastal Plain.
I have been through this before. I asked myself today: Why are we
here? Why are we doing this now? The normal process for handling this
legislation, which has been passed by the House of Representatives,
would be to go to the committee, come to the Senate, be assigned to a
committee, be considered by that committee, and report it back to the
floor. This bill does not do that. It went to the committee. The
committee voted to include the drilling of the Arctic Coastal Plain,
ANWR, and the leadership said: No, you cannot report that bill to the
floor. Instead, we will draft our own bill.
The majority of the committee that has jurisdiction over this bill
voted to report it in the manner we would like to see it approved. We
don't get that chance. It comes on the floor, it is a different bill,
drafted by the leadership of the majority side of the Senate. We are
told: Take it or leave it. Get 60 votes for your amendment or forget
about it--as though we are filibustering. They are filibustering our
amendment, but we have to have the 60 votes in order to stop them from
filibustering our amendment.
This is a point of frustration for someone who has lived through this
continuum dealing with Alaskan lands. I talked about it before and I
will talk about it ad nauseam until we get the point across that the
State of Alaska made a commitment to the Federal Government in 1980
that we would accept the bill that had been outlined by the leaders of
the Democratic Party in the Senate, Mr. Jackson in particular, God rest
his soul, but he was a great friend. He opposed us in many ways. We
reached a consensus on the issue of this Arctic Coastal Plain.
So everyone understands, we are talking about 1.5 million acres on
the Arctic Coastal Plain that was set aside in 1980 for the purpose of
oil and gas exploration. Anyone who comes to the floor and says this is
wilderness is a liar--a liar. Anyone who tries to pretend that somehow
or another we are violating the law is a liar. If it was back in the
old days, I would challenge them to a duel. I am up to my ears in what
I have been hearing about this that is absolutely untrue.
The ANWR area was set aside by the Jackson-Tsongas amendment for the
purpose of allowing exploration. It does not become a working part of
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge until that is complete. The difficulty is,
people say it is wilderness. This area, the ANWR Coastal Plain, is not
wilderness. The area of the Arctic Wildlife Range south of that, in the
light brown, is 8 million acres of wilderness. But that 1.5 million
acres is not wilderness.
Reading the Wilderness Society publication one would think we are
invading the most pristine place on Earth. It is hell in the
wintertime--60 below. I took the Postmaster General there and the
digital thermometer said minus 99 because of the windchill factor. This
is not some pristine place that should be protected. It should be
protected at a time when it needs protection, which is
[[Page S2704]]
the summer. And we do that. We do not drill for oil and gas in the
summertime.
Why are we here? We are here because some people on that side of the
aisle, the majority side of the Senate, have decided they will block
this. They do not honor the commitment made by the United States and
the President of the United States when the 1980 act was signed. That
was a commitment to our people in Alaska.
In 1980, these areas that are marked and checked were withdrawn by
the act of Congress called the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act. All of that was withdrawn in 1978.
My colleague, Senator Gravel, blocked a bill to do this because they
could not build up there. In 1980, he still objected, but I reached an
agreement with Senator Tsongas and Senator Jackson that I would help
get this bill done in exchange for an absolute commitment in the law
that that area would remain open to oil and gas acres, the 1.5 million
acres, and the bill was signed by the President of the United States.
Now they are saying that is a pristine area; you cannot do it. And
the Democratic Party has put this in their platform, ``Don't drill in
Alaska's Arctic,'' as though the Democratic Party owns Alaska. Someone
asked: Who owns Alaska? The public owns Alaska. The public owned all
those places, too, but they were set aside for the elite few.
There are no roads there, no airport in there, no way to get there
except through guided tours, twin-engine planes with guides and
millionaires visiting those areas of Alaska. Eighty percent of the
parklands in the United States are there. There are only three parks
you can get to by road.
What we are talking about is coddling to the radical
environmentalists of this country. We have half the coal of the United
States in Alaska. Did you know that? One time when Ed Muskie was
running for President, he decided he needed some environmental votes
and he came up with an amendment that said: If you mine for coal in the
State of Alaska, you must restore the natural contour after you are
through.
In Alaska, coal comes with ice lenses, permafrost. When you put the
steam points down to melt it, the water runs off. Take the coal off and
there is no way in God's Earth you can restore the natural
contour. Since Ed Muskie's amendment, not one new coal mine has been
opened--30 years, with half the coal in the United States. No, no, we
cannot do that.
When I first went to Alaska, I worked on the Rampart Dam on the Yukon
River. It would have been the largest power project in the United
States. It would have provided my whole State with electrical power. It
was economically feasible. There is no question about it. The
environmentalists said, ``No, you cannot build that dam,'' and they
blocked it. It is gone.
We had, when I came to the Senate, the great forests of Alaska.
Forests here, here, and here: The largest forests in the United States.
We were cutting 1.3 billion board feet of timber a year on a cutting
cycle of 103 years. We would not cut the same place twice in 103 years.
As part of ANILCA, that was lowered to 450 million board feet a year.
Last year, we cut 47 million. Why? The environmentalists have decided
that timber in Alaska should not be cut. Notwithstanding the sustained
use/yield concept that was in place, they just blocked it.
When we passed this bill in 1980, we had six world class mines--six.
They are all closed now but one. Why? Environmental litigation. You
cannot mine in Alaska now. We have 32 of the 37 strategic and critical
minerals and metals of the United States. None of them are being mined
except one mine up in the Kotzebue area, the Red Dog Mine, the zinc
mine, the largest in the world. Why are they closed? Environmental
litigation from radical conservationists, environmentalists.
We get down to the question of oil and gas. When we argued this bill
in the period of the 1970s and 1980s, there were 50-odd wildcat
operators in Alaska drilling for oil and gas. There is not one today.
Not one. Do you know why? The last administration closed it all down.
There are no permits to go out and explore for oil and gas on Federal
lands, outside of the great Prudhoe Bay--which is State land. It is not
Federal land at all, it is State land.
The continuum of what we have been through as a State makes a lot of
us wonder if we were right to seek statehood. Were we right? Many of
our people wanted to be a commonwealth. Canada was then a commonwealth
to the British empire. Some of our people wanted to be a commonwealth
in the U.S. system. We said no, we want to be a State. We are
Americans. We believe in America. The highest level of enlistment in
the U.S. military in World War II was from Alaska, the highest level of
veterans per capita today in the United States is in Alaska, from all
periods of wars in this past century.
The question is, Why are we here? We are here because an elite few
have decided that Alaska should be their playground. The working people
today woke up. That meeting outside, across from the Capitol, is a bell
tolling for the Democratic Party, and it better listen. It better
listen because the working people want jobs. This is a jobs bill.
We will provide jobs. Instead of sending our money over to buy Saddam
Hussein's oil, we will produce it on our own shores. We will produce it
from Alaska. There are 15 sedimentary basins in Alaska. We have drilled
three of them. This will be the fourth. No one knows whether it has oil
or gas. We believe it does. We have still a lot left to drill in
Alaska, provided some future generation removes some of those lines.
Those lines were drawn to prevent development.
We are at the crossroads now with this bill, of whether or not we
listen to the President of the United States and, because of the
interests of national security and economic security we proceed as was
promised in the 1980s to develop this land.
You cannot really understand the 1980 act unless you go back in
history. When you go back in history, you go back to the Statehood Act.
I was in the Interior Department at the time of statehood. Part of that
Statehood Act was section 4. It was a commitment to the Alaskan Native
people that once Alaska became a State, Congress would address the
question of the claims of the Native people against the United States--
not against the State but against the United States, their claims as
aboriginal people.
We did that. As a matter of fact, I helped prepare some of that when
I was still with the Eisenhower administration. After that came to an
end, I went back to Alaska, worked on many things, came back here in
1968, and one of the first things we started working on when I became a
Senator was the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act. That became
law in 1971. It was the only time in history that Congress has settled
claims against the United States of aboriginal people--of our
continent. It was necessary because of the very diverse number of
tribes in Alaska and the size of Alaska.
I forgot to mention it earlier today, but let me mention it now:
Alaska is 20 percent of the land that the American flag flies over. The
State of Alaska is one-fifth of all the land of the United States.
On that land were a series of tribes that had claims against the
United States. We worked for 3 years and finally, in December of 1971,
passed the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act. One of the
conditions of that act was section 17(d)(2). That condition said:
Before the Native people of the State of Alaska take their lands--
Alaska was guaranteed some lands as it became a State; the Native
people received some lands in settlement of their claims against the
United States--there must be a study of what land should be set aside
in the national interest, in Alaska. That was 1971.
For 9 years we argued over that, 9 full years. It became a slogan in
Alaska, the (d)(2), 17(d)(2). We called it the ``(d)(2)'' issue; (d)(2)
meant how much of the State was going to be set aside, and the State
was prevented from taking it so it could be used to support the economy
of the State. How much of it is going to be set aside to prevent the
Alaskan Native people from getting the claims they really claim because
it is set aside by these people who sought these withdrawals? In fact,
the (d)(2) issue is what built the empire of the radical
environmentalists in America.
For 9 years they raised money, advertised, went throughout the
country, if not the world, to raise money to ``save Alaska.'' Save it
from what? There was not any development proposed in any of those
areas. There are no roads in
[[Page S2705]]
there. There are fewer roads in Alaska than there are in King County,
WA.
Those are diverse people, living in five different sectors of the
largest State in the Union. But, no, it was an issue to withdraw them
to prevent the State from getting them--prevent the Natives from
getting them; because if we got them, we might develop them. The one
area that was not set aside was that area; the 1.5 million acres was
set aside for us to use to keep the pipeline filled.
In the time of the Persian Gulf war, I went to the oil industry and I
said: You have to increase the throughput of the pipeline. It was
designed for 1 million barrels per day. It was running at about 1.9
million barrels a day. They looked into it and reported back they could
do it. They increased it to 2.1 million barrels per day in the
interests of national defense because we were shut off from a lot of
access to oil at that time of the Persian Gulf war.
Today, it is 950,000 barrels a day. We do not have enough reserves to
keep the oil pipeline, the 48-inch in diameter, half-inch-thick
pipeline, 800 miles from the North Slope to Valdez--we do not have
enough oil to keep it filled now. Where do we get the oil in between
time? My colleagues say we are getting the oil from Saddam Hussein. The
only oil increase we have gotten since our throughput went down is the
increase in imports from Saddam Hussein.
We do not buy it directly from him; we buy it from the Food For Oil
Program, and he gets the money from that. So we are not really giving
him American dollars; we are going through some other exchange. We are
washing the money going into Iraq because we don't want people to think
we are dealing with Iraq, but it is Iraqi oil and we all know it.
What does he do with it? He is rebuilding his military. Senator
Inouye and I have just gone around the world, really--went into
Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and we talked to people over there
about what is going on over there. We went to China, Singapore,
Indonesia, the Philippines--looking at what is happening with terrorism
in the world. Who is supporting them? Who do you think? Saddam Hussein
is supporting them. It is known he is supporting them.
Where is he getting the money? From everybody who buys oil in those
States that Senator Murkowski showed, where the oil is going.
We paid Saddam Hussein $6.5 billion in 2001--$6.5 billion went to
Saddam Hussein for his oil. The only way we can replace that is to
produce our own.
We are some sort of people who listen to these obstructionists who
tell us to not keep the commitment Congress made to Alaska in 1980:
Forget about that. We don't need that oil.
Let me tell you that we need a lot more than that oil.
There was an interesting article in U.S. News & World Report on April
1 of this year. It was called ``A waste of energy?''
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
A Waste of Energy?
(By Gloria Borger)
Pity the poor caribou. There they are, minding their own
business, roaming silently in the snow and soft tundra of the
desolate Arctic landscape. Then, suddenly, they're
everywhere: migrating through green Web sites worldwide,
their survival the subject of urgent concern. If Big Oil
starts drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
enviros say, the lovely reindeer are at risk. Antlers, unite!
