[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 43 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2799-S2820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to oppose the proposal to drill 
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With all due respect to my 
colleagues on the other side, who I know feel strongly, I feel strongly 
as well and have been involved with this issue since my time in the 
House of Representatives, where I consistently cosponsored legislation 
that would not allow drilling to occur.
  It is important that we continue to stress the fact that drilling in 
ANWR will not create energy independence and that we are talking about, 
even if

[[Page S2800]]

we started drilling tomorrow, the first barrel of crude oil would not 
make it to the market for at least 10 years. So it would not affect our 
current energy needs. There is a real question in all of the debate 
going on about the concerns that are immediately in front of us. This 
is not the answer to that.
  We are talking about whether or not, on the one hand, we risk the 
environmentally sensitive Coastal Plain for the equivalent of just 6 
months' worth of usage or consumer usage in the United States. And this 
is not something that will be available for use for 10 years. It 
doesn't make sense to me.
  I think that in this energy bill, when we are trying to look to the 
future, we ought not to be going to the past in terms of trying to 
drill our way to energy security and independence.
  According to the EIA, an independent analytical agency within the 
Department of Energy, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is projected to 
reduce the amount of foreign oil consumption by the United States in 
2020 from 62 percent to 60 percent--a whopping 2-percent difference by 
2020. This certainly is not going to address our energy needs. Drilling 
in the Arctic Refuge will not really make a dent in the question of the 
overdependence on foreign oil. Even John Brown, the CEO of BP Amoco, 
admitted in an interview on ``60 Minutes'' back in February that it was 
``simply not possible for the U.S. to drill its way to energy 
independence.'' That is why we have a proposal in front of us that is 
comprehensive.

  I would like to, once again, commend the sponsor and the leader on 
this issue, Senator Bingaman, for not only his leadership in coming 
forward with a broad plan that moves us to the future, but also his 
patience during this process, as we have moved through all of the 
amendments and the different comments in which each of us have been 
involved.
  When we look at the tradeoff, I simply don't believe it is worth it. 
Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will lead, potentially, to environmental 
damage. The proponents of drilling claim that the modern techniques are 
clean and would cause no environmental damage.
  First, drilling accidents do happen. Over the past several years, 
across the Nation, there have been accidents due to poor maintenance, 
equipment failure, human error, even sabotage. Certainly, in this time 
of concern about terrorism, we need to be concerned about that as well. 
In these accidents, crude oil was dumped into our rivers, our lakes, 
our streams, and wetlands, and often dangerous hydrogen sulfide gas was 
released into the air as well.
  This doesn't seem to be a good tradeoff for the equivalent of 6 
months' worth of oil that we cannot actually begin to use for 10 years. 
We can create more jobs and help our U.S. steel industry and help our 
economy and make other kinds of positive benefits without drilling in 
the Arctic Refuge.
  There are more than 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas immediately 
available in the existing oilfields on the Alaskan North Slope. 
Currently, natural gas is produced with this oil but is reinjected, as 
we all know, back into the ground because there is no pipeline to bring 
it to the lower 48 States. Constructing the Alaskan natural gas 
pipeline will create more than 400,000 new jobs and provide a real 
opportunity to the U.S. steel industry, which, I might add, is 
incredibly important in my State of Michigan, where we are concerned 
about an integrated steel industry from the iron ore mines in the upper 
peninsula of Michigan to our steel mills.
  This pipeline would require up to 3,500 miles of pipe and 5 million 
tons of steel. The Alaska natural gas pipeline also would provide 
natural gas to American consumers for at least 30 years and would be a 
stabilizing force on natural gas prices.
  We can do that. We agree on that. We can move in this direction. It 
creates jobs. It adds to the availability of energy sources and does 
not risk one of the most important, pristine, environmentally sensitive 
areas in our country.
  There are other, better supply options available to us. Currently, as 
we all know, in the Gulf of Mexico, it is a source of 25 percent of the 
crude oil produced in the United States, 29 percent of the natural gas, 
and there are 32 million acres in the western and central portions of 
the Gulf of Mexico under lease but not developed. Why are we not 
talking about those areas?
  In addition, the oil industry is extremely optimistic about the 
prospects of finding additional oil reserves in the National Petroleum 
Reserve in Alaska where we are already drilling. In fact, the three 
largest oil discoveries in the last 10 years were made in the National 
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. So we have options.
  I am always perplexed in this debate to hear why this is the focal 
point of the administration's energy plan, this one piece of land, when 
we do have other options, and we have other options for creating jobs 
as well.
  We also know that conservation and investment in new technologies are 
the real solutions. Given relatively small amounts of oil available in 
the Arctic Refuge, it does not make sense to endanger this 1.5-million-
acre Coastal Plain that is the biological heart of this pristine 
national treasure.
  An energy policy such as the Senate energy bill that encourages 
conservation and investments in new technologies can help us come 
closer to achieving independence within 10 years.
  I am very proud of what is happening in Michigan as it relates to 
alternative fuels, agriculture, and also what we are doing in terms of 
technologies that are important for our future.
  The bottom line is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the 
most pristine places in the United States. This tradeoff is not worth 
it. We can meet our energy needs in other ways that look to the future. 
We can create important jobs for our people in other ways with the 
natural gas pipeline. We have other opportunities to drill that do not 
involve risking this important part of our heritage. Our ability to 
pass this area on to our children and to protect it is very important.
  When we look at all of the various wildlife species, all of the 
animals and birds that are involved in this area of land and the 
habitat involved, I cannot imagine that we, in fact, will be serious 
about risking this fragile and irreplaceable national treasure.
  I hope my colleagues will join with us in protecting this area for 
the future of our children and our grandchildren, and that we will move 
forward in the other parts of this energy bill and the other 
opportunities we have to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and 
create the economic and energy security that we all would like.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to cloture 
on these amendments. I want to say a few words about the energy bill in 
general, and then I want to explain my opposition to drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Our country needs a comprehensive energy policy, and certainly that 
policy needs to recognize the current importance of oil, gas, and coal 
exploration. But to ensure America's energy security for the future, it 
should support energy efficiency, conservation, clean and renewable 
energy sources, and it should help diversify our energy sources.
  Overall, I have to say I am disappointed in the direction in which 
this energy bill is heading because it has been diverted from achieving 
these important goals. I am disappointed because we had an opportunity 
to make progress on our long-term challenges.
  This bill started off in the right direction. Unfortunately, after 
many amendments, it is now a far different bill, and I believe it does 
not respond adequately to the challenges we face either in my home 
State of Washington or nationally.
  It focuses too heavily on coal and natural gas. It does too little to 
diversify our energy sources.
  It does not meaningfully raise fuel economy standards, and it does 
not protect electricity customers. In fact, it creates considerable 
uncertainty in electricity markets. It pursues electricity deregulation 
despite the hard lessons learned through our recent experiences in 
California and with Enron.
  It takes regulatory authority away from the States and gives it to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  And it does not do enough to encourage investments in our 
transmission systems.

[[Page S2801]]

