[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.

                          ____________________