Enough already. The caribou are fine. In fact, since
exploration started around Alaska's Prudhoe Bay in 1968, the
local herd has thrived. And in case you're interested, the
polar bears roaming ANWR are doing nicely, too. But don't get
confused: This fight over 2,000 Arctic acres is not about
wildlife. It's not even about oil. It's about political
theology--and a small piece of land that has become a huge
symbol and great fodder for fundraising. ``We need a poster
on the wall, and here it is,'' says Bruce Babbitt, ex-Clinton
interior secretary, who opposes drilling in ANWR yet keeps a
certain perspective on it. ``Why do we spend so much time
quarreling over this tiny sliver that has no real implication
for energy independence?''
Good question. Here we are, in a war likely to expand
throughout the world's oil-producing region, and we're
importing 57 percent of our oil--including 790,000 barrels a
day indirectly from our buddy, Saddam Hussein. Has this
focused the nation on a serious plan for both conservation
and production? Hardly. Competing energy plans are stuck in
Congress, which is oddly bent on choosing either conservation
or production--and could get nothing as a result. ``Energy
policy doesn't have to involve either-or choices,'' says Tony
Knowles, Alaska's pro-development Democratic governor. Then
again, he hasn't spent much time in Congress lately.
To wit: The Senate disgraced itself recently when it killed
a gradual increase in gasoline mileage standards for cars
that could save as many as 1 million barrels a day. Soon it
will most likely kill any drilling in ANWR, which might have
provided a small start in the right direction. ``We shouldn't
let this debate paralyze a real debate over energy policy,''
says John Holdren, an environmental policy guru at Harvard,
who opposes ANWR drilling. But it has. ``People have given up
on the really big issues'' like clean-air policy and climate
control, he adds.
That's because ANWR is too easy to spin. Consider the
numbers: Drilling proponents say that ANWR will produce a
tremendous amount of oil; opponents counter that it's a
mirage, less than a six-month supply. The truth is that no
one really knows. Kenneth Bird, leader of a U.S. Geological
Survey project that studied the potential for oil in the
refuge, says the range of ``technically recoverable'' oil
is somewhere between a relatively modest 4.3 billion and
11.8 billion barrels. Different groups use different
numbers. ``One could spend the entire day writing letters
to the editor,'' Bird sighs. What's more, his estimates
were done in 1985. ``We might be able to see more with
modern seismic equipment,'' he says. But is anybody
proposing a new federal study? Of course not.
Then there's the Big Oil argument. To hear the opponents
tell the story, oil companies are salivating at the prospect
of drilling in ANWR. They're not--at least not now, because
oil prices aren't high enough and they're not clamoring to
spend the next decade in litigation. In fact, says Babbitt,
``oil companies might not bother with it.'' So why is the
administration pushing it? Because oil prices are bound to go
up--and Republicans like oil production, which has become a
popular national security issue.
And what about the environment? Sure, there's bound to be
some impact. Technology has advanced, but drilling is never
going to be a perfectly clean business. Purists say that's
enough to bag the effort, even though no one is predicting
ecological disaster. ``I asked an environmentalist whether he
would oppose the drilling if it were on just 1 acre, and he
said he would,'' says a pro-drilling Democrat, Sen. John
Breaux of Louisiana. ``How can you fight that ideology?''
You can't. There's too much at stake here politically for
either side to give. And so the nation continues to feed its
oil addiction without increasing homegrown production.
Meantime, real energy policy languishes while the symbols
thrive. And the poor caribou start looking more like Chicken
Littles every day.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will read portions of it. It says: ``A
waste of energy?''
Pity the poor caribou. There they are, minding their own
business, roaming silently in the snow and soft tundra of the
desolate Arctic landscape. Then, suddenly, they're
everywhere: migrating through green Web sites worldwide,
their survival the subject of urgent concern. If Big Oil
starts drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
environs say, the lovely reindeer are at risk. Antlers,
unite!
Enough already. The caribou are fine. In fact, since
exploration started around Alaska's Prudhoe Bay in 1968, the
local herd has thrived. And in case you're interested, the
polar bears roaming ANWR are doing nicely, too. But don't get
confused: This fight over 2,000 Arctic acres is not about
wildlife. It's not even about oil. It's about political
theology--and a small piece of land that has become a huge
symbol and great fodder for fundraising. ``We need a poster
on the wall, and here it is,'' says Bruce Babbitt, ex-Clinton
interior secretary, who opposes drilling in ANWR yet keeps a
certain perspective on it. ``Why do we spend so much time
quarreling over this tiny sliver that has no real
implications for energy independence?''
Good question. Here we are, in a war likely to expand
throughout the world's oil-producing region, and we're
importing 57 percent of our oil--including 790,000 barrels a
day indirectly from our buddy, Saddam Hussein.
Remember that this is U.S. News & World Report, not Senator Stevens.
Has this focused the nation on a serious plan for both
conservation and production? Hardly. Competing energy plans
are stuck in Congress, which is oddly bent on choosing either
conservation or production--and could get nothing as a
result. ``Energy policy doesn't have to involve either-or
choices,'' says Tony Knowles, Alaska's pro-development
Democratic governor. Then again, he hasn't spent much time in
Congress lately.
To wit: The Senate disgraced itself recently when it killed
a gradual increase in gasoline mileage standards for cars
that could save as many as 1 million barrels a day. Soon it
will most likely kill any drilling in ANWR, which might have
provided a small start in the right direction. ``We shouldn't
let this debate paralyze a real debate over energy policy,''
says John Holdren, an environmental policy guru at Harvard,
[[Page S2706]]
who opposes ANWR drilling. But it has. ``People have given up
on the really big issues'' like clean-air policy and climate
control, he adds.
That's because ANWR is too easy to spin. Consider the
numbers: Drilling proponents say that ANWR will produce a
tremendous amount of oil; opponents counter that it's a
mirage, less than a six-month supply.
If there was ever a lie, that is a lie.
The trust is that no one really knows. Kenneth Bird, leader
of a U.S. Geological Survey project that studied the
potential for oil in the refuge, says the range of
``technically recoverable'' oil is somewhere between a
relatively modest 4.3 billion and 11.8 billion barrels.
It goes on. I wanted to get to that because I want to get back to
Prudhoe Bay.
Prudhoe Bay's estimate was 1 billion barrels. When they looked at
that, we had the fight over whether or not Prudhoe Bay should be opened
and whether the oil could be transported through the Alaska oil
pipeline. The estimate was approximately 1 billion barrels of
recoverable oil. We have produced now over 13 billion barrels. If this
estimate is similar to the other conservative estimates in terms of oil
and gas, this is more oil than is dreamed of.
Why can't we drill it? Why can't people here understand that the
commitments that were made ought to be kept by the Congress? It is a
commitment in the law--not just a promise. It was a hard-fought battle
for 9 years, as I said.
I remember that night when Senator Gravel blocked the 1978 act. It
was really a bill that we passed out of conference. But the House had
already passed it. We were ready to adjourn. The Senator from Alaska
asked that the bill be read after the adjournment resolution could be
agreed to. He couldn't read that bill in the time left for that
Congress, and it died. It died.
I went home with a group of people called the Citizens for Management
of Alaska Lands, and we decided we would start raising money for the
next Congress. We chartered a plane to go from Juneau to Anchorage, and
it crashed. I was on it with my wife Ann and five people. Only one
other person--our former Ambassador, Tony Motley--and I survived. We
picked ourselves up from that disaster, went back and reorganized. We
started working again in 1979 and 1980 and committed ourselves to try
to get the issue settled.
Do you know why? We couldn't select our Alaska State land. There was
what we call a freeze on it. The Interior Department refused to process
the State's request for the lands it was entitled to under the
Statehood Act until this issue was settled. The Natives couldn't get
their hands on it until this issue was settled. We had to agree to the
1980 act. We had no alternative. We are a land-poor society. We are a
resource-based State. So we entered into the agreement. We said: All
right. There were a few little tweaks and things made here.
There are some interesting things. The occupant of the chair might be
interested in this.
We call this the foot of the gate of the Arctic. That withdrawal was
not there in 1978. It was put there to block this road from going over
to that mining district. They did not want to withdraw that area, so
they just blocked the access.
There is a similar block of access here--the road into Seward. There
is a similar block of access here, and a block of access in here, and a
total block of access in the southeast--no roads.
That is what that 1980 act meant. There will never be, as long as
those withdrawals persist, roads to connect the State of Alaska from
point to point. We depend on airports and on water courses. We have
only one road system that goes from Anchorage into Fairbanks and down
the Alaska Highway to Canada.
I hope people listen to these things. I am not sure they do.
I will tell you a little aside. When I lost the leadership election
in 1984, my friend from Kansas Bob Dole became leader. He asked me if I
would help bring television to the Senate. It was then opposed by my
friend Russ Long and a couple of other Senators. I conferred with them.
We and the distinguished current President pro tempore decided we would
allow it. We worked out bringing television to the Senate.
I do not know whether that is educational or not. We are going to
have a chance this week to find that out. At least for me, this is the
first time I have used the concept of the public coverage by television
of the proceedings on the floor of the Senate to try to interest people
from other States in an issue that affects my State so vitally. That is
why I mentioned the labor leaders' meeting in the front of the Capitol
today and the invitation I received this morning to speak to the
building trades convention of the AFL-CIO, which I was pleased to do.
It is because people are thinking about jobs.
When I started thinking about this bill--let me go back to this. It
is a good idea to go through this again. I want to make sure people
understand what we are talking about. We are talking about section 1002
of the Jackson-Tsongas amendment of December 1980, signed by President
Carter after he lost the election in 1980. This is the provision
drafted by the two Democratic leaders at the time on this legislation.
It said:
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 not an inconsistent position by Senator Jackson.
Where is a copy of that letter?
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent a copy of this letter be
placed on every Senator's desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. This is dated July 3, 1980, signed by Henry M. Jackson,
chairman, and Mark Hatfield, ranking minority member, of the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources. It says:
In this year of sharply heightened national concern over
the economy, energy and national defense, the Senate is about
to consider Alaska lands legislation--an issue which would
have a profound effect on each of these vital subjects.
We write to ask for your full support of the Alaska lands
bill approved by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
After extensive hearings, study and mark-up, the Committee
approved this bill by an overwhelming and bi-partisan vote of
17-1.
The Committee bill is a balanced, carefully crafted measure
which is both a landmark environmental achievement and a
means of protecting the national interest in the future
development of Alaska and its vital resources. The bill more
than doubles the land area designated by Congress as part of
the National Park and National Wildlife Refuge systems; it
triples the size of the National Wilderness Preservation
system. It protects the so-called Crown Jewels of Alaska. At
the same time, it preserves the capability of that mammoth
state to contribute far beyond its share to our national
energy and defense needs.
A series of five major amendments to the bill and an entire
substitute for it will be offered on the Senate floor. The
amendments in total would make the bill virtually an
equivalent of the measure approved last year by the House.
Each amendment in its own way would destroy the balance of
the bill.
While the bill is a gigantic environmental accomplishment,
it also is crucial to the nation's attempt to achieve energy
independence. One-third of our known petroleum reserves are
in Alaska, along with an even greater proportion of our
potential reserves. Actions such as preventing even the
exploration of the Arctic Wildlife Range, a ban sought by one
amendment, is an ostrich-like approach that ill-serves our
nation in this time of energy crisis.
That was 1980.
Continuing:
Instability of certain nations abroad repeatedly emphasizes
our need for a stronger domestic supply of strategic and
critical minerals. Each of the five proposed amendments would
either restrict mineral areas from development or block
effective access to those areas. Four of the seven world-
class mineral finds in Alaska would be effectively barred
from development by the amendments. That simply is too high a
price for this nation to pay.
Present and potential employment both in Alaska and in the
other states would be significantly damaged if the committee
bill is amended. Cutting off development of the four mineral
finds discussed above would alone cost thousands of potential
jobs, many of them in the Lower 48 states. The amendment on
national forests would eliminate up to 2,000 jobs in the
southeast Alaska timber-related economy.
We urge you to focus on the central fact that the Alaska
lands bill is not just an environmental issue. It is an
energy issue. It is a national defense issue. It is an
economic issue. It is not an easy vote for one constituency
that effects only a remote, far-away
[[Page S2707]]
area. It is a compelling national issue which demands the
balanced solution crafted by the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.
We look forward to your support.