  Overall, this energy bill reflects the way we have treated energy 
policy for decades. We have not addressed the long-term problems. 
Instead, we wait until there is a crisis, and then we are stuck at 
looking at bad, short-term fixes like drilling in ANWR. We have not 
dealt with our long-term dependence on oil. We have not invested enough 
in renewable energy. We have not diversified our energy resources, and 
we have not put enough financial incentives behind conservation.
  The responsible way to address our energy problems is to focus on the 
long-term solutions like reducing our need for oil and investing in 
clean and renewable energy sources.
  Unfortunately, much of this bill continues to largely endorse the 
past practices of short-term fixes that do not address many of the real 
long-term problems.
  Today we are being asked to damage a sensitive ecosystem and spoil 
one of our national treasures for the sake of oil production. We cannot 
drill our way out of energy problems. That is a fact.
  I ask my colleagues: At what point do we say ``enough is enough''? 
Today we are being asked to allow the President to authorize 
exploration in a critical wildlife refuge. Where will we and future 
generations be asked to drill tomorrow?
  To get out of these short-term traps, we need to invest in long-term 
solutions, such as diversifying our energy sources.
  This bill started with a strong renewable portfolio standard which 
would have diversified our energy sources. After many changes, however, 
these standards are now no better than the current pathways we have. To 
me, that is a missed opportunity. We should be doing more to diversify 
our energy sources.
  Currently, Washington State and the Pacific Northwest are very 
dependent on hydroelectric power to meet our energy needs. This 
dependence contributed to severe price spikes during last year's 
drought and California's disruption of the west coast energy market.
  I fear that in our rush to address last year's energy shortfall, we 
in Washington State are now becoming overreliant on natural gas. 
Diversifying our energy resources will help us prevent future price 
swings. Developing other resources like wind, biomass, solar, and 
geothermal energy will protect us from future shortages and will ensure 
our communities and economy they can continue to grow.
  However, rather than enacting a strong renewable portfolio standard, 
this bill will continue the failed strategy of digging more, burning 
more, and conserving less.
  I refer next to the electricity title in this energy bill. The 
Presiding Officer is from Washington State and she knows we have worked 
on and agreed to many amendments. However, electricity consumers in 
this underlying bill do not appear to be protected. I think we are 
moving too quickly to deregulate electricity markets and to create 
regional transmission organizations. From the California energy crisis 
to the collapse of Enron, the events of the last few years have 
highlighted the importance of moving slowly with electricity 
legislation.
  In Washington State, our regional transmission system has more than 
40 major bottlenecks. There are many other parts of the Nation that 
also have major bottlenecks, and we need to fix them.
  We can build all the generation facilities we need but still not have 
power because the transmission capacity is inadequate.
  With all of the problems we are experiencing in our transmission 
systems, this is not the time to dramatically alter the way electricity 
markets are regulated and function.
  With regard to electricity legislation, I think we should proceed 
very cautiously.
  I will now turn to the debate over drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, which I strongly oppose. For the record, I have heard 
from many residents of my State on this issue. They have called me, 
sent me letters, faxes, e-mails, and a clear majority oppose drilling 
in ANWR.
  I will vote against oil exploration in ANWR because the potential 
benefits do not outweigh the significant environmental impacts. The 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an important and unique national 
treasure. In fact, it is the only conservation system in North America 
that protects the complete spectrum of Arctic ecosystems. It is the 
most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge, and it is a 
critical calving ground for a large herd of caribou, which are vital to 
many Native Americans in the Arctic. Energy exploration in ANWR would 
have a significant impact on this unique ecosystem. Further, 
development will not provide the benefits being advertised.
  The proponents of this measure argue that over the years energy 
exploration has become more environmentally friendly. While that may be 
true, there are still significant environmental impacts for this 
sensitive region. Exploration means a footprint for drilling, permanent 
roads, gravel pits, water wells, and airstrips. We recognize that our 
economy and lifestyle require significant energy resources, and we are 
facing some important energy questions. However, opening ANWR to oil 
and gas drilling is not the answer to our energy needs.
  Many people are incorrectly stating the exploration of ANWR will 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As a nation, the only way to 
become less dependent on foreign oil is to become less dependent on oil 
overall. The oil reserves in ANWR--in fact, the oil reserves in the 
entire United States--are not enough to significantly reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  There are four ways to really reduce our need for foreign oil. First, 
we can increase the fuel economy of our automobiles and light trucks. 
Higher fuel economy standards will reduce air pollution, reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions, save consumers significant fuel costs, and reduce 
our national trade deficit.
  In addition, cars made in the United States will be more marketable 
overseas if they achieve better fuel economy standards. Last month, 
many of us in the Senate tried to raise CAFE standards, but our efforts 
were defeated.
  A second way to reduce our need for foreign oil is to expand the use 
of domestically produced renewable and alternative fuels. That will 
reduce emissions of toxic pollutants, create jobs in the United States, 
and reduce our trade deficit.
  Third, we can invest in emerging technologies such as fuel cells and 
solar electric cars. The United States has always led the world in 
emerging technologies, and this should not be any different.
  Fourth, we can also increase the energy efficiency of our office 
buildings and our homes.
  These four strategies will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and 
protect one of our Nation's most precious treasures.
  The proponents of drilling in ANWR have argued it will help our 
national security, and I want to comment on that. Back in 1995, the 
same proponents of drilling in ANWR fought to lift the ban on exporting 
North Slope oil. Prior to 1995, oil produced on American soil, on the 
North Slope of Alaska, was, by law, headed for domestic markets. This 
export ban had been in effect for over 20 years. In 1995, some Members 
worked to lift that ban. On the other hand, I helped lead a bipartisan 
filibuster, with Mr. Hatfield, a great Senator from the State of 
Oregon, to keep the export ban in place because it served our Nation's 
interest. Since that debate first took place, I have become even more 
convinced that sending our oil to overseas markets is the wrong policy 
for our country.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. It is recognized that gasoline prices in west coast 
States are frequently among the highest in the Nation. It is estimated 
that since 1995 more than 90 million barrels of Alaskan oil have been 
exported overseas. Approximately half of that oil went to Korea, a 
quarter of it went to Japan, and the remaining went to China and 
Taiwan. I would respectfully suggest to the administration and the 
proponents of drilling in ANWR that if this debate were really about 
providing Americans with our own oil or about denying Saddam Hussein 
the means to develop his evil plans, here in the Senate we would be 
considering reimposing the export ban.

[[Page S2802]]

  The administration has been silent on reimposing that ban, the House 
has been silent on reimposing the ban, and I doubt the Senate will move 
on it either.
  Now I suspect that someone from the other side is going to stand up 
and say that the House-passed ANWR bill precludes the exportation of 
oil from ANWR and that the pending amendment limits the exportation of 
ANWR oil except to our friends in Israel. But it will be easy for 
proponents to do an end run around those provisions.
  First, the export ban would have to survive in conference. Even if it 
survives, oil companies will still be allowed to export more of the oil 
they drill from other parts of Alaska where the ban does not exist.
  The proponents will say there have not been any recent exports of 
North Slope oil. The fact is that as soon as the economics line up, we 
will add to the 90 million barrels already sent overseas.
  Let us remember that the amount of oil in ANWR is too small to 
significantly improve our current energy problems, and, further, the 
oil exploration in ANWR will not actually start producing oil for as 
many as 10 years.
  Exploring and drilling for oil and gas in ANWR is not forward 
thinking. It is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.
  For all of these reasons, I oppose energy exploration in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, and I continue to have strong concerns about 
the energy bill as it is currently written.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, many of us who have come to this Chamber 
over the last 24 hours to speak on this most important issue have 
approached it from a variety of points of view, all of them with some 
degree of logic that points out a frustration, if not a legitimate 
concern, about the energy supply of our country.
  A few moments ago, the Senator from Michigan was speaking about ANWR, 
that it was only a moment in time that would pass quickly and that we 
ought to be much more interested in other sources of energy.
  While she was speaking, I was thinking of a trip I recently made to 
her State, to Dearborn, MI, to the laboratories of Ford Motor Company, 
and there, for a period of time, I had the opportunity to visit with 
their engineers and scientists and look at what clearly is some of the 
latest technology that the laboratories of Ford Motor Company are 
employing toward future transportation.
  One of those is a much touted, much talked about hydrogen fuel cell. 
Someday in the future, many of our cars might well be fueled by that 
fuel cell, generating the electricity that would drive the electric 
motors in the hubs of the wheels of that car.
  I drove that car. I had the privilege to take it out on the track at 
Dearborn and drive it around the track. It was an exciting experience, 
to think that this vehicle could be my future, my children's and my 
grandchildren's future, as a form of transportation. Very clean; a drop 
of water now and then emitting from the tailpipe of that car.
  So it is an exciting concept, to think we have invested, taxpayers 
have invested in future technologies that someday may be available to 
the consuming public as a form of transportation.
  Let me talk about the rest of the story, about which the engineers 
and the scientists huddled around the hydrogen fuel cell at Ford Motor 
Company talked. They talked about the tens of billions of dollars it 
would take to build the infrastructure to fuel the hydrogen fuel cell 
that would have to be spread across the country, comparable to the gas 
station on every corner of America today that fuels the gasoline-
powered cars.
  Had we thought about that? Well, I had not thought about it to that 
extent, that it would take decades to build that kind of infrastructure 
so that driving a hydrogen fuel cell car would be as convenient as the 
gas-powered car we drive today. Certainly, whether it be Seattle, WA, 
or Boise, ID, I am not confident we would want to drive to one spot, 
one location only, to fuel our hydrogen car. I am sure we would want it 
at least as nearly convenient as fueling our gas-powered car of the 
day. That was one issue.

  The other issue is a very real problem in the minds of American 
drivers today as to the acceptability of hydrogen cars. It is a little 
thing called ``boom,'' a fear that it might blow up. It is a false 
fear. The hydrogen fuel cell car would not blow up because it is a very 
safe form of energy. But the reality and the public perception is 
there. A decade of information, hundreds of millions of dollars 
invested in experiments and public relations and education and 
experience is all going to be part of that equation.
  What happened the day I drove that $6 million prototype hydrogen-
fueled cell car at Dearborn, MI, taught me something. It taught me we 
do not instantly do new things around here; we don't instantly have a 
new hydrogen-fueled cell car. Its day will come, and I do believe it 
might. It clearly is environmentally clean, and it would be important 
for our economy.
  Yes, the economy will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and invest 
billions of dollars to get us into new forms of transportation. 
However, they predicted at Ford Motor Company that we were literally 
decades away, if not double decades, from a hydrogen-fueled cell car.
  I say to the Senator from Michigan whose economy depends on the 
employment of the auto industry to make her State go, what do you do in 
the meantime, if you don't have the fuel to drive the engines of the 
cars that the workers in Dearborn, MI, produce today? That is part of 
what the Senator from the State of Michigan represents.
  I guess you let them be unemployed. If gas goes up to $3 or $4 a 
gallon, certainly the kind of vehicle, if not the quantity of vehicles 
that are produced in Michigan today and by the auto industry around the 
country, is going to dramatically change. Some would say that is 
perfectly fine, that is the way the marketplace ought to work, and, 
therefore, who cares? I think the Senator from Michigan cares. I know 
the Senator from Idaho cares because in Idaho, driving from Boise, ID, 
to Twin Falls, ID, is not around the corner. A few minutes down the 
road is 2\1/2\ hours. It is 250 miles. To go anywhere in my State means 
driving a couple hundred miles. My State is 600-plus-miles long. By the 
way, that is from here to Boston. And it is about 550 miles wide at the 
widest.
  My State is a mile-intensive State. People travel long distances. 
Transportation is critically important. Large, safe automobiles that 
consume a certain amount of energy are necessary and important.
  Important to my State, which is now becoming a manufacturing State 
and a processing State, are the products we produce which have to get 
to places like Chicago, to the Detroit, the New York, and the 
Minneapolis-St. Paul because we feed a world economy. If we cannot get 
the product we produce to that economy at a reasonably priced way, then 
either we go out of production or it gets produced closer to that 
marketplace.
  The point I am making and the point that has been made by many today 
is we are an energy-dependent economy; we are an energy-dependent 
society. We use a great deal of it. We are wealthy because of it. We 
are free because of it. We have great flexibility as a country because 
of it. We are powerful because of it. And we can help other freedom-
loving people around the world because of our capacity to not only use 
energy but produce energy.

  Yet today we have heard many coming to the floor opining the fact 
that production was somehow bad in the name of the environment, in the 
name of the critter, in the name of the pretty little plant, in the 
name of life after, in the name of generational concerns, in the name 
of something. Someone has found a reason not to produce additional 
energy for this country. Yet their very presence on the floor, the very 
wealth that has created this country was, in part, a direct result of 
the abundance of reasonably priced, reliable energy.
  When I listen to some of my colleagues, a fundamental thought goes 
through my mind. Don't they get it? Don't they understand the jobs that 
are created in their State are based on a certain economic equation and 
that if you adjust that equation arbitrarily or you deny its right to 
be in place, you run the risk of destroying that job and dramatically 
changing the economy of the country? Don't they get it?