Cordially,
Mark O. Hatfield,
Ranking Minority Member.
Henry M. Jackson,
Chairman.
Madam President, do you know why I read that letter? Three of the
four amendments that they urged for the Senate not to adopt were, in
fact, adopted. The environmental people, at that time, were growing in
strength, as I said before. They won every issue but one--every issue
but one. There was only one issue that the State of Alaska prevailed on
that was a major issue.
There were some minor changes of boundaries that we argued about,
whether this part of this town should be in that withdrawal or another
part in some other area. But there were four major issues that the
chairman and ranking member raised, and Alaska lost three of the four.
We won one. We had a solemn commitment from the two leaders. Senator
Tsongas had those four amendments that Senator Jackson and Senator
Hatfield talked about. Senator Jackson and Senator Hatfield had the
committee bill. They melded it. They took three of the Tsongas
amendments. But they left one out. They left us access to the Coastal
Plain for oil and gas exploration and development.
One wonders whether history should have anything to do with
subsequent action by the Senate of the United States. One Congress
cannot bind another Congress. But one Congress can enact a law that it
takes another Congress to enact and have a President sign it. This is
one of the things that was required, and it was the great error of my
career in agreeing that the area would be open only if a subsequent law
was passed by Congress approving the process which was set up.
The process was that an area would be available for oil and gas
leasing. There would be an environmental impact statement. There would
be seismic research to see if there was a possibility of recovering
oil. If both of those proved positive, then there would be a request of
Congress to authorize the use for exploration of oil and gas.
Senator Jackson later that year, on August 18, addressed the Senate.
On page 21651 of the Congressional Record of August 18, 1980, he said:
Mr. President, I rise in support of the substitute offered
by the Senator from Massachusetts. During the past several
weeks, Senator Tsongas and I, as well as Senators Roth,
Hatfield, and Cranston, have attempted to draft a compromise
substitute amendment. We have before us an amendment which we
believe represents an equitable solution to the Alaska lands
issue.
He goes on to say later in that same timeframe:
The substitute retains the Senate Energy Committee's
language relative to an oil and gas exploration program on
the Arctic Coastal Plain in the existing Arctic Wildlife
Range. Several changes in the committee's provisions were
incorporated regarding the wildlife portion of the Arctic
Slope study. The timing of the seismic exploration program
and the Secretary's report to the Congress regarding further
oil and gas exploration on the plain were also modified
slightly. . . .
Taken together, this approach provides adequate protection
for the affected wildlife in the area--including the
Porcupine caribou herd--while insuring that an assessment of
the area's oil and gas potential is undertaken.
We won one issue, and now the majority party wants to deny us that
compromise.
It is an interesting area, the Arctic. Did you know, Madam President,
following the great Teapot Dome scandal in 1923--the year of my birth,
incidentally--the President, President Harding, withdrew 25 million
acres of Alaska as a national petroleum reserve to salve the national
conscience about the Teapot Dome scandal. That is what it was. That
area has never really been explored for oil and gas. It was set up in
1923.
In 1943, during the conduct of the war, Abe Fortas, who many of us
knew, the then-Acting Secretary of the Interior, withdrew all lands in
the State of Alaska--all lands in the State of Alaska--about 20 miles
south of the Circle. All of that land was withdrawn. Nothing at all
could be done up there by Alaskans, the people who lived there and
stayed there. He withdrew other lands--the so-called public land order
82--in the Katagkak region down here--it was a broad-scale thing--and
in the Cape Lisburne area. This is the area we are talking about now
that was withdrawn in 1943--not from oil and gas but from any kind of
activity. That persisted until we got to the Statehood Act. And just
prior to the Statehood, the Kobuk gas field was discovered just south
of the Alaska Range, in that area right there.
While I was at the Interior Department, the Secretary of the
Interior, Fred Seaton, amended public land order 82 allowing oil and
gas exploration to take place in the Kobuk gas field. As a matter of
fact, later in 1959, after we obtained statehood, Secretary Seaton
further modified it to affect lands up around the national petroleum
reserve of Alaska created by President Harding. And then, in December
of 1960, he in effect repealed that land order. He really did it by
amending the previous land order and making it possible for Alaska to
select lands in that area because under the Statehood Act the State of
Alaska could not explore north of the Arctic Circle without prior
approval.
He gave the State the authority to select the lands. The area they
selected was Prudhoe Bay. That was really divine guidance that took us
to that place because that was the only place we could drill in the
Arctic at the time. Alaskans found the largest supply of oil on the
North American continent at that time--on State lands, not Federal
lands. Those Federal lands have never been opened to oil and gas, as
intended by Secretary Seaton or by President Eisenhower. Subsequent
administrations have found some way to frustrate access to the oil and
gas resources of that area.
I have talked for a long time. I will talk a while longer because I
will go into this amendment I filed in the second degree. I will speak
more about the Arctic wildlife area and what it means. I filed an
amendment in the second degree because, as I looked at the House-passed
bill, it approved ANWR and it limited the amount of land that could be
used to 2,000 acres out of that 1.5 million acres. All that can be used
is 2,000 surface acres. But it postulates that there will be a series
of bonus bids for the right to lease the land, somewhere between $1.6
billion and $2.7 billion. The House bill channels a portion of that
money to what I would call a little carrot--a little conservation
restoration of the areas already withdrawn from parts of the refuge.
I thought about that, and I thought about where the drilling in the
Arctic wildlife refuge area--ANWR area, the 1002 area--would take us.
It takes us a step further toward building the Alaska natural gas
pipeline--something the American public should learn about, something
on which I hope the great unions of this country and the steel industry
and others will start educating the public.
At the time Prudhoe Bay oil was discovered, we found that gas was
associated with the oil. There was no means to transport the gas, so a
series of reinjection facilities was constructed and, as the oil and
gas is produced, the gas is separated and it is reinjected into the
ground. There are now 50 trillion to 70 trillion cubic feet of gas
known to exist under State land in the Prudhoe Bay area.
We now propose that we build a natural gas pipeline to take that gas
to the midwestern part of the United States. It is the largest amount
of gas we know of that is not transportable so far. It would transport,
when built, a pipeline 52 inches in diameter, 1 inch thick, running
3,000 miles from the North Slope to Chicago, down the Alaska Highway,
through Canada, and into the Midwest. Along with that, it takes 15,000
miles of gathering pipelines and adjunct lines.
Originally, they thought about bringing the pipeline through the
pristine part of Canada. That has been abandoned. The State wants it to
come this way. This is the area here. We are going to follow,
partially, the Alaska pipeline right-of-way and come down the Alaska
Highway and go through Canada, along the route of the current pipeline
through Canada.
People said: What does that have to do with drilling in the Arctic
region of the Alaska Coastal Plain?
Mr. President, there is no source of funds that I can see, with the
existing economic situation, in the foreseeable
[[Page S2708]]
future to help get that Alaska gas pipeline started other than funds
from the production of oil in the Arctic Plain. The more I study, the
more I find we have a really interesting situation in steel. Obviously,
I am not from steel country. I don't know a lot about steel. But I have
been learning a lot about it since we started this effort.
Since the year 2000, approximately 30 steel companies in the United
States have entered bankruptcy, and 60,000 workers are already out of
jobs in those places. In 1980, there were more than 500,000 U.S.
steelworkers. By the year 2000, there were 224,000. That was 2 years
ago. Since that time, we have had, as I have indicated, 30 more steel
companies fold.
One of the contracts that exist between the steel companies and their
workers is the benefits program--a promise that was made for the
contribution to their past work in our society. It was an agreement to
pay health benefits for the retirees. There are presently estimated to
be 600,000 of those retirees, at a minimum. The companies they worked
for are going bankrupt. There is a plan to try to consolidate the U.S.
steel companies, but there is a little hitch. These workers have the
right to put a lien on those assets before they are consolidated. So a
plan was devised, and it is a difficult one to follow through. But it
is a plan to use the fund to pay the cost of the health care delivery
for the retirees and let the assets go into a consolidated steel
industry that would be capable of contributing to major projects such
as our Alaska natural gas pipeline.
The plan is the legacy plan, and the legacy would be to keep the
commitment made to the retirees. It requires a cashflow for 30 years of
$18 billion. If the steel industry does not find $18 billion, it is my
judgment they will not be able to consolidate. If they do not
consolidate, we will not have a steel industry capable of meeting our
needs.
I do not know if you know it, Madam President, but recently Robert
Miller, chairman and CEO of Bethlehem Steel, testified that:
Bethlehem Steel was the only domestic company with the
capability to provide the special steel plate that was
required to repair the U.S.S. Cole.
One steel company left in the United States could meet our national
defense needs--one.
I told the union group today I believe there are three things that
keep a democracy alive: One is food, one is oil, and one is steel. That
gives us the ability to maintain our economy and to defend ourselves.
We have taken very ample care of the farmers, I have to say that. In
going through this, I found that in the last 10 years we have spent
$656 billion on the farm community in regular bills and $17 billion in
the last 10 years on special emergency bills for the farm communities.
How much have we spent for steelworkers? How much have we spent for
oil? Nothing. They are part of the private enterprise system and must
survive themselves.
How can they survive if Congress gets in their way? We are supposed
to facilitate the development of this country and maintain our economic
viability. We are supposed to provide for our national defense. As a
matter of fact, that is one of our constitutional duties--to provide
for the national defense and promote the general welfare of this
country.
I find it hard to believe we are getting so much criticism of the
amendment that I have suggested. What it does is it takes part of the
money that would come to the Federal Government and channels it into a
fund which will address the health care costs for those retirees,
enable the industry to be reconstituted, revitalized, provide money to
the Department of Commerce to help with some loans and grants to those
steel companies to get them going again, and provide money to the
Department of Labor to train people to do some of the work we are going
to need.
It is a gigantic project. There are two steel mills in the world
today that are capable of rolling the pipe for the Alaska gas
pipeline--two. The design of that pipeline will require one-half of the
world's capability to produce steel pipe for a period of over 5 years.
One project. In order to get it started by 2010, the orders have to be
placed by next year. It is not possible to place those orders unless we
know where there is a cashflow to take care of the problems of the
retirees.
This project of ours will take 5.2 million tons of steel. It will
involve $3 billion to $5 billion in initial steel orders alone. We are
not talking about the 15,000 miles of gathering pipe. We are not
talking about the hundreds of trucks that will carry that pipe down
that long 3,000-mile road. We are not talking about the trucks and
equipment that will improve the roads so the trucks can run on them.
Most of those areas do not have roads that can hold trucks that size.
This is a gigantic project, and one must ask himself or herself: Is
gas essential to our economy? Is gas essential to our national
security? Is this something on which we should have a partisan dispute?
Is this something that we should be here debating about a procedural
issue, an issue designed to permit a group of Senators to delay action
on a bill until the rest of the country can learn about it?
Actually, I am grateful to them for their filibuster against our
amendments and their threat of requiring a cloture vote to terminate
our debate because it means we are going to be here for a while talking
about this subject. As we talk about it, I hope more and more people
learn about it.
We establish in my amendment a trust fund for conservation, jobs, and
steel reinvestment. It would provide $155 million for conservation
programs. It would provide $232 million for commerce grants to retool
industries to get ready for the gas pipeline. It would provide
approximately $900 million to reestablish and make solvent the Coal
Miners Health Fund. It would provide $7 billion over 30 years to
provide for the Legacy Benefits Program I described.
This is not the only money that goes into the legacy fund. The
President has already put in effect the tariffs on imported steel. That
money goes into the legacy fund. The companies are in the process of
agreeing, as I understand it, to pay $6 per ton on steel produced in
the United States into the fund. But it is woefully short of money to
meet the needs for those 600,000-plus retirees. That is not enough
money to make it work.
How do we get our gas pipeline started? We try to find a way to put
together the exploration and development of this continent's largest
oilfield with the problems of developing a gas pipeline to transmit
gases already there. We do not have to look for it. It is known gas. It
is just not transportable because there is no mechanism to transport
it. I believe we can do that.
I am intrigued with some of the statistics as to this pipe. As I
said, it is 52 inches, 1 inch thick, and it is called X-80 pipe. It has
never been tested before. In order to make it available, a portion of
it will have to be rolled to test to see if the theory that has been
worked out on computer is correct: That this is the type of pipe that
can withstand the pressure necessary to move that gas over 3,000 miles.
Alaska now has the Alaska oil pipeline. It is a 750-mile pipeline. We
call it 800, but it is 750 miles of the really big pipe. That weighed
1.2 million tons. Roads had to be specially created for that pipe to be
put in place.
Alberta now has a 1,435-mile pipeline. It weighed 2.1 million tons
and cost $1.8 billion delivered. We are looking at, as I said, an
enormous amount beyond either of those. The pipeline will be almost as
long as the Great Wall of China.
One of the interesting things about it is, eight pipe-bending
machines will cost more than $1 million each and a 2-year lead time
will be needed to get that pipe into place. They estimate they are
going to need 115 backhoes, 27 D-10 bulldozers, 90 D-9s, and 16 to 20
of the large, magnum class chain trenchers.
In terms of manpower, the workforce in Alaska alone would be 2,300
jobs; in Canada 3,400 jobs. But there are jobs throughout the United
States into the hundreds of thousands to build the valves, gathering
the pipelines and the various pieces of equipment that are necessary to
construct this pipeline.
I am saddened to say a lot of people say: That is a crass and cynical
thing to do. You are just looking for votes.
That is right. We are looking for votes to open this area to oil and
gas exploration so we can get the money to
[[Page S2709]]
start this pipeline. If taking care of and helping the steelworkers and
coal workers is necessary to reconstruct the American steel industry so
it can participate in it, we should do it.
I think the real problem I have is to try and figure out how we can
put this into real context. With due respect to the Democratic
Senators, they are shilling for a bunch of radical environmentalists
who control the country now in many ways. Tomorrow I am going to speak
at length about the articles that were in the Sacramento Bee about the
way these people seek to control what the Sacramento Bee called ``the
fat of the land.'' They document it in a series of articles. I have
those articles and I will read some of them tomorrow to make sure we
know who our enemy is.
It is not the Senators from these various States. They are responding
to constituents. They represent 2 to 3 percent of the constituency in
most House districts, a little less than that in most elections
statewide. They are very powerful, and at times such as we are in right
now, look at--we were balanced 50-50. Until Senator Jeffords changed
his mind, we were 50-50. We are a nation divided. That is when these
minorities sneaked in and took control, and that is what the radical
environmentalists have done.
I intend to go into that at length tomorrow. I will go further
tomorrow into some more statistics about the steelworkers' problems and
the reasons I have persisted, even though I must say I do not know so
far any Senators who represent the steel States or the steelworker
States who have agreed to assist us in this matter. I challenge them to
find another cashflow area, another stream of money that will save
their workers' retirement benefits. I challenge them.
This is not new. We did it for the black lung disease people in 1992.
We have done it a series of times, where we have taken money from one
cashflow and put it into an objective where we could not get the money
otherwise, but we had a new cashflow and before it was committed, we
committed it to good things. I say it this way: Take the airport
development fund. All of those taxes do not go into the Treasury. They
go into the fund and they pay for airports, they pay for the runways.
As to the highway fund, those highway taxes go to pay for a great many
things.
Take the emergency agricultural appropriations. Where do they go?
They pay the John Deere bill. They pay for the medical insurance for
the employees and the farmers. They pay the grocery bill when farmers
have trouble. But somehow or another that is normal, right?
When we bring in an emergency bill for agriculture, we do not argue
about that at all. We only ask how much more can we raise it because
they are farmers. My farmers love them. I voted for those bills; I am
not criticizing. I am saying why only the farm community when there are
two other streams that we must maintain to keep this democracy alive?
One is oil and one is steel. I want a bill that matches them both.
I thank the Chair for her patience, and I thank my friend from North
Dakota. I mean no personal offense in any way in what I say, but I
think I have a right now to be disturbed. I have argued this matter in
the Senate for more than 21 years. It actually started 31 years ago in
December of 1971. I have been in the Senate that whole time. There has
not been a year gone by we have not had an issue concerning these
reactionary radical environmental groups and what their demands are on
our State. Why?
There are only three of us. We are way up there. When Senator
Murkowski and I are at home, we are closer to Beijing than we are to
Washington, DC. These environmentalists raise money by telling people
the harm we are liable to do to that land, but less than one-half of 1
percent of Alaska is occupied by man. It is almost the least populated
area in the world; yet it is threatened. It is threatened every day.
There is another ad on the TV, another ad in a major paper about how
this terrible bunch of people are about ready to destroy this land.
Less than one-half of 1 percent has been occupied by man.
It is an amazing thing for me to get involved in this, but I intend
to stay involved in it. Let's see if the process works. Let's see if
the theory of extended debate for the education of our people still has
meaning. Do people listen to us? Are they interested in what the labor
leaders in the country say? Are they interested in the plight of the
steelworkers? Are they interested in the plight of the coal workers?
Are they interested in the future of building that gigantic pipeline
that will bring the equivalent of more than a million barrels of oil
and gas a day to the central part of the United States?
It would assure that the central part of the United States would have
all the gas it needs for 40 years. Is that worth thinking about, worth
taking some time of my colleagues to listen to me shout a little bit? I
think it is, and I hope the system works.
I remember as a young man seeing ``Mr. Smith Comes to Washington.'' I
am not Mr. Smith, but I think the issue is more acute than the one he
faced. The issue we face is survival. Do we go on increasing our
dependence on foreign oil? How much more are we going to import?
The report I had today was it is at 57 percent in terms of imported
oil. I thought it was lower than that. During the crisis that led to an
embargo in the 1970s, it was less than 35 percent.
What about steel? During World War II, we produced steel for the
world. We produced the steel for the allies. We rebuilt Europe. We
built the tanks in the United States, and the planes and the ships that
saved the world. Could we do it again? Are we willing to contemplate
doing it even to save our own system?
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I will talk for a few minutes on a
couple of points. One is a letter we received from the Secretary of
Energy, the Honorable Spencer Abraham. It is a letter to me. I will
read excerpts.
The letter reads in part:
As everyone knows, gasoline prices have been increasing for
the past several weeks in anticipation of the historically
higher demand seen during the summer driving season. These
increases are a source of serious concern to this
Administration and I know they are of serious concern to you.
As I committed to you last year, I intend to keep you
apprised of circumstances affecting our oil and gasoline
markets and of the steps we are taking to mitigate their
effects in the short term and address them in the long term.
Briefly, prices for crude oil have risen by over $7 per
barrel since late February--an increase of over 30 percent--
adding as much as 20 cents per gallon to the retail cost of
gasoline. Crude oil prices are rising because of global
economic growth, OPEC production restraints, and concern over
the current tensions in the Middle East and Venezuela. Of
course, we are closely monitoring international developments
affecting our petroleum markets.
Partly as a result of rising oil costs, the Energy
Information Agency (EIA) expects an average price of $1.46
for regular grade gasoline over the next 6 months. However,
gasoline prices will peak somewhat higher in certain regions
this summer. Higher gas prices strain the budget of America's
working families, raise the cost of goods and services,
increase harvest costs for American farmers, and ultimately
create a drag on the economy that can impact the livelihood
of working Americans.
He advises:
For more detailed market information, please refer to EIA's
Short-Term Energy Outlook . . . online.
He further states:
Our gasoline market will be in a delicate balance this
summer, as it has in the past few years. It only takes one
refinery fire--as we saw last August when a fire destroyed
part of Citgo's Lemont, Illinois, refinery--or a pipeline
disruption--like we experienced the previous June during the
Wolverine Pipeline break between Chicago and Detroit--to
cause price spikes.
The onset of the driving season coincides with the annual
changeover at refineries from winter fuels to specially
formulated, cleaner-burning summer fuels that cost more to
refine. These fuels are required to protect the public health
during the peak ozone season. As recommended in the
President's National Energy Plan, the Environmental
Protection Agency has already improved some of the rules
governing the transition from winter to summer gasoline,
including a provision for increased flexibility in blending
and reclassification of certain fuels. However, the gasoline
market is still constrained
[[Page S2710]]
at times by refinery and pipeline capacity shortages in
America.
As we did last year, Department of Energy will continue to
keep track of gasoline supplies and pricing. We have already
reinstated our 24 hour Gasoline Hotline--a 1-800 number for
consumers concerned about gasoline prices (800-244-3301).
He further indicated he would be meeting with the American Automobile
Association to identify ways to encourage Americans to drive smarter
and prepare their cars to operate more efficiently--and save fuel and
money.
I ask unanimous consent the 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 Energy,
Washington, DC, April 11, 2002.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: As everyone knows, gasoline prices
have been increasing for the past several weeks in
anticipation of the historically higher demand seen during
the summer driving season. These increases are a source of
serious concern to this Administration, and I know they are
of serious concern to you.
As I committed to you last year, I intend to keep you
apprised of circumstances affecting our oil and gasoline
markets and of the steps we are taking to mitigate their
effects in the short term and address them in the long term.
Briefly, prices for crude oil have risen by over $7 per
barrel since late February--an increase of over 30 percent--
adding as much as 20 cents per gallon to the retail cost of
gasoline. Crude oil prices are rising because of global
economic growth, OPEC production restraints, and concern over
the current tensions in the Middle East and Venezuela. Of
course, we are closely monitoring international developments
affecting our petroleum markets.
Partly as a result of rising crude oil costs, the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) expects an average price of
$1.46 for regular grade gasoline over the next six months.
However, gasoline prices will peak somewhat higher in certain
regions this summer. Higher gas prices strain the budgets of
America's working families, raise the cost of goods and
services, increase harvest costs for America's farmers, and
ultimately create a drag on the economy that can impact the
livelihood of working Americans.
For more detailed market information, please refer to EIA's
Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) online (http://
www.eia.doe.gov/steo/).
Our gasoline market will be in a delicate balance this
summer, as it has in the past few years. It only takes one
refinery fire--as we saw last August when a fire destroyed
part of Citgo's Lemont, Illinois, refinery--or a pipeline
disruption--like we experienced the previous June during the
Wolverine Pipeline break between Chicago and Detroit--to
cause prices spikes.
The onset of the driving season coincides with the annual
changeover at refineries from winter fuels to specially
formulated, cleaner-burning summer fuels that cost more to
refine. These fuels are required to protect the public health
during the peak ozone season. As recommended in the
President's National Energy Plan, the Environmental
Protection Agency has already improved some of the rules
governing the transition from winter to summer gasoline,
including a provision for increased flexibility in blending
and reclassification of certain fuels. However, the gasoline
market is still constrained at times by refinery and pipeline
capacity shortages in America.
As we did last year, Department of Energy will continue to
keep track of gasoline supplies and pricing. We have already
reinstated our 24 hour Gasoline Hotline--a 1-800 number for
consumers concerned about gasoline prices (800-244-3301). I
have also directed EIA to produce its Energy Situation
Analysis Report (ESAR) each weekday in order to monitor world
events that could disrupt supplies. The ESAR is released on
EIA's website (http://www.eia.doe.gov/) daily after 5 p.m.
I will be meeting this week with the American Automobile
Association (AAA) to identify ways to encourage Americans to
drive smarter, prepare their cars to operate more
efficiently--and save fuel and money. I also intend to meet
with both refiners and gas station owners to ensure that our
distribution system works well from the wellhead to the fuel
pump. A flawless distribution system will help to minimize
price spikes this year should disruptions occur. As we
identify solutions and ideas that help consumers, we will of
course provide you that information immediately.
These measures can mitigate somewhat the effects of rising
gasoline prices, but the solution is more long term. We must
reduce our dependence on OPEC imports of crude oil by
promoting energy conservation, increasing domestic oil
production, and diversifying our foreign sources of crude
oil. We strongly urge Congress to send comprehensive and
balanced energy legislation with all of these elements to the
President.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Spencer Abraham.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we have been generalizing a bit on
this side, relative to the National Environmental Policy Act, about
groups in opposition to opening ANWR. On the other hand, I was somewhat
relieved to see an ad that appeared in the Washington Post. It is
entitled:
Think All Environmentalists Oppose President Bush's Energy
Plan? . . . Think Again . . .''