[[Page S2803]]

  What happens if we get $3-a-gallon gas in this country? What happens 
to the cost of doing business in this country? What happens to the 
thousands and thousands of people who no longer have a job because of 
that in this country? Don't they get it? Or is praying at the altar of 
a creature, a plant, a concept, an idea so much more important that 
somehow we stand back and deny the right of this country to produce the 
energy it needs reasonably, presently, and in an environmentally sound 
way?
  Don't they get it? Yeah, they get it. We all get it. My wife told me 
last night: Don't you get emotional over this issue; you really 
shouldn't; keep your cool. I am trying to, but it is very frustrating 
for me to suggest to my grandchildren that because of a public policy 
they are going to be denied certain rights, certain freedoms, certain 
flexibilities within their lifetime that I had within my lifetime 
because my forefathers recognized the importance of producing, 
recognized the importance of abundance, and recognized the importance 
of wealth generation for this country.
  That is the bottom line of the debate we are involved in tonight. It 
is the fundamental debate that has gone on for the last 4 weeks on the 
floor of the Senate about a national energy policy.
  The first opportunity I had to visit with President-elect George W. 
Bush, the first opportunity our assistant leader, who has just come to 
the Chamber, had a chance to visit with President-elect George W. Bush 
was in Trent Lott's office. The issue in Florida had just been solved. 
The President-elect was in town. He was beginning to put together his 
Cabinet. He came to the Hill to visit with us. I will never forget 
that. We were all so very proud and excited about his Presidency. He 
said: I campaigned on education. I campaigned on tax cuts. I campaigned 
on the general well-being and the economy of this country and that I 
would lead these issues before the Congress and before the American 
people. But let me tell you what is important now. What is important is 
a national energy policy for this country that gets us back into the 
business of producing energy. He said: The first thing I am going to do 
is ask Vice President-elect Dick Cheney to head up an energy task 
force. We will make recommendations to you in Congress, and we hope you 
will move a national energy policy as quickly as possible for the 
country. We all agreed it was a high priority for our Nation to get 
back in the business of producing energy.
  That was a priority of this President then. It is now. It is a 
priority of Republicans in the Senate. It is a priority of many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  In establishing national energy priorities, I have changed over the 
years. I used to think that maybe this was the right way to go and this 
wasn't and you could do this but you couldn't do that. I don't agree 
with that anymore. The policy ought to create the incentives and the 
opportunities to drive all forms of energy. Conservation ought to be a 
part, and it is now a part of this legislation. New technologies 
clearly ought to be a part, and we ought to provide the kind of tax 
incentives that create the investment that brings the capital that 
drives new technologies. We have put several billion dollars into new 
technologies in the last several years: in photovoltaics and wind and 
the hydrogen fuel cell car that I talked about that I have had the 
opportunity to drive, all of that is moving forward. All of it is out 
there in somebody's future. But probably not in my lifetime, at least 
not all of it, and certainly not some of it. But we ought to be doing 
all of that. We ought to be utilizing our coal with new clean coal 
technology. It drives 60 percent of electrical generation today.

  My hydro dams in Idaho and in the Columbia and Snake River systems 
ought not be threatened. They ought to be retrofitted and managed in a 
way that they are fish friendly, but they ought to be allowed to 
produce megawatts--10 percent of the national base.
  What about nuclear? We have included nuclear in this bill, and we are 
enhancing it--we are reauthorizing Price-Anderson--another 20 percent 
of the base. If we believe in climate change and global warming, we are 
probably going to want nuclear to be a greater portion of that mix in 
time.
  So why on the floor of the Senate tonight are we picking and choosing 
and saying this but not this? Do we know better? No, we do not know 
better. But we do know that as we have grown increasingly energy 
dependent on someone else's production, we have lost our flexibility as 
a country, we have lost our ability to shape domestic and foreign 
policy, and in the end, we will lose a little bit of our freedom 
because our sovereignty, our ability as a country to make those kinds 
of decisions that drive our economy and shape our attitude and our 
relationships with our foreign neighbors is, in fact, freedom.
  ``Oh, it is a freedom argument tonight?'' You're darned right it is. 
Somebody is saying you don't need to produce the 15 or 20 billion 
barrels of oil in the ANWR, or the 7 or the 8 or the 10--we don't know 
how much is there, but we know there is a lot there. But if we did, one 
example about the freedom I am talking about, or the flexibility in 
foreign policy, if we did produce ANWR--bring it into the pipeline, 
make it available to our refineries, allow it to go to the pump for you 
and me to put in our gas tanks--we could turn to Saddam Hussein, who 
just turned his pumps off last Tuesday, and say: Keep them off. We 
don't need your oil anymore. We don't need to buy 720,000 barrels a day 
from you for $4.2 billion a year so you can use that money to pay 
Palestinian families to allow their kids to be human bombs. We don't 
need to let you do that anymore. Most importantly, we are not going to 
pay for it.
  Our policy today, or the absence of striving toward the form of 
relative energy independence is, in fact, allowing that policy. Shame 
on us. Bad policy. But, somehow, over the years, in this state of 
ambivalence toward production, toward self-sufficiency, we have 
wandered off toward Saddam Hussein. On any given day it can be anywhere 
from 55 to 60 percent dependency.
  ``My goodness, Alaska is just a drop in the bucket.'' Some say it 
will drop our dependency on foreign sources 14 percent for the next 20 
years. I'll bet Colin Powell, in the last week, wished he had 14-
percent greater capacity to bring off a peace settlement or a cease-
fire between Palestine and Israel. That would have been a phenomenally 
larger advantage.

  ``Oh, it is only 14 percent.'' Since when did that not count? I think 
it counts. You cannot be cavalier about this issue.
  Now let's talk environment. I do not make little of the environment. 
I live in a beautiful State. We have very strict environmental 
standards in my State, and we adhere to them and we believe in them. 
But we also believe in production. In the 1970s, when we drilled the 
North Slope of Alaska under the most strict environmental conditions 
ever imposed on an oilfield, we did it and we did not hurt the 
environment.
  You have heard speeches in this Chamber today and yesterday about the 
abundance of the caribou herd and all the successes there. A cousin of 
mine was a foreman for Peter DeWitt. He helped build the pipeline. We 
were visiting the other night about the phenomenal technicalities 
involved in building that pipeline, but they got it done.
  It was the first time; it was never done before. But Congress said do 
it cleanly, do it sound environmentally, and they did and that pipeline 
is 55, 60 miles away from the field we are talking about now.
  We are not going to hurt the environment. The technologies of today, 
slant drilling and all of those new employments of technology within 
the energy field, weren't there in the 1970s, and we did it well then. 
We will do it better today.
  It is not a matter of hurting the environment; it is a matter of not 
doing anything. That is the debate here. Do it or do not do it. Take 
the environmental equation out of it.
  If you do not do it, why then are they arguing? Why would anyone take 
that point of view? I suggest because there are some esoteric 
attitudes, if you do that you slow down economic growth, you discourage 
this, and the world changes. It is kind of a cave and a candle 
syndrome: Find everybody a cave to live in and have candlelight for 
their reading. You will not have to have all these other goodies that 
we call the

[[Page S2804]]

marketplace, and somehow the world is going to be a better place.
  I think not. I think we ought to talk about the differences and the 
tradeoffs. We ought to talk about the jobs.
  My colleagues from Alaska and those who have analyzed this matter 
would suggest anywhere from 250,000 to 700,000 jobs could be created. 
Since when did jobs become a dirty environmental idea? I think it is a 
clean idea. I think it puts food on the tables of a lot of folks. It 
allows them to buy houses and cars and a college education for their 
kids. That sounds like a clean idea to me, and somehow someone is 
suggesting that is a bad idea.
  The point here is simple. It ought not be that frustrating. None of 
us should struggle that mightily about it. It is producing energy for 
this economy, doing it in a wise and responsible way, doing it in an 
environmentally sound way, and, oh yes, doing it where it is. You have 
to go to the oil to get the oil.
  We know there is oil under the ANWR in Alaska. The work has already 
been done. The EIS is already in place. The seismograph estimates a 
substantial volume. It is the natural and responsible next step in the 
development of the oil reserves of the State of Alaska and for this 
country.
  We are going to choose to buy from outside the country, if we do not 
develop. We will continue to buy even if we do develop, but we will buy 
less. We will be a little more independent. We will create a lot of 
jobs. We will put $70 billion in the U.S. Treasury, and hundreds of 
billions of dollars will remain in the U.S. economy. To me, that just 
makes a heck of a lot of good sense.

  I hope the amendments to this energy bill dealing with ANWR that are 
on the floor are agreed to. I hope we can vote for them. I hope at 
least nobody will hide behind a procedural effort. It ought to be up or 
down, yes or no, are you for it or are you against it? If you are 
against it and you can justify it--and, obviously, those who speak 
against it can--then so be it. That is the way we shape public policy 
in the Senate: honestly, fairly, and hopefully aboveboard for all the 
American citizens of our great country to see.
  I believe we ought to explore ANWR. I believe we ought to develop it. 
I think this country needs it. I think we are better for it. We will be 
a stronger nation, we will be more independent, we will have greater 
flexibility, we will create more jobs, we will get greater 
opportunities for our kids and our grandkids, and our environment will 
remain clean and sound and the Porcupine caribou herd will flourish and 
the world will go on.
  But it will be different if we cannot do that. We will be less free, 
more dependent, with less flexibility. The job of Colin Powell and his 
colleagues will be even more difficult because we have less 
independence to engage our friends and our enemies in trying to create 
a safer world. That is part of the issue. That is part of the debate.
  My colleague from Oklahoma is in the Chamber ready to speak. It is an 
important issue. I hope all of us will take seriously the vote that we 
will be casting, I believe tomorrow, on cloture on this most important 
issue. In my opinion, it is a generational issue that comes before the 
Senate at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Republican leader.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague, Senator 
Craig from Idaho, for his speech. I also compliment Senator Murkowski 
for his leadership in trying to put together a good energy bill, as 
well as Senator Stevens. Both have made extensive speeches on the need 
for exploration in Alaska. I happen to respect both individuals very 
much.
  I happen to have accepted one of their invitations to visit the area. 
And I believe all Senators received this invitation as well. I 
encourage my colleagues to do so.
  I think there is a long tradition in the Senate where we have given 
home State Senators great latitude in making decisions that impact 
their States primarily. I am kind of bothered by the number of people 
who are coming out against drilling in ANWR without ever being there, 
without ever visiting the people, and without knowing the real impact.
  Alaska happens to be one of the prettiest States in the Nation. It is 
one of the largest. I have been to several points in Alaska, including 
the Prudhoe Bay area and the ANWR area. Alaska contains beautiful 
scenic areas. However, the ANWR area, and particularly the coastal 
region, is not one of the prettier areas of Alaska. On the whole, 
although, it is a beautiful State.
  When I heard people say we can't mess up this pristine wilderness, I 
was thinking that maybe they did not visit the area. Again, many States 
have gorgeous scenic views, and Alaska probably more than any other 
State. But this particular area can be drilled. It can be explored in 
an environmentally safe and sound manner without disturbing the 
environment and without disturbing wildlife.
  I compliment the home State Senators. I wish people would listen to 
them. I think too many people have been listening to special interest 
groups that are trying to raise money on this issue without giving 
attention to some of the serious national and State problems.
  We have real national problems. We are importing 60 percent of our 
oil today. We are spending about $100 billion a year overseas. We are 
shipping that money overseas to buy imported oil. That 60-percent 
figure means that we are very dependent on other countries for our 
livelihood. We have evidence of this in the past when we had 
curtailments. We had a curtailment in 1973 of 26 percent. There was an 
Arab oil embargo. This caused long lines at the gas stations as oil 
prices rose dramatically. In addition, unemployment went up as 
factories stalled and subsequently shut down. We even had schools 
closed. We had people who weren't able to get heat. We experienced this 
in 1973 when we were importing 26 percent and in 1979 when we were 
importing 44 percent. At that particular time, the OPEC countries 
didn't like our policy--sometimes our policy concerning Israel--so they 
wanted to teach us a lesson. They curtailed oil shipments to the United 
States.
  Today we find ourselves vulnerable to the hardships we experienced in 
the past. We are currently importing 60 percent. That number continues 
to rise. It makes us very vulnerable. Without energy security, we don't 
have national security.
  It is incumbent upon us to do something. President Bush, to his 
credit, and Vice President Cheney's, to his credit, formulated a 
national energy policy--the first administration to do so in decades. 
The House, to their credit, last June passed a bipartisan energy bill. 
My compliments to them.
  Many of us in the Senate wanted to pass a bipartisan energy bill. I 
have been on the Energy Committee for 22 years. Every major energy 
piece of legislation we passed has been bipartisan--every single one.

  We passed a bill deregulating natural gas prices. It took years, but 
we did it.
  In the Finance Committee, we passed a bill to eliminate the windfall 
profits tax. We passed a bill to repeal the Fuel Use Act. We passed a 
bill to eliminate the Synthetic Fuels Corporation.
  Many of those mistakes that were made during the Carter 
administration were enacted by the Democratic Congress which needed to 
be repealed. And we repealed them in a bipartisan fashion.
  We started marking up the energy bill. All of a sudden, the majority 
leader tells the chairman of the Energy Committee not to have a markup. 
So the bill we have before us, in my opinion, is in desperate need of 
improvement. It is 590 pages. It was never marked up in committee.
  I have been on the committee for 22 years. I was never able to offer 
an amendment on this bill.
  Some people say: Why have you been on this energy bill for so long? 
We have to rewrite the bill on the floor. Why are you spending so much 
time on ANWR? Guess what. If we had marked the bill up in committee, we 
would have ANWR in there. We had the votes. I suspect the reason the 
majority leader told Senator Bingaman not to mark up the bill is 
because he is adamantly opposed to exploration in ANWR. He may well 
have victory on the floor tomorrow. We will find out. I hope he is 
proud.
  What about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that wouldn't be created 
because we will not have exploration? What about the billions of 
dollars that we are shipping overseas to little countries, such as 
Iraq, that really aren't

[[Page S2805]]

our best friends? Because he is continuing that policy--he is 
continuing the dependency, in some cases, on very unstable and 
unreliable sources of oil.
  Our national energy is tied to our energy security, and we are taking 
steps to secure ourselves. We could reverse our actions significantly 
by allowing exploration in ANWR. But the majority leader may be 
successful in keeping it off.
  My guess is, if we had done the bill as we have done every single 
bill for the last 20-some years in committee, that it would have been 
in the bill, and it would have stayed in the bill. I think the majority 
leader knows that. Maybe his tactic will be successful, but he has 
totally disrupted the precedents and the standard of using committee 
procedures to mark up bills.
  We have committees and a process in which they follow. Why 
disenfranchise 20-some Senators from marking up a bill? This offends 
me. This bill has 590 pages. The first bill we considered had 539 
pages.
  Again, no Senator got to mark up either bill. This was put together 
by the majority leader. This was put together by Senator Bingaman. No 
other Senators I know of got to mark it up because there wasn't a 
markup held.
  Where is the committee report? The standard procedure in taking up a 
bill is that we will have a committee report and allow individual 
Senators to make comments supporting or opposing the bill's provisions.
  However, since we seem to have skipped this process, we have to dig 
through the bill and find out what is in it. This legislative language 
and not the easiest language to read. There is no common English 
explanation for it, as we have in almost every major bill.

  I am very offended by the process. It was done I think primarily to 
avoid having a vote on ANWR, or making it impossible for us to put ANWR 
in. We will have to put ANWR in. It will take 60 votes. If we had ANWR 
in a committee bill, it would only take 50 votes.
  The majority leader is able to use the rules and maybe bypass the 
entire committee structure so he can have a victory. Congratulations. 
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who don't get a job 
because we are not going to explore ANWR. Hundreds of thousands of 
jobs?
  Wait a minute. How many things can we do here? Senator Murkowski has 
said many times that this will create thousands and thousands of jobs. 
One estimation is that it might create 250,000 jobs, while others offer 
higher estimates.
  How many times can we pass a bill that will say if we do this we are 
going to be able to reduce our dependency on foreign sources, and, 
instead of spending $100 billion overseas, billions of those dollars 
can stay in the United States--that will stay with U.S. companies, that 
will be American made, that will be American owned--and where the 
dividends, royalties, and payments will go to workers and employees of 
American companies? How many times do we have that opportunity?
  The majority leader may be successful in stopping it, but it makes us 
more dependent. It makes us more vulnerable to countries such as Iraq 
and other countries that might be upset with our Middle East policies.
  I disagree with that very strongly. I disagree very strongly with 
countless Senators. I would love to know how many Senators have never 
been up there and are making decisions that say: I know better than 
Senator Murkowski; I know better than Senator Stevens.
  I know that both Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski have been 
there several times.
  I happen to have been there, I think, once. I learned a great deal. I 
have been to Kaktovik, and I talked to the villagers. They are all in 
favor of it. They are more concerned about their environment than 
anyone else. They live there 365 days a year. Yet we are going to deny 
them an economic livelihood? I think that is a serious mistake.
  I have heard countless people say: We can't do this because of the 
environmental impact. We are talking about 2,000 acres--2,000 acres--
out of a land mass that is 19.6 million acres. And 2,000 acres may be 
about the size of an average airport, compared to 19 million acres, 
about the size of South Carolina. That is a very small percentage, very 
little negative impact, if you consider the impact to be negative in 
the first place. We have hundreds or thousands of wells in my State of 
Oklahoma, as Texas and Louisiana do also. We have not seen considerable 
negative impacts.
  A pipeline, is that so bad? You ought to look at a interstate 
pipeline map and see how many pipeline miles are across the State of 
Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas. You don't know they are there, but 
they are there. And people act like that would just desecrate this 
beautiful area. I just question that.
  As a matter of fact, I look at the ANWR Coastal Plain, and it would 
take just a small connection to be able to tie into the TransAlaska Oil 
Pipeline. This small connection would be about 100 miles long.
  I look at the gas pipeline, and I heard the Senator from Michigan 
say, oh, she is all in favor of the gas pipeline. That is all new 
pipeline, and that is about 3,000 miles. The pipeline we are talking 
about is maybe 100 miles, connecting from ANWR to the oil pipeline that 
is already built. The oil pipeline is about 800 miles.
  Now we are talking about a 3,000-mile pipeline, almost all of it new, 
going through a lot of virgin territory that has never had roads, never 
had a pipeline on it. This is the gas pipeline that a lot of people are 
saying would do 100 times the environmental damage of what we are 
talking about, connecting to the oil pipeline that is already there--
100 times the environmental damage.
  I heard somebody say, what about the caribou, or what about the 
wildlife in the area? I remember flying up there and looking around and 
looking at the wildlife. Alaska is a gorgeous State that has a lot of 
wildlife. In that particular Coastal Plain area, when I was there, I 
did not see hardly any wildlife. I could see more wildlife in my State 
of Oklahoma or the State of Louisiana in any square mile than what I 
saw at the time I happened to visit there. I did not visit there when 
the caribou were migrating in.
  I care about the caribou. I saw a lot of caribou at Prudhoe Bay. I 
remember when Prudhoe Bay was originally built, there was about 3,000 
caribou. Today, there are 20-some thousand. The caribou herds have 
multiplied dramatically. I think there are up to 27,000 caribou in the 
Prudhoe Bay area, about 9 times what there was 25 years ago. So the 
caribou have been protected fairly well. They have multiplied 
significantly and have proven not only to survive but to survive quite 
well with the TransAlaska Pipeline. I am sure they could survive with 
this small little junction from the ANWR area to the Prudhoe Bay 
pipeline.
  So people who are raising these facades, ``Well, we can't disturb the 
wildlife,'' ``We can't disturb the natural environment,'' what are you 
doing supporting the gas pipeline that is 3,000 miles through virgin 
territory versus a pipeline that might be 100 miles connecting ANWR to 
the TransAlaska Pipeline? That does not make sense. That is absurd. I 
am just shocked by some of the false arguments that are being raised.