I am going to read a couple of excerpts because I think it addresses,
indeed, some of the more balanced and responsible environmental groups
and their opinions on activities associated with relieving our
dependence on imported oil. The first is from Douglas Wheeler, former
executive director of the Sierra Club:
The exploration and development of energy resources in the
United States is governed by the world's most stringent
environmental constraints, and to force development elsewhere
is to accept the inevitability of less rigorous oversight.
What he is saying in these few words is that we can do it right in
the United States because we have the most stringent environmental
oversight on resource development, particularly oil and gas. He implies
that is not necessarily the case in other parts of the world, and we
seem very nonchalant about taking for granted where our oil comes from.
There is very little concern whether the development is harmonious with
the environment because our only bottom line is: We have to have the
oil.
There is another statement, from James C. Wheat, III, trustee for the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation:
The conservation community should take this opportunity to
work closely with Congress to ensure that exploration of ANWR
results in net environmental gains.
I certainly take Mr. Wheat at his word.
Further, Brian Ball, former chairman of the Nature Conservancy of
Virginia:
Technology advances and increased ecological awareness have
made this kind of exploration possible while leaving a
minimum footprint on the surrounding environment.
Again, I will show that footprint on the chart here, which indicates
the little area in red which identifies, obviously, the limitation in
this legislation, which is 2,000 acres.
We also received from the Laborers' International Union of North
America, Terence O'Sullivan, president, writing to each Member of this
body:
On behalf of the more than 800,000 members of the Laborers'
International Union of North America, I am writing to express
our strong support for opening the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) on Alaska's North Slope for new oil
exploration. I am requesting that you not only support an
amendment to open ANWR as a part of comprehensive energy
legislation, but also any effort to invoke cloture on the
issue if necessary.
The benefits of including ANWR in a comprehensive energy
bill are clear. Alaska currently provides 25% of the nation's
domestic oil and opening ANWR could boost that figure to more
than 50%. New drilling technologies will lessen the oil
industry's ``footprint'' on the surrounding environment by
increasing the length of directional drills and allowing for
smaller and more compact production pads; if Prudhoe Bay were
built today it would affect an area of land 65% smaller.
Thousands of good-paying jobs would be created across the
country by opening ANWR, 130,000 in construction alone. And
best of all, Alaskans support drilling in ANWR by a margin of
3-1. If ANWR is not appropriate as a domestic source of oil
production, then where in the U.S. is?
While exploration in ANWR is only one piece, it is a very
important piece of a national energy policy that should
include increased construction of power plants, including
nuclear facilities, oil and gas pipelines, refineries and
other energy production facilities. A national energy policy
will insure a reliable and affordable source of energy while
creating tens of thousands of jobs nationwide.
The Laborers and the entire building trades have a long and
illustrious history on the North Slope of Alaska of training
a highly skilled workforce, building a solid infrastructure,
deploying the new drilling technologies and protecting the
environment. That record of success is at least one reason
for the strong support among Alaskans for drilling in ANWR.
For all these reasons and more, we strongly urge you to not
only support an amendment to open ANWR as part of a
comprehensive energy legislation, but also any effort to
invoke cloture in order to allow a fair debate on the issue.
Sincerely,
TERENCE M. O'SULLIVAN,
General President.
Finally, I noted the debate that covered the second-degree amendment
which is pending to the underlying
[[Page S2711]]
amendment to open up ANWR. I would like to, again, highlight what this
second-degree amendment specifically does because it gives America's
steel industry an opportunity that otherwise it would not have--
basically to rejuvenate and reconstruct the industry so it can be
competitive.
We are all aware the administration provided a 30-percent protective
tariff to American steel. That is going to be binding for a 3-year
period of time. But what we have done here in the crafting of the
second-degree amendment, which Senator Stevens is offering, is to take
the funding that would be generated from a combination of royalty and
bonus bids--somewhere in the area of $12 billion over 30 years--and
take the royalty Federal share and apply it over a period of time to
specifically address the unpaid legacy associated with health benefits
for the steel industry. The proposal is to contribute approximately $8
billion to the steel legacy benefit program.
I ask, Where is this money going to come from if we do not identify a
source? We have the source. The source, of course, is from the revenues
generated from the royalties and the bonus bids in opening ANWR.
America's steel industry is not going to get another shot at this.
This is an identified source. As Senator Stevens indicated, the
prospects for the renewal of our steel industry, for it to become
competitive, is given an extraordinary opportunity as a consequence of
the reality that we are going to need steel in this country to build
that gas pipeline.
The estimated cost of that project is about $20 billion. My
understanding is the order for the steel will be somewhere in the area
of $4 billion to $5 billion. The last time we built a pipeline across
the length of Alaska, from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, it was 800 miles. Do
you know where the steel came from? It came from Japan; it came from
Korea; it came from Italy. That was 48-inch pipe.
The pipe on this steel proposal is approximately 56-inch or
thereabouts--52 to 56. It is X-80 to X-100, depending on the tensile
strength of the steel.
If it is not built in the United States, we know where it is going to
come from. It is going to come from foreign countries. Why wouldn't
this proposal stimulate the steel industry, both management and labor,
to recognize we have a extraordinary opportunity to revitalize the
steel industry in this country?
They have the problem obviously associated with funding of the health
benefits for some 600,000 potentially retired employees. But this is an
extraordinary opportunity.
In addition to the steel industry's opportunity for the major link
associated with the transportation, that is 3 thousand miles roughly
from the Coastal Plain to the Chicago city gate. That is what we are
talking about. We are also talking about virtually thousands of miles
of additional pipe associated with development in the Arctic--with both
ANWR and the ultimate development of the gas that has been discovered
while looking for oil in Prudhoe Bay. That gas is about 36 trillion
cubic feet of proven gas reserves.
I emphasize that as one who looks at opportunities for labor and
opportunities for capital to come together with this kind of
identification of a funding mechanism of $8 billion to contribute to
the steel legacy fund, there is an additional $1 billion to the United
Mine Workers combined benefit fund--this is another fund that organized
labor and the coal mining industry has had a shortfall in--the
contribution of $232 million in commerce grants to retool the industry
to compete in this project, as well as labor training through the
Department of Labor of roughly $155 million, training steelworkers in
the new technologies associated with making this pipe, as well as the
direction of funds; and $155 million for National Park Service
maintenance backlog, habitat restoration, and conservation programs.
Isn't this a pretty attractive disposition, if you will, of funds
associated with the lease sale and the royalties to be generated from
opening ANWR or is there a higher need? You take it into the General
Treasury, and you can appropriate. But what we are doing, and what
Senator Stevens has identified so clearly, is trying to meld two
opportunities. That gas is going to be developed. The reason it is
going to be developed is quite obvious. We are using our gas reserves
now faster than we are finding new reserves. Where are we going to get
the gas? We go down to the Gulf Coast States, and we are pulling down
our gas reserves very rapidly there. We get a significant decline. It
is estimated to be about 40 percent when we pull down offshore gas
reserves. It lasts a little longer on land.
The reference to putting together an opportunity to revitalize our
industry and basically work together to train workers to address some
of the combined benefits that the United Mine Workers and the coal
industry are short, as well as contribute to the steel legacy benefit
program, is one that needs more examination by the Senate.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to go through a committee
process, as we know, in bringing an energy bill to the floor. We would
have been able to pass ANWR out of committee, but the majority leader
saw fit to pull it. As a consequence, we have labored on various
aspects of the energy bill because it did not go through the committee
process, which is indeed unfortunate. But we have to make the best of
the situation.
As a consequence, the second degree that is pending gives America's
steel industry an opportunity for a new lease on life. Are we simply
going to lie back, address and debate the issues of the steel
industry's legacy shortfall or are we going to do anything about
rejuvenating this industry?
I think Senator Stevens indicated in his comments that we need steel,
we need energy, and we need food to be a great Nation. Are we going to
simply let the steel industry drop off, slough off, and become more
dependent on imported steel? We have already given them 3 years.
It surprises me there is not more interest from the industry. I
recognize there is a good deal of politics involved. I know Senator
Rockefeller has been working on this issue. I see in the Wall Street
Journal of April 16 a reference where Senator Rockefeller says any deal
that would bind opening ANWR with steel is probably dead because the
White House and the House Republican leaders won't provide letters of
support for the steel bailout. But he said further that commitments
from both camps were crucial to guarantees. They are.
We are going to do something with the revenue from ANWR if indeed we
authorize it to be opened. The question is, Do we want to, by ourselves
here collectively, come together as a bipartisan group and say this is
what we want the money used for?
I have the greatest respect for Senator Rockefeller. He is a good
friend of mine. He said in the article that commitment from both camps
was crucial to the guarantee that the aid would survive final House-
Senate negotiations on the broader energy bill now before the Senate.
I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
GOP Bid for Support on Drilling Founders
Washington.--A steel state Democrat announced he would
oppose drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, dashing a Republican bid to build Senate support for
ANWR by providing aid to retired steelworkers.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) said the deal fell through
because the White House and House Republican leaders won't
provide letters of support for the steel bailout. He said a
commitment from both camps was crucial to guarantee that the
aid would survive final House-Senate negotiations on the
broader energy bill now before the Senate.
The steel issue stems from President Bush's March 5
decision to rescue the U.S. steel industry with temporary
tariffs on most steel imports.
Drilling in the Arctic is a top priority of the White House
and Republicans, as part of their push to reduce dependency
on foreign oil. But many Republicans were dismayed at the
steel offer, having opposed Mr. Bush's March 5 decision as a
political ploy that undermined the U.S.'s free-trade
credentials.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think the Senator from West Virginia
is failing to recognize the obligation and opportunity we have to
designate those funds. If we designate those funds for steel, that is
where they are going to go. When Senator Rockefeller says he is opposed
to ANWR, I would respectfully advise him that if you can support the
funding determination which is covered in Senator Stevens'
[[Page S2712]]
second degree, then the funding can only come from one source, and that
is ANWR.
If this body directs the funds to come from that source, it seems to
me that certainly allays Senator Rockefeller's concern that somehow
Republicans wouldn't go along with the arrangement. We can dictate the
arrangement. We can make it law.
Finally, since we are discussing this, I would like to share a little
bit about the status of the steel industry in this country.
I am told there are approximately 50 impacted steel-associated
facilities that have been closed since the year 2000--50 impacted
facilities--and 25 million tons of steelmaking capacity impacted or
eliminated since the year 2000; 25,430 lost steel jobs; idle
steelmaking facilities: 6 closed steelmaking facilities in Indiana,
Ohio, Utah, Alabama, Arizona, and Tennessee, 15 in Pennsylvania, 3 in
Illinois, 4 in New York; in Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, and
Alabama, 2 each; iron-rolling mills, and other steel-related and iron
ore facilities: 1 in Michigan; closed rolling mills in other steel-
related and iron ore facilities: In Missouri, Michigan, 2; Texas, Ohio,
6; Illinois, 4; Pennsylvania, 4; New York, Arkansas, Connecticut, 2;
Indiana, California, Minnesota, Maryland, Alabama, Louisiana, 2.
Those are U.S. steel industry and ANWR production key facts.
Let me share with you the U.S. steel employment levels in 1980. There
were more than 500,000 U.S. steelworkers in this country. In the year
2000, there were 224,000. It is estimated, in the year 2010, there will
be 176,000--an anticipated loss of 21 percent for U.S. steel-related
jobs. That is a statistic by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
What does that mean? It means 23,000 jobs lost between 1998 and
September 2001; 270,000 steel jobs lost between 1980 and 1987. There
are 600,000 current U.S. steel retirees. This is what we are talking
about: their health care benefits alone. That is what we can address in
this second-degree amendment. We are proposing to contribute $8
billion.
Where is U.S. Steel? Where is Bethlehem? Where are they? Where are
the workers? Where are the retirees? Where are the unions on this one?
It is a source of revenue. Somebody is going to get that revenue when
we open ANWR. We are talking about a marriage, if you will, of U.S.
steel and U.S. jobs to build the largest pipeline ever conceived in
North America, from Alaska to Chicago. What an opportunity. It is a
win-win-win situation. Where is the downside?