  I do want to create jobs. I do want to make us less dependent on 
foreign sources. I do not want Saddam Hussein, who is now talking about 
having an oil embargo against the United States for 30 days because he 
doesn't like our policies in the Middle East--I don't want him to hold 
any type of economic leverage over the United States. Right now we are 
importing about a million barrels per day from Iraq, from Saddam 
Hussein.
  Guess what. The production we expect to receive from ANWR is about a 
million barrels a day, except that it is estimated to last 20, 30, 40 
years.
  The Prudhoe Bay production that we have had for the last 25 years 
grew to a couple million barrels a day. Now it has declined to about a 
million barrels per day. So we have excess capacity of a million 
barrels, and ANWR could help complement that. Then we would have 2 
million barrels per day coming down the TransAlaska Pipeline. That is 
over 25 percent of our domestic production. Our country--our Nation--
needs that for national security. So to deny this, I believe, is a 
national security issue.
  So we should give deference to our home State colleagues of Alaska. 
We should listen to their advice, and we should allow exploration in 
ANWR.

[[Page S2806]]

  I urge my colleagues to consider doing what is right for America, 
what is right for our country, what is right for our national security, 
and, frankly, what is right for Alaska.
  This project is supported overwhelmingly by Alaskans because they 
believe they need it, both economically and for the national security 
implications as well.
  So I urge my colleagues, tomorrow, to support Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Stevens and allow exploration in the ANWR area.
  Mr. President, one final comment I will make, and that is, there is 
an amendment pending--I guess we may have a vote on it--dealing with 
money going to help the steel industry cope with some of the 
difficulties they have. Some people call them legacy costs, but it is 
picking up health costs for retirees.
  I think that is a serious mistake. I do not know why the Federal 
Treasury or the taxpayers should have to take general revenue money, or 
money coming from this pipeline to pay pension costs or health care 
costs for one particular industry. If you are going to do it for this 
industry, then what about the textiles, what about auto workers, what 
about railroad workers?
  You have a lot of industries that have a lot of retirees who are 
struggling with paying their pensions and/or health care plans. They 
made those contracts. Is the Federal Government responsible to come in 
and assume all the costs of those contracts? If so, we have real 
serious problems. If we are going to do it for one, how can we not do 
it for another? I think it would be a serious mistake and set a serious 
precedent that I hope we don't follow. So I urge my colleagues to vote 
no on the steel legacy amendment, as it has been called.
  However, I urge my colleagues, with every fiber in my being, to 
support exploration in ANWR, the Murkowski amendment. Let's listen to 
the Senators from the State of Alaska. They know this issue inside and 
out, far better than anybody else. They have been there countless 
times. Let's follow their advice and open up ANWR for exploration.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are now debating energy policy in the 
Senate that will affect the lives of generations to come, so we must 
make sure that our approach is comprehensive and balanced. We cannot 
allow poor energy policy proposals to be used as a smokescreen for an 
unwillingness to focus on the harder long-term issues. Drilling in the 
Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is one such bad policy proposal.
  It is impossible for the United States to ``drill'' its way out of 
oil dependency. The United States has 3 percent of the world's oil 
reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world's oil. The Arctic refuge 
contains less than 6 months of economically-recoverable oil and that 
oil would not be available for 10 years. This means that drilling in 
ANWR would not provide any immediate energy relief for American 
families.
  Further, the claim that drilling in ANWR would create thousands of 
jobs is excessive. The job estimates used to support drilling in the 
Arctic refuge were developed by the American Petroleum Institute, API, 
in 1990 and are insupportable. According to the Congressional Research 
Service and other recent independent studies, the API used exaggerated 
estimates and questionable economic analysis.
  More than 95 percent of Alaska's North Slope is open to oil and 
natural gas exploration or development today. In 1999, the Clinton 
administration opened nearly 4 million acres of the National Petroleum 
Reserve-Alaska to oil and gas drilling and signed a bill lifting the 
ban on the export of Alaska North Slope oil, a move strongly supported 
by industry. This action opened 425 tracts on 3.9 million acres, an 
area more than twice the size of ANWR. As a result of improved 
technologies and renewed interest in the North Slope, the lease sale 
returned more than $104 million in bonus bids, 50 percent of which will 
go to the Federal Government, and 50 percent to the State of Alaska. 
The oil industry should explore and develop the National Petroleum 
Reserve-Alaska before there is any consideration of opening ANWR.
  As population and the economy grow, so does the demand for energy. We 
do need to keep the United States at the forefront of innovative energy 
production. The efficient use of energy has to be our primary goal and 
we need to create incentives to conserve. There are many ways to do 
this. Midwestern farmlands are ideal for growing high-yield ``energy 
crops,'' including soybeans grown in Michigan, to help power our 
economy. Corn grown in the Midwest can be used to produce ethanol, a 
cleaner burning fuel for vehicles. While there are barriers that must 
be overcome to bring these alternative sources of power on line, we 
should support renewable energy programs by offering incentives to 
those who use them.
  Further, a new generation of automotive technology is under 
development that offers great promise in our quest to achieve greater 
fuel efficiency. Technologies such as hybrid vehicles, which use an 
internal combustion engine in combination with a battery and electric 
motor, and fuel cells, which are devices using hydrogen and oxygen to 
create electricity and heat, should help to dramatically improve fuel 
economy and protect our environment.
  Drilling in our pristine wilderness will not alter our dependence on 
foreign oil, it will only alter our protected wilderness. We have a 
responsibility to promote a balanced energy plan that invests in 
America's future and protects our environment, not one that damages a 
unique and irreplaceable wilderness.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I got an e-mail from my oldest son, who 
told me he was surprised by the comments of the Senator from Minnesota 
concerning this issue being a political issue and politics as usual. I 
am not surprised. But I did tell him I think the Senate has changed.
  Before I go to my other remarks, I would like to relate to the Senate 
what happened to me as a young Senator, a young appointed Senator. I 
came here in 1968, and by the springtime of 1969, Senator Gordon Allott 
of Colorado, who was a friend from the days when I was in Washington at 
the Interior Department. When I left I was Solicitor, and I was very 
close to Gordon Allott. He was a personal friend as well as the person 
I worked with in the Eisenhower administration.
  He said he thought it would be good if I would meet with some of the 
older Senators and talk about life in the Senate. So I said I would, 
and a day or two later, Senator Allott said they were going to gather 
up in Senator Eastland's office. At that time it was on the third 
floor. I think it was room 306, just above what has been one of the 
leader's offices on the second floor.
  As I walked in, I found that I was facing eight of the senior 
Senators. I hadn't been around long. I had been familiar with Senate 
activity. But it was a very interesting meeting: Senator Eastland of 
Mississippi, Senator Allott of Colorado, Senator Cotton of New 
Hampshire, Senator Paul Fannin of Arizona, Senator Hruska of Nebraska. 
I believe the others were Senator Long of Louisiana, Senator Randolph 
of West Virginia, and Senator Talmadge of Georgia.
  Those were different days. They were days when there was a different 
feeling in the Senate. These were eight senior Senators, four from each 
side. Obviously, they enjoyed one another's company. Those were the 
days when, late in the afternoon, there were a few refreshments on the 
table in Senator Eastland's office. He said to me: Why don't you help 
yourself, son. I did, and I sat down. And Senator Allott said to me 
they just thought they ought to talk to me a little bit about how it 
was easy to get along in the Senate if one understood the Senate.
  For instance, the conversation went to the point of the fact that we 
were a new State, a young State that had only been in the Union for 10 
years. They wanted to make sure I understood the Senate. Senator Allott 
told them I had been around during the Eisenhower days. I had been with 
the liaison to the

[[Page S2807]]

Senate. They said they wanted me to understand relationships in the 
Senate.
  We talked about senatorial courtesy and what it means to have a right 
to be consulted concerning appointments to your State. We talked about 
just the idea of the aisle as a separation between individual Senators; 
this is a place where, if you are going to be here, you ought to know 
who you are working with, and they welcomed a newcomer, an appointed 
Senator, to visit with them on how they felt about the Senate.

  It was one of the most interesting conversations of my life. The 
point got around to a new State and the prerogatives of a new State. 
One of the things they told me was very simple: If you and your 
colleague agree on an issue that affects your State, for instance, land 
in your State, you let us know because we believe you know more about 
your State than we do, and we are going to rely on you; we are going to 
rely on you to make the judgments on Federal actions that affect your 
State, and only your State.
  I thought about that last night. I have listened to people here over 
the years talk about the rights of their States and what has happened 
to their States and what might happen to their States.
  I don't think any State has lived through what we have lived through 
in the first years of our statehood. We have been denuded of jobs--I 
will talk about the people who have done it--by a group that takes 
advantage of the division of the country in order to achieve objectives 
they could not achieve but for the divisions that exist in the Senate 
today. It is truly a split Senate. Relationships between the majority 
and minority are strained more than I have ever seen them.
  We have a situation where the two of us, since 1981, have sought the 
fulfillment of a commitment made to us in 1980, and it is apparent now 
that it will be denied--not permanently; we still will have a chance to 
come back at this again. This bill will not forever forbid the concept 
of oil and gas leasing in the Arctic Plain of Alaska, but it will not 
happen until there is an act of Congress to authorize it to proceed.
  In terms of the relationships of the Senate, I raised the question: 
What about other Senators? Are we to presume that the concept of the 
Senate relying upon the two Senators from that State, if they agree on 
an issue pertaining to their State, the Senate will listen to them? I 
don't think so.
  I think we have seen really a split in the Senate intentionally 
caused by the radical environmental organizations of the country that 
think they really control the country now. I will show you; they 
probably do. They probably do much more than the public believes.
  Senator Wellstone said today that he had meetings with the Gwich'in 
people because of the pristine wilderness, and they live in the area. I 
beg to correct the Senator. The Gwich'ins live on the south slope of 
the Arctic range. They are Canadian Indians, at least part of a 
Canadian tribe of Indians called the Gwich'ins. They have land in 
Alaska. They opted not to participate in the great land settlement of 
the Alaska Native lands settlement. They opted out. They took their 
land and did not want to rely in any way on the Federal Government.
  As a matter of fact, right after they took their land, rather than 
participate in the land claims settlement, they put their land up for 
oil and gas leasing. No one wanted to lease it. They put their land up 
for coal leasing. They do have a lot of coal. And no one wanted to 
lease it.
  As a matter of fact, we hardly ever heard from the Gwich'ins about 
this issue until they were hired by one of the environmental 
organizations, and they have become the spokesmen for the environmental 
organizations as a representative of the Alaska Native people. But they 
are Canadian Indians who live in Alaska.
  The Alaska Native people, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and 
particularly the great Eskimo community on the Alaska North Slope, 
support drilling in the 1002 area of the Alaska Coastal Plain. They 
live in the area. The Gwich'ins do not. The people who own land within 
this area at Kaktovik, the Eskimo people, violently support this. They 
want it to happen. They have been denied the right by Federal order to 
drill on their own land, and our bill removes that impediment.
  I have tried my best to explain why we went into the concept of 
looking at the steel legacy program. One Senator said he thought my 
effort was not real, not authentic, and I sought to take advantage of 
the hopes and pains of his people. If I had been here, I would have 
taken a point of personal privilege. That is an accusation of immoral 
conduct on the part of a Senator--were it true. It is not true.
  Who made that linkage? The people who don't want to work with us. 
They know my amendment would provide a cashflow to the steelworkers who 
are currently going to be denied their medical care that they thought 
they were going to get. One Senator said: It is only $1 billion. It is 
only $1 billion. Well, we are getting $1.6 to $2.7 billion, we believe, 
in the bonus bids. And they only get $1 billion. Between now and 2005, 
they only get $1 billion. They get $8 billion over 30 years. If it is 
cynical, it is cynical because of the people who don't want to face up 
to their own responsibility.
  We need that steel. We can't build this gas pipeline from Alaska, 
3,000 miles from the North Slope to Chicago, unless we have steel. We 
can't have steel unless the steel companies of this country survive. 
They are not going to survive under the current circumstances.
  As I said yesterday, 30 steel companies have gone bankrupt in the 
year 2000. Do the people who represent those areas understand their 
State? I understand mine. My State is bankrupt because the last 
administration closed down our mines, our timber operations, oil and 
gas activity, and our cruise ships. They have closed us down and want 
us to be a national park.
  I am trying to represent my people, but I just hope these people here 
don't come in and accuse me of having taking action to take advantage 
of the hopes and pains of people.
  I hope I am here then. I hope I am here then. We will have a 
discussion then. One said that drilling can't help because they thought 
that the legacy fund could not be solved by the moneys that would come 
from drilling in ANWR. I never said they would be solved. I never said 
they would be solved. I said we could provide a plug in that fund to 
keep them going until we got production from the Arctic Plain, and then 
we could go up to a total of $18 billion in 30 years to make that fund 
sound.
  Now, it is one thing to not agree with a Senator who is trying to put 
two things together. By the way, let me remind the Senate that the 
great civil rights legislation of this country was introduced by 
Everett Dirksen of Illinois as a rider to another bill. It was a rider 
to another bill. It was the military structure and school bill. He 
added the civil rights legislation.
  From some people on the other side, you would think the Democratic 
Party started civil rights in this country. The person who introduced 
the major bill was Everett Dirksen of Illinois, working with Lyndon 
Johnson when he was majority leader. Johnson called up the bill so that 
Everett Dirksen could offer that amendment. It was in February 1960.
  In terms of other debates, when we were talking about the Foreign 
Military Sales Act of 1970, John Sherman Cooper of Connecticut and 
Senator Frank Church of Idaho offered an amendment to limit military 
operations in Cambodia. That became a substantial change in that bill. 
It became two bills, and, because they were joined together, they 
passed.
  In 1982, we joined the Trade Reciprocity and Dividend Withholding 
Acts, and the proponents of both succeeded in bringing them together in 
the Senate. It is not unknown for a Senator to suggest that two 
separate pieces of legislation ought to be joined together in order to 
make a coalition of Senators who believe in an objective.
  I take umbrage to some of the comments made by those people who don't 
have the guts to come forward and represent their own people. I would 
represent my people here until I die. We have done that. We have gone 
to the wall. I am accused of being the pork chief, or the chief porker 
around here. Why? Because my State is almost dead

[[Page S2808]]

due to the actions of the last administration in shutting down our 
timber industry, oil and gas industry, mining industry, and the cruise 
ships' total opposition to the State of Alaska in terms of any kind of 
development on Federal land, whether it was within or without the great 
withdrawals we have been talking about.
  When we entered into that agreement in 1980, person after person--
Senator Murkowski and I read them--including the President, said we 
have reached an understanding so that the land can be preserved that 
needed to be preserved, but Alaska can go forward with development of 
oil and gas and timber and mining. They said that. They acknowledged it 
in public that there was a deal--a deal.
  A deal, to me, is not a bad word. Up our way, when we make a deal, we 
shake hands. We don't have to have an act of Congress if you give a man 
your word, your promise. As Robert Service said, ``A promise made is a 
debt unpaid.''
  Congress made a promise to Alaska that this land would be opened to 
oil and gas. It was shown in that environmental impact statement that 
there would be no permanent harm to the fish and wildlife area.
  Now along comes this environmental group that has to be the most 
horrendous thing that I have gotten into. I wish I had more time for 
this, and some day I will take a lot more time for it. I think, because 
of these people, we have lost that ambiance on the floor.

  In the days of Senator Mansfield, we used to have dining groups. 
Mansfield encouraged us to get together. As young Senators from both 
sides of the aisle, we would invite people from the other side of the 
aisle to our homes for dinner. At least three times a year we used to 
have dinner with other Senators in each other's homes. We got to know 
one another. We took them to our States. We would travel with each 
other. We disagreed here on the floor and we did our job representing 
our people; but we were friends.
  Many Senators right now are not going to have many friends in the 
Senate after this year is over. It is because of what is happening 
now--this great division, turning everything into political issues. We 
are told that on every issue the President has to have 60 votes--not a 
majority, but every one of the President's programs has to have 60 
votes in order to stop the opposition of the majority.
  That is not like the days of Mike Mansfield or Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon 
Johnson cooperated with President Eisenhower. Mike Mansfield cooperated 
with President Nixon and President Ford. Where is the spirit of 
cooperation from the majority?
  I think it is high time people understood what is going on here. It 
is going to have a long-term impact on the Senate, as far as this 
Senator is concerned. I still have my friends over there, and I love 
them. By the way, they are still my friends. They understand what we 
are doing. They are the Senators from the old days who understand that 
when two Senators agree concerning an issue in their State, they ought 
to be listened to by the Senate. They don't always agree, but they 
certainly should not be attacked.
  Let's talk about the fundraising groups. We have some charts. 
Fundraising groups started off as philanthropic organizations that 
raise money to help achieve conservation objectives. They have been the 
subject of a review by the Sacramento Bee. Why do I look at that? They 
happen to own our largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News. We came 
across some of these articles that I will ask to put in the Record.
  The Institute of Philanthropy suggests that fundraising expenses not 
exceed 35 percent. This is the percentage of environmental groups' 
donations used to raise more money, not for environmental protection. 
The National Parks Conservation Association uses 41 percent of the 
money they raise to raise more money; the Sierra Club, 42 percent; 
Defenders of Wildlife, 50 percent; Greenpeace, 56 percent; National 
Park Trust, 74 percent. So 75 cents out of every dollar goes to raise 
more money, not to help the parks.
  Are these philanthropic, eleemosynary institutions? Are they? No. 
They are organizations that are now there to participate in the 
management of them. Let me show you, for instance, the annual income of 
these groups. This is just income of the presidents of philanthropic 
organizations. They are not the President of the United States, but you 
will see that several make more than the President of the United 
States. All but one makes more money than any Member of Congress. They 
are out raising money from people. They send them letter after letter, 
and they spend more money to go out and get more money, and they raise 
more money than they do for their objectives. Look at what they do with 
what is left.
  The median household income in the United States in 2000 was $42,148; 
that is the income of a husband and wife in a household in the year 
2000. The Sierra Club's executive director makes $138,000, which is 
conservative. All they really do now is raise money. That is a pretty 
good income. The president of the Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund 
makes $157,000. They raise money so they can sue--not in terms of doing 
anything for the conservation; they are protesters. Defenders of 
Wildlife, $201,000. The president of the Wilderness Society, $204,000; 
that is Fred Gaylord Nelson. He has graduated to a better salary. 
President, National Audubon Society, $239,000. World Wildlife Fund, 
$204,000. National Wildlife Federation, $247,000.
  What is eleemosynary about that? Are these volunteers to save the 
world?
  These are people in it for what they can get out of it, and what they 
get out of it is both money for themselves and money to contribute to 
people who support them. We will get into that, too.
  This is the amount of mailings sent annually by these groups. These 
are mailings, in the millions, for more fundraising, not money to 
notify people of a problem: the Audubon Society, 7 million; Greenpeace, 
8; the Sierra Club, 10.5; Defenders of Wildlife, 11; the National 
Wildlife Federation, 12.5; National Parks and Conservation, 17; World 
Wildlife, 19; Nature Conservancy, 35. They mail about 160 million 
mailings a year. The response is 1 to 2 percent.
  I wonder who owns the mailing companies. I have to look into that. 
Somebody is making money on just the mailings from these people. What 
are they doing?
  One hundred sixty million mailings, how many trees does that take, 
Mr. President? They are stopping us from cutting our trees in Alaska. 
From where are they getting that paper? They are not recycling it all. 
This group has in mind controlling what the Government does with regard 
to Federal lands in particular.
  Who spends more to protect the environment? This is from the 
``Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas Exploration and 
Production Technology'' published in the Clinton administration. This 
is not this administration. This is the Clinton administration.
  It is clear that the oil and gas industry spent $8 billion, in this 1 
year, 1996. That is more than EPA's entire budget for 1996 and 333 
percent more than all environmental groups put together. The oil and 
gas industry spends more to protect the environment by the Clinton 
administration's findings than all environmental groups put together. 
The environmental groups spent $2.4 billion in 1996. That is their 
total spending, and we have seen most of this is spent to raise more 
money--this is from environmental groups--not to protect the 
environment, but to raise more money and pad their own wallets.
  It is amazing, as I look at law firms around the country. They are 
advertising to get contributions to protect the environment, and what 
they are really doing is taking contributions and paying themselves to 
represent protest groups. It is an interesting connection to the 
environment. I am not sure that is advancing the cause of the 
environment.
  In any event, they are really soliciting money for their own 
salaries, which in my day in practicing law would have been thought to 
be unethical. It is not unethical now, I guess.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a series of articles from 
the Sacramento Bee be printed in the Record. They were written by a Bee 
staff writer in April of last year. The first is called ``Green 
Machine.'' Tom Knudson's article says:

       Dear friend, I need your help to stop an impending 
     slaughter. Otherwise, Yellowstone

[[Page S2809]]

     National Park--an American wildlife treasure--could soon 
     become a bloody killing field. And the victims will be 
     hundreds of wolves and defenseless wolf pups.''
  So begins a fund-raising letter from one of America's fastest-growing 
environmental groups--Defenders of Wildlife.

  The article goes on:

       In 1999, donations jumped 28 percent to a record $17.5 
     million. The group's net assets . . . grew to $14.5 million, 
     another record. And according to its 1999 annual report, 
     Defenders spent donors' money wisely, keeping fund-raising 
     and management costs to . . . 19 percent of expenses.

  But there is another side to Defenders' dramatic growth.
  Pick up copies of its federal tax returns and you'll find that its 
five highest-paid partners are not firms that specialize in wildlife 
conservation. They are national direct mail and telemarketing 
companies--the same ones that raise money through the mail and over the 
telephone for nonprofit groups, from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to 
the U.S. Olympic Committee.
       You'll also find that in calculating its fund-raising 
     expenses, Defenders borrow a trick from the business world. 
     It dances with digits, finds opportunity in obfuscation. 
     Using an accounting loophole, it classifies millions of 
     dollars spent on direct mail and telemarketing activities not 
     as fund-raising but as public education and environmental 
     activism.

  Sounds like another Enron to me.
  Again, I ask unanimous consent this series of articles be printed in 
the Record.

  There being on objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Sacramento Bee, Apr. 23, 2001]

               Mission Adrift in a Frenzy of Fund Raising

                            (By Tom Knudson)

       ``Dear Friend, I need your help to stop an impending 
     slaughter. Otherwise, Yellowstone National Park could soon 
     become a bloody killing field. And the victims will be 
     hundreds of wolves and defenseless wolf pups!''
       So begins a fund-raising letter from one of America's 
     fastest-growing environmental groups--Defenders of Wildlife.
       Using the popular North American gray wolf as the hub of an 
     ambitious campaign, Defenders has assembled a financial track 
     record that would impress Wall Street.
       In 1999, donations jumped 28 percent to a record $17.5 
     million. The group's net assets, a measure of financial 
     stability, grew to $14.5 million, another record. And 
     according to its 1999 annual report, Defenders spent donors' 
     money wisely, keeping fund-raising and management costs to a 
     lean 19 percent of expenses.
       But there is another side to Defenders' dramatic growth.
       Pick up copies of its federal tax returns and you'll find 
     that its five highest-paid business partners are not firms 
     that specialize in wildlife conservation. They are national 
     direct mail and telemarketing companies--the same ones that 
     raise money through the mail and over the telephone for 
     nonprofit groups. from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to the 
     U.S. Olympic Committee.
       You'll also find that in calculating its fund-raising 
     expenses, Defenders borrows a trick from the business world. 
     It dances with digits, finds opportunity in obfuscation. 
     Using an accounting loophole, it classifies millions of 
     dollars spent on direct mail and telemarketing not as fund 
     raising but as public education and environmental activism.
       Take away that loophole and Defenders' 19 percent fund-
     raising and management tab leaps above 50 percent, meaning 
     more than half of every dollar donated to save wolf pups 
     helped nourish the organization instead. That was high enough 
     to earn Defenders a ``D'' rating from the American Institute 
     of Philanthropy, an independent, nonprofit watchdog that 
     scrutinizes nearly 400 charitable groups.
       Pick up copies of IRS returns for major environmental 
     organizations and you'll see that what is happening at 
     Defenders of Wildlife is not unusual. Eighteen of America's 
     20 most prosperous environmental organizations, and many 
     smaller ones as well, raise money the same way: by soliciting 
     donations from millions of Americans.
       But in turning to mass-market fund-raising techniques for 
     financial sustenance, environmental groups have crossed a 
     kind of conservation divide.
       No allies of industry, they have become industries 
     themselves, dependent on a style of salesmanship that fills 
     mailboxes across America with a never-ending stream of 
     environmentally unfriendly junk mail, reduces the complex 
     world of nature to simplistic slogans, emotional appeals and 
     counterfeit crises, and employs arcane accounting rules to 
     camouflage fund raising as conservation.
       Just as industries run afoul of regulations, so are 
     environmental groups stumbling over standards. Their problem 
     is not government standards, because fund raising by 
     nonprofits is largely protected by the free speech clause of 
     the First Amendment. Their challenge is meeting the generally 
     accepted voluntary standards of independent charity 
     watchdogs.
       And there, many fall short.
       Six national environmental groups spend so much on fund 
     raising and overhead they don't have enough left to meet the 
     minimum benchmark for environmental spending--60 percent of 
     annual expenses--recommended by charity watchdog 
     organizations. Eleven of the nation's 20 largest include 
     fund-raising bills in their tally of money spent protecting 
     the environment, but don't make that clear to members.
       The flow of environmental fund-raising is remarkable. Last 
     year, more than 160 million pitches swirled through the U.S. 
     Postal Service, according to figures provided by major 
     organizations. That's enough envelopes, stationery, decals, 
     bumper stickers, calendars and personal address labels to 
     circle the Earth more than two times.
       Often, just one or two people in 100 respond.
       The proliferation of environmental appeals is beginning to 
     boomerang with the public, as well. ``The market is over-
     saturated. There is mail fatigue,'' said Ellen McPeake, 
     director of finance and development at Greenpeace, known 
     worldwide for its defense of marine mammals. ``Some people 
     are so angry they send back the business reply envelope with 
     the direct mail piece in it.''
       Even a single fund-raising drive generates massive waste. 
     In 1999, The Wilderness Society mailed 6.2 million membership 
     solicitations--an average of 16,986 pieces of mail a day. At 
     just under 0.9 ounce each, the weight for the year came to 
     about 348,000 pounds.
       Most of the fund-raising letters and envelopes are made 
     from recycled paper. but once delivered, millions are simply 
     thrown away, environmental groups acknowledge. Even when the 
     solicitations make it to a recycling bin, there's a glitch: 
     Personal address labels, bumper stickers and window decals 
     that often accompany them cannot be recycled into paper--and 
     are carted off to landfills instead.
       ``For an environmental organization, it's so wrong,'' said 
     McPeake, who is developing alternatives to junk mail at 
     Greenpeace. ``It's not exactly environmentally correct.''
       The stuff is hard to ignore.
       Environmental solicitations--swept along in colorful 
     envelopes emblazoned with bears, whales and other charismatic 
     creatures--jump out at you like salmon leaping from a stream.
       Open that mail and more unsolicited surprises grab your 
     attention. The Center for Marine Conservation lures new 
     members with a dolphin coloring book and a flier for a 
     ``free'' dolphin umbrella. The National Wildlife Federation 
     takes a more seasonal approach: a ``Free Spring Card 
     Collection & Wildflower Seed Mix!'' delivered in February, 
     and 10 square feet of wrapping paper with ``matching gift 
     tags'' delivered just before Christmas.
       The Sierra Club reaches out at holiday time, too, with a 
     bundle of Christmas cards that you can't actually mail to 
     friends and family, because inside they are marred by sales 
     graffiti: ``To order, simply call toll-free . . .'' Defenders 
     of Wildlife tugs at your heart with ``wolf adoption papers.'' 
     American Rivers dangles something shiny in front of your 
     checkbook: a ``free deluxe 35 mm camera'' for a modest $12 
     tax-deductible donation.
       The letters that come with the mailers are seldom dull. 
     Steeped in outrage, they tell of a planet in perpetual 
     environmental shock, a world victimized by profit-hungry 
     corporations. And they do so not with precise scientific 
     prose but with boastful and often inaccurate sentences that 
     scream and shout:
       From New York-based Rainforest Alliance: ``By this time 
     tomorrow, nearly 100 species of wildlife will tumble into 
     extinction.''
       Fact: No one knows how rapidly species are going extinct. 
     The Alliance's figure is an extreme estimate that counts 
     tropical beetles and other insects--including ones not yet 
     known to science--in its definition of wildlife.
       From the Wilderness Society: ``We will fight to stop 
     reckless clear-cutting on national forests in California and 
     the Pacific Northwest that threatens to destroy the last 
     of America's unprotected ancient forests in as little as 
     20 years.''
       Fact: National forest logging has dropped dramatically in 
     recent years. In California, clear-cutting on national 
     forests dipped to 1,395 acres in 1998, down 89 percent from 
     1990.
       From Defenders of Wildlife: ``Won't you please adopt a 
     furry little pup like `Hope'? Hope is a cuddly brown wolf . . 
     . Hope was triumphantly born in Yellowstone.''
       Facts: ``There was never any pup named Hope,'' says John 
     Varley, chief of research at Yellowstone National Park. ``We 
     don't name wolves. We number them.'' Since wolves were 
     reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995, their numbers have 
     increased from 14 to about 160; the program has been so 
     successful that Yellowstone officials now favor removing the 
     animals from the federal endangered species list.
       Longtime conservationist Peter Brussard has seen enough.
       ``I've stopped contributing to virtually all major 
     environmental groups,'' said Brussard, former Society for 
     Conservation Biology president and a University of Nevada, 
     Reno, professor.
       ``My frustration is the mailbox,'' he said. ``Virtually 
     every day you come home, there are six more things from 
     environmental groups saying that if you don't send them fifty 
     bucks, the gray whales will disappear or the wolf 
     reintroductions in Yellowstone will fail . . . You just get 
     supersaturated.