What does that clean gas do to our environment? It cleans up our air.
Forty-seven percent of U.S. steelworkers are employed in Pennsylvania,
Ohio, and Indiana. Forty-five percent of U.S. steel jobs are related
directly to production. Eighteen percent of the jobs are related to
installation, maintenance, repair, and construction. Sixteen percent
are related to transportation and material-moving workers. Twenty
percent are related to manager, professional sales, and administrative
support occupations.
In 2000, 40 percent of steelworkers were covered by union contracts
compared with 16.2 percent in durable goods manufacturing and 14.9
percent in all industries.
Bringing new production capacity online--that is what we are talking
about--means thousands of new union members or reemploying laid-off
union members.
U.S. steel financial data: Domestic steel shipments down 14 percent
in the first quarter of 2001.
Between 1997 and 2001, 31 steel companies in the United States filed
for bankruptcy and are in chapter 11. This represents more than 21
percent of U.S. steel's capacity.
In the late 2001 timeframe, U.S. steel prices fell to some of their
lowest levels in 20 years. Nearly half of U.S. steel employees work in
factories with at least 1,000 employees.
Building new high-end, 52-inch X-100 steel capacity in the United
States--that is the pipeline we would build in the United States--would
mean more factories that could employ thousands of new workers.
This is a $5 billion contract. The cost of building the new 52-inch
X-100 pipeline rolling capacity--it is estimated to run somewhere in
the area of $250 million per facility because we are going to need more
than one facility.
Where are we going to buy it if we do not buy it in the United
States? We are going to buy it from Korea, we are going to buy it from
Japan, and we are probably going to buy some from Italy because that is
where we got it the last time when we built the TransAlaska Pipeline.
The total market capitalization of U.S. steel companies, as of March
19, 2002, is $12.8 billion. Contracts worth $4 billion or more in steel
for the Alaska natural gas pipeline equals one-third of the total value
of the entire U.S. steel industry.
Need I say more? I can go through the companies that have filed for
bankruptcy. I think I will because it may awaken, if you will, some of
the folks out there who are following the debate.
This is an opportunity to rejuvenate America's steel industry--those
who are not covered by the steel legacy benefits for their health care,
the unfunded health programs, those who are unemployed, those who have
been laid off. This is an opportunity for those companies that are
still in business to come together and recognize this is an
opportunity.
When is the last time we had an opportunity such as this? We debated
Chrysler years ago. It was a question of whether we should give a
guarantee to keep Chrysler afloat. We debated that heavily in the
Congress. It was one of the first real debates we had on whether we
were going to save a traditional well-known corporation in this
country. We decided to go ahead with that guarantee.
The results? Chrysler is still in business today. They are a
profitable corporation. But the premise of what we did was gambling on
Lee Iacocca and his imagination to rebuild the company.
For Heaven's sake, don't we have that same initiative left somewhere
in America's steel industry, some CEO who wants to take the challenge?
Let's make American steel competitive again. Let's make it great again.
We have that opportunity.
And the opportunity is good for all of America because it brings
together, if you will, the components. We have the gas. We found it
while developing Prudhoe Bay. We need the gas because we are pulling
down our reserves faster than we are finding new ones. We are going to
build it sooner or later. It is going to require a pipeline.
For Heaven's sake, why not come together with America's steel
industry and ensure it is built in America, and get on with
revitalizing, if you will, this important industry?
We talk about national security. We can talk a lot about oil. I think
Senator Stevens put it very succinctly when he said: You have to have
oil and energy. You have to have food. You have to have steel. So that
is what we are talking about here.
States with steel companies filing for bankruptcy: In Indiana, Action
Steel, Galv Pro, Great Lakes Metals, Heartland Steel, and Qualitech
Steel; in Oklahoma, Sheffield Steel; in Texas, Metals USA; in
Pennsylvania, Bethlehem Steel, Riverview Steel, Edgewater Steel,
Freedom Forge, Erie Forge & Steel, J&L Structural, and Worldclass
Processing; in Missouri, Excaliber Holding Co. and Laclede Steel; in
California, Precision Steel; in Ohio, Republic Technologies, CSC Ltd.,
and LTV Corporation; in Alabama, Trico Steel and Gulf States Steel; in
Louisiana, American Iron; in North Carolina, GS Industries; in
Illinois, Northwestern Steel & Wire; in West Virginia, Wheeling-
Pittsburgh; in Michigan, Vision Metals; in Utah, Geneva Steel; in New
York, Al Tech Specialty and ACME Metals. That is 62,500 jobs. That is
what is lost.
We are going to be debating this issue extensively, but I did want to
follow a little bit on the second degree and challenge America's steel
industry, challenge a couple CEOs out there who might have a little of
the Lee Iacocca spirit to try to bring America's steel industry
together and come to grips with an opportunity.
If we do not open ANWR, clearly it is not going to fund the
rejuvenation of America's steel industry. That is apparent. That is why
I hope, as we proceed with this debate, there will be a critical
evaluation of the merits of opening ANWR, what it can do for our
national security, and what it can do for American labor.
[[Page S2713]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska is absolutely right
in his remarks about the need for the natural gas pipeline that is in
this bill. One of the first things we did--I cannot remember if it was
the Senator from Nevada or the majority leader who offered the
amendment--but we offered the amendment that would create the
opportunity to build a gasline from Alaska to Chicago, basically. It
would be 3,500 miles long. That gasline would be 52 inches in diameter,
and there would be a need for 5 million tons of steel to build that
pipeline. It is estimated that pipeline alone would create 400,000
jobs.
So it would seem to me, we would be well advised to move this piece
of legislation based on something we can all agree on; and that is, to
bring natural gas from the North Slope to the lower 48 States. It is
noncontroversial in the sense that it is bipartisan in nature. We have
not only authorized the direction of that pipeline, we have also
provided, in the legislation, loan guarantees for the private sector to
build that pipeline. But we have gotten off on a tangent here on
something that both sides have their own opinion of what is best for
the country. As a result of that, ANWR is not going to happen.
But it should be recognized that the pipeline should happen. We
should join together and quickly handle the remaining amendments. We
are working over here to get rid of as many as we can and move this
legislation forward.
The Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, has worked so hard on this
issue that he and Senator Stevens believe in so fervently. I am glad we
have the amendment before us. It is important we do that. Simply
because I disagree with these two fine Senators from Alaska doesn't
take away from the fervor they feel about this amendment. We will find
during the debate that will take place in the next couple of days that
there are people who believe just as fervently that this amendment is a
bad idea.
That is what the Senate is all about--the ability to debate publicly
issues of extreme importance to the country. The decision to be made on
ANWR is important to the country.
As I have indicated, building a pipeline would not only create
thousands of new jobs but would provide a huge opportunity for the
steel industry. The Senate has already spoken that we encourage the use
of American steel and union labor in the construction of the pipeline.
The total cost of the Alaska natural gas pipeline is estimated to be as
much as $20 billion. That is a real shot in the arm.
In addition to these enormous supplies of natural gas from existing
oilfields, there is another substantial opportunity to obtain
additional oil and gas resources from the Alaska North Slope. It is the
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska. This reserve is 23 million acres,
as I understand it, of public land approximately the size of the State
of Indiana. It was created to secure the Nation's petroleum reserves.
It is administered by the BLM which, in 1999, offered 4 million acres
in the northeast portion of this for leasing. The result was an
extremely successful lease sale.
That sale had a high level of interest from the industry with about
$105 million in bonus bids for 133 leases on about 860,000 acres.
Exploratory drilling has already occurred, and there have been major
finds by the industry there.
A second lease sale is scheduled to take place this summer. Planning
is being undertaken to open an additional portion of this for leasing.
Again, no new law needs to be passed in order to drill here. We are not
talking about a piece of land the size of a postage stamp. We are
talking about 23 million acres.
As I said while I was waiting earlier today for Senator Murkowski to
offer his amendment, I am very happy it is being offered. Tomorrow
morning we hope Senator Bingaman will have the opportunity to speak. He
has managed this bill. He has sat here patiently waiting for this
amendment. He has some things to say. I spoke to Senator Breaux this
afternoon. He is on the side of the Senators from Alaska. He wishes to
speak tomorrow. Senator Kerry from Massachusetts believes very
passionately that drilling in ANWR is absolutely wrong, and he will
speak for a considerable period of time to lay out his position.
Senator Lieberman is scheduled to come as soon as he has an opportunity
to speak in opposition to the two fine Senators from Alaska.
This is going to be a good debate. I personally look forward to it,
on a very serious note, and would hope the debate is, for lack of a
better description, as high class as it has been to this point. There
is a lot to talk about. This is an issue that is important to the
country, and it is time we laid our cards on the table and at a
subsequent time vote as the Senate will allow us to do, either on a
procedural matter or on a substantive matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I very much appreciate the remarks of my good friend
the majority whip. The only question I would have is whether or not the
majority whip realizes that not one single steel mill in the United
States has the capacity currently to make the 52-inch steel pipe that
is needed for the Alaska pipeline. They neither have the capacity nor
are they familiar with this particular strength of steel. It is 80 to
100 in the dimension.
So I ask the majority whip, my good friend from Nevada, how does he
propose we are going to go through this transition of America's steel
industry achieving the capability to make the investment when indeed a
good portion of the industry is in bankruptcy, another portion of the
industry is in the process of not being able to pay its fund for health
care, the legacy costs?
It is important as we get into this debate that we not generalize
that somehow America's steel industry is going to participate without
identifying where the funds are going to come from because the private
sector is going to be very reluctant to invest in America's steel
industry. That is why, obviously, the financial community did not see
fit to invest in Chrysler when they had their troubled times. They
exhausted all their alternatives. They came to the Congress, and the
Congress came forward with a guarantee.
I ask my friend from Nevada how he proposes that any steel mill,
since not one in the United States currently makes 52-inch X-80 steel
pipe, how is the industry going to develop to meet the challenge of the
order which we anticipate will be forthcoming?
Mr. REID. I am happy to respond to my friend from Alaska. First of
all, the American Iron and Steel Institute has stated that no one in
the world can make this pipe right now. But they also go on to say that
if in fact there is an opportunity to do this pipeline, American
entrepreneurship can do this. Remember, this legislation that we have
already accepted in this bill provides loan guarantees.
I also say to my friend from Alaska, I have great faith in the
American labor force and those, as I have said, entrepreneurs who have
an opportunity to do good things for the country but also make money.
As far as the steel manufacturers, we have worked hard on this. As
you remember, last year Senator Byrd worked long and hard on something
to bail out the industry. Of course, we received little help from your
side of the aisle.
Senator Rockefeller, with whom I have spoken about this, recognizes
that if we are going to do something for the steel industry--and we
are--that it is going to take real money. We look forward to working
with the steel State Senators. It is my understanding steel is now
manufactured in some form or fashion in about 16 States.
We are committed to do everything we can to help that industry, not
only from the management side but also for those workers who are
entitled to a lot of things, not the least of which is pensions.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the response of the
majority whip. I guess my frustration is in knowing how to get the two
sides together. I am referring to the article in the Wall Street
Journal today where they quoted Senator Rockefeller saying that,
supposedly, the deal was ANWR revenues for steel. He said:
The deal fell through because the White House and the House
Republican leaders would not provide letters of support for
the steel industry--
He used the word ``bailout.'' I prefer ``rejuvenation.''
[[Page S2714]]
I ask my friend, don't we have the power in the Senate to direct the
use of these funds, as opposed to what the White House happens to think
is in the best interest of the industry or politics? We have the
authority, do we not, to direct these funds for the benefit of the
steel industry if we authorize ANWR to be opened?
I ask my friend if, indeed, he can explain to me the logic that
Senator Rockefeller proposes because he simply says the deal fell
through because the White House and the Republican leaders would not
provide letters of support for the steel bailout. Why don't we just
pass the law here and designate the funds for the industry? That in
itself should address the concerns of the Senator from West Virginia.
I recognize it is not appropriate to ask the majority whip to explain
the rationale of Senator Rockefeller; nevertheless, I think the
principle is here. If we wanted to pass this, we could, could we not?
Mr. REID. First of all, while I don't like to admit it, I don't read
the Wall Street Journal, so I don't know what it said. I have not read
that. Senator Rockefeller would have to respond to his questions. I
have my own reasons why I think it would be a very bad program, not the
least of which is I don't think ANWR would be improved. You would have
to talk to Senator Rockefeller about that. All I know is that the
development of this pipeline would create jobs in steel production,
pipe manufacturing, pipe laying, and construction. It would create lots
of jobs. By any estimate I am aware of, the pipeline would create
probably at least 300 percent more jobs than the ANWR project.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think the hour is late and I am sure
we are about to wind up. I look forward to continuing the debate. I
hope we can have, from the organization that represents the American
steel industry, some indication by tomorrow's debate just what their
attitude would be toward their ability to restructure, to meet the
anticipated order associated with the 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline
from Alaska to Chicago. We will attempt to contact them in the 24 hours
that we have before we start the debate tomorrow to obtain their views
on their ability to meet this demand and what conditions would have to
be met in order for them to be competitive.
I think it is rather interesting, also--and I simply call this to the
attention of my good friend, Senator Reid--it is my understanding that
someone in the debate, regarding the merits of the 30-percent tariff
that was set for imported steel, specifically excluded 52-inch pipe.
Now, I encourage Members to check on that because, to me, that pretty
much gives an out for American steel. In effect, it says that all steel
coming into the United States is subject to a 30-percent import tariff,
except 52-inch pipe. It seems to me that is not in the best interest of
what we are talking about here, to try to encourage the American steel
industry to gear up for the largest order, by specifically exempting
52-inch pipe, which is what this argument is all about.
I yield the floor.
cloture motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Stevens
amendment No. 3133, regarding drilling in ANWR:
Tom Daschle, Kent Conrad, Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, Barbara
Mikulski, Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Tim Johnson,
Tom Carper, Jeff Bingaman, Byron Dorgan, Richard
Durbin, Mark Dayton, Jay Rockefeller, Patrick Leahy,
Jack Reed.
cloture motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Murkowski
ANWR amendment No. 3132 to S. 517, the Energy Bill:
Tim Johnson, Tom Carper, John Kerry, Jeff Bingaman,
Patrick Leahy, Tom Harkin, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Max Cleland, Maria Cantwell,
Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Max
Baucus.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only remaining business is to wrap up.
We will do that as soon as the Senator from Alaska allows me to go
forward.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I find it rather interesting that here
we are, and we have started on this bill roughly at 3 o'clock; it is
now roughly 6:35. I think it is extraordinary that the majority would
file cloture on this amendment when not one single Member has risen in
opposition to either amendment. I do grant the whip that he did mention
it briefly--his opinion on certain aspects of it.
But in view of the fact that no one has spoken on the other side, I
hope that these amendments could just be accepted. Obviously, that is
wishful thinking. I think it, again, represents a terrible departure
from the traditions of this body in the way this entire energy bill has
been handled. From the beginning, it was taken away from the committee
of jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It was
taken away by the majority leader because he knew we had the votes to
include ANWR in the energy bill and present it to the floor for debate.
Now, he also knew that, from a political point of view, he could
ramrod his bill without the benefit of the committee process. Yet he
has seen fit to take to task our side for delaying the bill.
Let me tell you what happened in this bill. It was an educational
process. Most Members didn't have an idea of certain aspects of the
renewable portfolio, the electric portfolio. So he has opted out of the
tradition of this body in the handling of this bill, and we have been
on it for a very short period of time. I am talking about, obviously,
the lightning rod, which is ANWR, and we all knew it. Now he has seen
fit to file cloture on this amendment when not one single Member has
risen in opposition to either amendment. This means that debate around
here is no longer of any significance because everybody has their mind
made up ahead of time.
I think it is a sorry day for the Senate when we come to this impasse
and address the disposition of this paramount issue by a cloture motion
so early in the debate.
Outside of expressing my extreme disappointment in the manner this
has been handled, I hope that as we address the debate from here on in,
it will be represented by factual information, not innuendoes, and that
those speaking in opposition have some knowledge because I will venture
to say virtually every Member who will speak in opposition tomorrow has
never been to ANWR, has never been to Prudhoe Bay, and has never ever
considered the significance of what this legislation would do for the
Native indigenous people of the North Slope; namely, the Eskimo people
of Kaktovik.
I am going to leave one thing for this body as we go out, and that is
to reflect on the honey bucket in Kaktovik. That is the difference
between a Third World nation and the realities of what a lifestyle
would bring to those people who want to have the same conveniences we
take for granted; that is, running water and sewer facilities. They can
have it if we can open up ANWR.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, by any standard one can come up with, in any
body, especially any deliberative body, being on a bill since February
18, being on a bill 19 full days of debating would be a pretty good
amount of debate. By any standard, being on a bill this long, one would
say is enough, but we have not had enough because under the rules of
the Senate which protect debate, we are not only going to be able to
debate all tomorrow, we can go all night tomorrow if anyone wants to
talk. That is what this is all about.
It seems to me we have had every opportunity to have this brought
before us. I have been on this floor many
[[Page S2715]]
times, most of the time representing the majority leader, saying:
Please bring this forward. Could you do it tomorrow? I even said I
think I will offer the amendment out of the House just to speed things
up. Yesterday I asked: Can we start this in the morning?
The reason we have not had other people speaking in opposition to the
amendment is that the two Alaska Senators would not allow us to have
anybody. We wanted to intersperse speakers. Senator Bingaman, the
manager of the bill, wanted to propound a unanimous consent request to
set up an orderly process to debate. Senator Bingaman, being the
gentleman he is, sat down and did not say a word. It is unusual that
the manager of the bill has not had the opportunity to speak. He waited
around, I guess, but he has been here all day.
Senator Bingaman is going to speak tomorrow against these amendments.
I announced this earlier. I said Senator Bingaman is going to speak
against the amendment, and Senator Breaux is going to speak in favor.
Senator Kerry wants to speak for an extended period of time. If anybody
is looking for opposition to this amendment, I spoke in opposition to
it today. I compared the Arctic wilderness to my home in Searchlight,
NV. I compared the desert to the wilds of Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend will yield for a
question.
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I respectfully request the reference
not be to the Arctic wilderness because, obviously, we are all aware
that this is not a designated wilderness. I thank the Chair.
Mr. REID. I will be happy to restate it: ANWR, and anyplace in my
remarks in the last few minutes where I said ``Arctic wilderness,'' I
was simply saying not wilderness in the sense of legislative
wilderness, but it is a very remote area. The place around Searchlight
is not wilderness either in the true sense of the word, but it is
pretty wild desert. I did not mean to connote any legal term when I
said ``wilderness.'' It is just a place out there all alone, Mr.
President.
My friend from Alaska used the words ``extreme disappointment.'' I
can relate the extreme disappointment I have had on this bill in the
last 18 days waiting, waiting, waiting to get to ANWR. That is the crux
of this bill. We know that. If ANWR is disposed of one way or another,
we have a bill.
My friends from Alaska said they knew they had the votes. We will
find out when we vote on this. Under a procedure of the Senate, unless
something changes, we are going to vote on this an hour after the
Senate comes in on Thursday. That is under the rules of the Senate. I
know--and I repeat what I said a few minutes ago--the Senators from
Alaska believe in what they are doing. I repeat the words fervently. I
do not take a bit of credit away from them for doing that. That is
their job, and they have done a good job. But there are certain things
that are not really--I should say they are not factual in some
respects.
For example, on the energy bill, there have been a lot of hearings in
the committee on which Senator Murkowski sat as the chairman; now
Senator Bingaman is the chairman. We went through this before. There
were 12 hearings. Senator Murkowski is right, maybe we should have had
more hearings. There are not a lot of bills around here that have that
many hearings on them. Anytime there is important legislation--which
this is, setting the energy policy of this country--it is hard to
satisfy everybody.
Senator Daschle did the best he could. He brought a bill before the
Senate. I lost track of the time: 18, 19 days--a long time ago. We
started on the 18th day of February. Senator Daschle has done fine
getting it to this point. I think the legislation is moving along. I
look forward to the debate tomorrow.
Senator Murkowski wants to hear people in opposition to this. He is
going to hear some. They will be just as believable as the Senators
from Alaska in presenting their case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend will yield. I
hate to prolong this, but I have to stay here as long as he does. I
guess we have a little bit of a standoff. With respect to the committee
process, I certainly concur we have had a lot of hearings, but I ask
the majority whip why we did not have any markups. Why did the majority
leader forbid our committee from having markups after the hearings,
when a majority of the committee supported ANWR? I would certainly
appreciate any enlightenment. The only thing I have ever heard is that
it was perhaps controversial. But I certainly defer to the whip to
advise us as to what the rationale was of forbidding any markups.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend from Alaska--
we have been through this before, but I am happy to go through it
again--I had an exchange on the floor with my counterpart, Senator
Nickles, who said we had no hearings, and I listed by date the hearings
we had. He said we had no markup, and there was not a markup on this
bill. That is acknowledged. Perhaps we learned something from when the
Republicans were in control of the Senate because their last energy
bill had no markup.
We do not need to have this tit for tat. This is the Senate. There
are different ways of moving things forward. Senator Daschle did
everything by the rules of the Senate. He did not do anything that was
shady or try to contrive something. He certainly did not do anything
that the Republicans had not done when they were in the majority,
except I believe we had a lot more hearings on our bill than they had
on their bill.
As I say, in the legislative process, this is used so many times, but
it certainly is as descriptive as I can be: There are two things one
does not want to watch: Sausage being made and the Senate creating
legislation because it is not a lot of times an orderly process, but we
do it by the rules, just as when the Republicans were in the majority
they did it by the rules.
Sometimes we wish we did not have these rules, but they are here, and
they are here for a reason. We have played by the rules, and we will
continue to play by the rules and do the best we can.
The important issue is when we vote. That is when the real decisions
are made. On occasions it is hard to get to a vote, as it has been on
this issue. On Thursday morning we are going to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate, however,
since we have the responsibility for some consistency, to refer to the
manner in which the Pickering nomination was handled.
A quote from the majority leader on March 6 states:
If we respect the committee process at all, I think you
have to respect the decisions of every committee. I will
respect the wishes and the decisions made by that committee,
as I would with any other committee.
Then at a news conference March 14, after the disposition:
Committees are there for a reason, and I think we have to
respect the committee jurisdiction, responsibility and
leadership, and that's what I intend to do.
Obviously, there was never an opportunity for the committee as a
whole to bring the matter to the floor, and I think we all can reflect
on that bit of inconsistency.
I conclude by referring to the release on October 9, 2001. It was
entitled: Energy Committee Suspends Markups; Will Propose Comprehensive
and Balanced Energy Legislation to Majority Leader. This was by
Chairman Jeff Bingaman, and it says:
At the request of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff
Bingaman today suspended any further markup of energy
legislation for this session of Congress. Instead, the
chairman will propose comprehensive and balanced energy
legislation that can be added by the majority leader to the
Senate calendar for potential action prior to adjournment.
Noted Bingaman, it has become increasingly clear to the
majority leader and to me that much of what we are doing in
our committee is starting to encroach on the jurisdictions of
other committees. Additionally, with the few weeks remaining
in this session, it is now obvious to all how difficult it is
going to be for these various committees to finish their work
on energy-related provisions.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Senator Bingaman
said, the Senate's leadership sincerely wants to avoid
quarrelsome, divisive votes in committees. At a time
[[Page S2716]]
when Americans all over the world are pulling together with a
sense of oneness and purpose, Congress has an obligation at
the moment to avoid these contentious issues that divide
rather than unite us.
I ask unanimous consent that these quotes be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Congress Daily AM, Apr. 16, 2002]
GOP Plan To Link Drilling With Steel Aid Falls Through
(By Geoff Earle and Brody Mullins)
An idea that top Republicans had been considering to link a
steel program with an amendment oil drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge has fallen through, according to
Sen. John (Jay) Rockefeller, D-W. Va.
``It's quite dead,'' Rockefeller said. ``The deal was nixed
by the White House.''
Rockefeller said that Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska,
approached him last week about linking provisions to provide
healthcare and retirement benefits to steelworkers using ANWR
royalties. Rockefeller said that Stevens told him, ``I need
oil, you need steel, let's see if we can work together.''
Rockefeller, who has opposed ANWR in the past, said he
would be willing to back ANWR if it included so-called steel
legacy provisions. But Rockefeller said he would not go along
unless Republicans could produce letters from the president
or vice president. Speaker Hastert, and House Energy and
Commerce Chairman Tauzin, to ensure that the provisions are
included in a final bill after a conference committee.
But Rockefeller said the administration told him that while
a letter might be possible, ``you get us 60 votes first.''
Sixty votes will be needed to break a filibuster of an ANWR
amendment.
Rockefeller said he did not think there were more than 54
votes for a clean ANWR bill. ``The deal being off, they'll be
lucky if they're at 50,'' he said. Rockefeller added he was
searching for other vehicles to move steel legislation.
Rockefeller said he was able to draw conclusions about the
lack of interest on the part of the White House from a
conversation with Commerce Secretary Evans.
``The White House isn't behind it, you can forget the whole
thing,'' he said. Rockefeller added that he plans to vote
against ANWR.
Meanwhile, the Senate is expected to begin debate today on
the ANWR amendment. Energy and Natural Resources ranking
member Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, had considered delaying
action until Wednesday, but debate on the measure now is
expected to begin today.
Majority Leader Daschle is expected to debate an amendment
offered by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Paul
Wellstone, D-Minn., to give the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission new authority to safeguard electricity consumers.
On other controversial amendments, Consumers Union called
Monday on the Senate to strip from the energy bill a far-
reaching ethanol compromise that would triple the amount of
ethanol-produced gasoline.
____
Energy Committee Suspends Mark-Ups; Will Propose Comprehensive and
Balanced Energy Legislation to Majority Leader
(By Jeff Bingaman, Chairman Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Oct. 9, 2001)
At the request of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle,
Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff
Bingaman today suspended any further mark-up of energy
legislation for this session of Congress. Instead, the
Chairman will propose comprehensive and balanced energy
legislation that can be added by the Majority Leader to the
Senate Calendar for potential action prior to adjournment.
Noted Bingaman, It has became increasingly clear to the
Majority Leader and to me that much of what we are doing in
our committee is starting to encroach on the jurisdictions of
many other committees. Additionally, with the few weeks
remaining in this session, it is now obvious to all how
difficult it is going to be for these various committees to
finish their work on energy-related provisions.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Bingaman said, the
Senate's leadership sincerely wants to avoid quarrelsome,
divisive votes in committee. At a time when Americans all
over the world are pulling together with a sense of oneness
and purpose, Congress has an obligation at the moment to
avoid those contentious issues that divide, rather than
unite, us.
Bingaman will continue to consult and build consensus with
members of his committee, with other committee chairs and
with other Senators as he finalizes a proposal to present to
the Majority Leader.
____
If we respect the committee process at all, I think you
have to respect the decisions of every committee. I will
respect the wishes and the decisions made by that committee,
as I would with any other committee.--Senator Tom Daschle,
News Conference, March 6, 2002.
Committee are there for a reason, and I think we have to
respect the committee jurisdiction, responsibility, and
leadership, and that's what I intend to do.--Senator Tom
Daschle, News Conference, March 14, 2002.
For whatever reason, the Republicans are slow-walking the
energy bill. They appear not to want to move this to final
passage or to a conclusion. We're not sure why they're not
more supportive of bringing the debate to a close, but they
have yet to offer the ANWR amendment and some of the other
more controversial amendments. So we've been on the
legislation 12 days already, and, you know, that's almost
three weeks, and we have--we have very little prospect of
finishing the legislation any time in the foreseeable future.
So we're going to have to make some decisions about cloture
when we get back, but its disappointing that they have not
been more willing to move the legislation forward than we've
seen so far.--Senator Tom Daschle, News Conference, March 21,
2002.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think it speaks for itself that indeed there is an
inconsistency. When it benefits the other side, they basically
steamroll the process by excluding the committee. They have seen fit to
do so, and the energy bill is certainly the most recent, and I think
the most blatant, inconsistency associated with the administration of
the leadership. I think this is certainly evidenced even further by the
manner in which the cloture motion has been laid down this evening,
after only less than 3 hours of debate on what, indeed, the majority
whip identified as the major issue in the energy bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this indicates how tough Senator Daschle's
job is. He is criticized for doing something in the committee. He is
criticized by the minority for doing the work in the Committee on the
Judiciary. When he does that, he is criticized. When he does not do it,
he is criticized on the energy bill.
We do not need this tit for tat stuff, but at least having been in
the Senate during the time the Republicans controlled the Judiciary
Committee we are at least having hearings for the judges. They would
not even do that. We had judges who waited 4 years and did not even get
a hearing. I do not think the Judge Pickering nomination is a good
example because if they use how they treated our judicial nominees,
that is those under President Clinton, we would win that in a slam
dunk.
We are moving judges more rapidly than they did. We are giving all
the judges hearings as quickly as possible. My personal feeling is the
Pickering nomination is not a good example of how the Republicans have
treated us with the Judiciary Committee. Maybe some other committee but
not Judiciary, because we, for lack of a better description, took it in
the shorts with our judicial nominees.
low income home energy assistance program
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am delighted to participate in a colloquy with
Senator Kennedy on the important issue of the Low Income Energy
Assistance Program.
I want to recognize Senator Kennedy's tireless work on behalf of the
people in need that this program strives to serve. In particular, I
want to laud his efforts to increase LIHEAP authorizations. For too
long, this program has not kept pace with Congress' original intent. No
one has been more acutely aware of this than Senator Kennedy himself.
He has worked diligently to ensure LIHEAP is fully funded, including an
effort to commit $3.4 billion to the program.
Unfortunately, it takes more than the tireless work of even such a
distinguished Chairman as Senator Kennedy to make this change. It takes
each of us in Congress, and a willing administration as well.
Unfortunately, that will has not yet been there. In fact, LIHEAP's
average annual appropriation since 1984 has been $1.4 billion.
Mr. President, 22 years ago, LIHEAP was amended, following its
original enactment in 1981. With the 1984 amendments, Congress put in
place an elegant, simple and straightforward mechanism to ensure these
scarce Federal resources got to those low-income Americans in greatest
need. It accommodates: Annual updates of State expenditures for low-
income home energy requirements--regardless of fuel source--for heating
and cooling. Changes in weather--including heating/cooling degree days
and fuel price volatility--for electricity, fuel oil, liquid petroleum
gases and natural gas.
I have just described to you as near-perfect a means as possible to
get the
[[Page S2717]]
funds to those low-income Americans in greatest need. This mechanism
can get funds to low-income Californians reeling from gas and electric
price shocks, or Georgians who last summer endured crushing gas bills.
However, LIHEAP funds do not flow to all the places they are needed
today but instead where they were needed in 1979 and 1980.
Back then, it was assumed that LIHEAP appropriations would rise, and
the allocation mechanism mentioned above has been cast aside. The law
states that unless LIHEAP appropriations exceed $1.975 billion, the
elements described above do not control. Instead, the controlling
factor is a state's receipt of funds in 1981.
Much can happen in 22 years. For example, from 1980 to 2000: Dallas'
population grew from 904,074 to 1,118,580; Clark County, NV's
population grew from 463,087 to 1,375,765; Greater Phoenix, Arizona
grew from 1,509,000 to 3,072,000.
It would be unfortunate, if we were unable to respond to such
situations, in these areas, or to the needs of the citizens of my own
State of Louisiana, merely because LIHEAP was locked into the past. We
need to address today's problems as well.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her comments
and commend her for her steadfast commitment to the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program. She is an outstanding advocate for needy
families in Louisiana and across the country. She is correct that the
program demands and deserves significantly more funding than it
currently receives. I'm sure she's as pleased as I am that LIHEAP's
authorization levels are increased in the underlying bill. I look
forward to working with her and with her colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee to increase funding for this vital program.
Senator Landrieu has raised some very important concerns about the
program which must be addressed during the re-authorization process. I
plan to hold hearings on this issue and invite Senator Landrieu to
testify. Her proposals will play a very serious role during
consideration of LIHEAP re-authorization.
Senator Landrieu raises a critical point regarding the vulnerability
of our poorest citizens to extreme weather conditions. My State is the
home of ground-breaking research on the negative health impacts of
extreme temperatures, particularly on poor children with chronic
illnesses suffering through cold winters. Research at the Failure to
Thrive Clinic at Boston Medical Center has indicated that needy
children often start to lose weight and suffer additional problems
associated with malnutrition, because their families are spending less
of their meager incomes on food and medicine, and more on fuel bills.
No family should have to choose between energy, rent, prescription
drugs, or food. LIHEAP helps families meet their home energy needs, so
they can meet other immediate priorities, too.
From 1979 to 1998, the Centers for Disease Control reports that there
were 7,421 deaths in the United States due to heat stroke. Over the
same time period, CDC says 13,970 people died of hypothermia, or
exposure to cold. In Massachusetts, people who cannot afford to heat
their homes efficiently often employ more dangerous methods of heat--
such as using space heaters or simply leaving oven doors open. In
winter 2000, an unseasonably cold winter for my state, deaths from home
fires due to space heaters surged in Massachusetts. Nearly one out of
every five fire deaths in Massachusetts in 2000 was caused by a space
heater.
Had LIHEAP been fully funded, and had the program reacted more
effectively to crises, we would have been able to save lives. The real
tragedy of this debate is that the flexibility already in LIHEAP isn't
being utilized. Emergency LIHEAP funding, desperately needed in
Louisiana, Massachusetts, and across the country, is still sitting at
the White House.
The Bush administration is sitting on $600 million in LIHEAP funds
that can be placed wherever it is needed most. Half of this emergency
funding was approved by Congress in the previous fiscal year. LIHEAP
applications keep increasing, the economy still struggles, and States
are forced to cut LIHEAP benefits for our people--but the
administration keeps claiming an ``emergency'' doesn't exist while
thousands of families are still facing the terrible choice of heat,
cooling, or food. The Bush administration can reach the families it
mentioned in its budget message right now by releasing the emergency
funds. Until it does so, the administration can't discuss improving
LIHEAP with any credibility.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to thank the senior Senator from
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his interest and commitment to
addressing this issue during reauthorization. I look forward to working
closely with Chairman Kennedy on this matter next year as well as the
opportunity to testify before his committee. Throughout the South and
the Southwest there is an urgent need for this reform and I am grateful
for Senator Kennedy's support.
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have heard hours of debate on the
Senate energy bill. One of the messages that we've heard repeated in
statements on many different energy related subjects is that energy
policy is highly influenced by region. Energy policy that works in one
region may not work in another, nor do policy decisions necessarily
translate from state to state. For example, Florida's unique
topographic, climatic, and geological conditions make it impossible to
harness certain forms of renewable energy, such as wind and hydropower.
Just as it would be difficult for the State of Alaska to rely on solar
energy during its dark winter months. For these reasons, I have
expressed my concern to the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator
Bingaman, that a broadly applied renewable portfolio standard will not
work optimally for all fifty states of the union. While I remain
supportive of expanding the use of renewable energy supplies as an
important part of our national energy portfolio, I prefer an approach
that treats regions and states with deference to their unique
circumstances. An RPS standard cannot be rigid, but must be flexible.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I have been working with my colleagues from Florida for
some time to address their concerns with the renewable portfolio
standard in the Senate energy bill. Let me say that I think it is
critical to increase the use of renewables in order to decrease our
dependence on fossil fuels and foreign imports. However, I also
appreciate the differences that occur from region to region and State
to State. I would like to extend an offer to Senators Graham and Nelson
to work in conference to find some method that will enable a renewable
portfolio standard to accomplish the goal of increasing renewables
while recognizing the legitimate differences among States. I believe
that we can find an appropriate way to help each state include a
renewable standard as part of their overall energy production, and I am
committed to working with Senator Graham to accomplish this.
Mr. GRAHAM. I want to thank Senator Bingaman for his work on the
energy bill and for his offer to help address on my concerns with the
renewable standard specifically. I look forward to working together on
this important provision, and I withdraw my related amendments.
____________________