[[Page S2810]]

       ``To me, as a professional biologist, it's not conspicuous 
     what most of these organizations are doing for conservation. 
     I know that some do good, but most leave you with the 
     impression that the only thing they are interested in is 
     raising money for the sake of raising money.''
       Step off the elevator at Defenders of Wildlife's office in 
     Washington, D.C., and you enter a world of wolves: large 
     photographs of wolves on the walls, a wolf logo on glass 
     conference room doors, and inside the office of Charles 
     Orasin, senior vice president for operations, a wolf logo cup 
     and a toy wolf pup.
       Ask Orasin about the secret of Defenders' success, and he 
     points to a message prominently displayed behind his desk: 
     ``It's the Wolf, Stupid.''
       Since Defenders began using the North American timber wolf 
     as the focal point of its fund-raising efforts in the mid-
     1990s, the organization has not stopped growing. Every year 
     has produced record revenue, more members--and more 
     emotional, heart-wrenching letters.
       ``Dear Friend of Wildlife: It probably took them twelve 
     hours to die. No one found the wolves in the remote, rugged 
     lands of Idaho--until it was too late. For hours, they 
     writhed in agony. They suffered convulsions, seizures and 
     hallucinations. And then--they succumbed to cardiac and 
     respiratory failure.''
       ``People feel very strongly about these animals,'' said 
     Orasin, architect of Defenders' growth. ``In fact, our 
     supporters view them as they would their children. A huge 
     percentage own pets, and they transfer that emotional concern 
     about their own animals to wild animals.
       ``We're very pleased,'' he said. ``We think we have one of 
     the most successful programs going right now in the 
     country.''
       Defenders, though, is only the most recent environmental 
     groups to find fund-raising fortune in the mail. Greenpeace 
     did it two decades ago with a harp seal campaign now regarded 
     as an environmental fundraising classic.
       The solicitation featured a photo of a baby seal with a 
     white furry face and dark eyes accompanied by a slogan: 
     ``Kiss This Baby Good-bye.'' Inside, the fund-raising letter 
     included a photo of Norwegian sealers clubbing baby seals to 
     death.
       People opened their hearts--and their checkbooks.
       ``You have very little time to grab people's attention, 
     said Jeffrey Gillenkirk, a veteran free-lance direct mail 
     copywriter in San Francisco who has written for several 
     national environmental groups, including Greenpeace. ``It's 
     like television: You front-load things into your first three 
     paragraphs, the things that you're going to hook people with. 
     You can call it dramatic. You can call it hyperbolic. But it 
     works.''
       The Sierra Club put another advertising gimmick to work in 
     the early 1980s. It found a high-profile enemy: U.S. 
     Secretary of the Interior James Watt, whose pro-development 
     agenda for public lands enraged many.
       ``When you direct-mailed into that environment, it was like 
     highway robbery,'' said Bruce Hamilton, the club's 
     conservation director. ``You couldn't process the membership 
     fast enough. We basically added 100,000 members.''
       But environmental fund raising has its downsides.
       It tends to be addictive. The reason is simple: Many people 
     who join environmental groups through the mail lose interest 
     and don't renew--and must be replaced, year after year.
       ``Constant membership recruitment is essential just to stay 
     even, never mind get bigger,'' wrote Christopher Bosso, a 
     political scientists at Northeastern University in Boston, in 
     his paper: ``The Color of Money: Environmental Groups and the 
     Pathologies of Fund Raising.''
       ``Dropout rates are high because most members are but 
     passive check writers, with the low cost of participating and 
     translating into an equally low sense of commitment,'' Bosso 
     states. ``Holding on to such members almost requires that 
     groups maintain a constant sense of crisis. It does not take 
     a cynic to suggest . . . that direct mailers shop for the 
     next eco-crisis to keep the money coming in.''
       That is precisely how Gillenkirk, the copywriter, said the 
     system works. As environmental direct mail took hold in the 
     1980s, ``We discovered you could create programs by creating 
     them in the mail,'' he said.
       ``Somebody would put up $25,000 or $30,000, and you would 
     see whether sea otters would sell. You would see whether rain 
     forests would sell. You would try marshlands, wetlands, all 
     kinds of stuff. And if you got a response that would allow 
     you to continue--a 1 or 2 percent response--you could create 
     a new program.''
       Today, the trial-and-error process continues.
       The Sierra Club, which scrambles to replace about 150,000 
     nonrenewing members a year out of 600,000, produces new fund-
     raising packages more frequently than General Motors produces 
     new car models.
       ``We are constantly turning around and trying new themes,'' 
     said Hamilton. ``We say, `OK, well, people like cuddly little 
     animals, they like sequoias.' We try different premiums, 
     where people can get the backpack versus the tote bag versus 
     the calendar. We tried to raise money around the California 
     desert--and found direct mail deserts don't work.''
       And though many are critical of such a crisis-of-the-month 
     approach, Hamilton defended it--sort of.
       ``I'm somewhat offended by it myself, both intellectually 
     and from an environmental standpoint,'' he said. ``And yet . 
     . . it is what works. It is what builds the Sierra Club. 
     Unfortunately the fate of the Earth depends on whether people 
     open that envelope and send in that check.''
       The vast majority of people don't. Internal Sierra Club 
     documents show that as few as one out of every 100 membership 
     solicitations results in a new member. The average 
     contribution is $18.
       ``The problem is there is a part of the giving public--
     about a third we think--who as a matter of personal choice 
     gives to a new organization every year,'' said Sierra Club 
     Executive Director Carl Pope. ``We don't do this because we 
     want to. We do it because the public behaves this way.''
       Fund-raising consultants ``have us all hooked, and none of 
     us can kick the habit,'' said Dave Foreman, a former Sierra 
     Club board member. ``Any group that gives up the direct mail 
     treadmill is going to lose. I'm concerned about how it's 
     done. It's a little shabby.''
       Another problem is more basic: accuracy. Much of what 
     environmental groups say in fund-raising letters is 
     exaggerated. And sometimes it is wrong.
       Consider a recent mailer from the Natural Resources Defense 
     Council, which calls itself ``America's hardest-hitting 
     environmental group.'' The letter, decrying a proposed solar 
     salt evaporation plant at a remote Baja California lagoon 
     where gray whales give birth, makes this statement:
       ``Giant diesel engines will pump six thousand gallons of 
     water out of the lagoon EVERY SECOND, risking changes to the 
     precious salinity that is so vital to newborn whales.''
       Clinton Winant, a professor at Scripps Institution of 
     Oceanography who helped prepare an environmental assessment 
     of the project, said the statement is false. ``There is not a 
     single iota of scientific evidence that suggest pumping would 
     have any effect on gray whales or their babies,'' he said.
       The mailer also says:
       ``A mile-long concrete pier will cut directly across the 
     path of migrating whales--potentially impeding their 
     progress.''
       Scripps professor Paul Dayton, one of the nation's most 
     prominent marine ecologist, said that statement is wrong, 
     too.
       ``I've dedicated my career to understanding nature, which 
     is becoming more threatened,'' he said. ``And I've been 
     confronted with the dreadful dishonesty of the Rush Limbaugh 
     crowd. It really hurts to have my side--the environmental 
     side--become just as dishonest.''
       Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo halted the project 
     last year. But as he did, he also criticized environmental 
     groups. ``With false arguments and distorted information, 
     they have damaged the legitimate cause of genuine 
     ecologists.'' Zedillo said at a Mexico City news conference.
       A senior Defense Council attorney in Los Angeles, Joel 
     Reynolds, said his organization does not distort the truth.
       ``We're effective because people believe in us,'' Reynolds 
     said. ``We're not about to sacrifice the credibility we've 
     gained through direct mail which is intentionally 
     inaccurate.''
       Reynodls said NRDC's position on the slat plant was 
     influenced by a 1995 memo by Bruce Mate, a world-renowned 
     whale specialist. Mate said, though, that his memo was a 
     first draft, not grounded in scientific fact.
       ``This is a bit of an embarrassment,'' he said. ``This was 
     really one of the first bits of information about the 
     project. It was not meant for public consumption. I was 
     just kind of throwing stuff out there. It's out-of-date, 
     terribly out-of-date.''
       There is plenty of chest-thumping pride in direct mail, 
     too--some of it false pride. Consider this from a National 
     Wildlife Federation letter: ``We are constantly working in 
     every part of the country to save those species and special 
     places that are in all of our minds.''
       Yet in many places, the federation is seldom, if every, 
     seen.
       ``In 15-plus years in conservation, in Northern California, 
     Nevada, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, I have never met a 
     (federation) person,'' said David Nolte, who recently 
     resigned as a grass-roots organizer with the Theodore 
     Roosevelt Conservation Alliance--a coalition of hunters and 
     fishermen.
       ``This is not about conservation,'' he said. ``It's 
     marketing.''
       Overstating achievements is chronic, according to Alfred 
     Runte, an environmental historian and a board member of the 
     National Parks Conservation Association from 1993 to 1997.
       ``Environmental groups all do this,'' he said. ``They take 
     credit for things that are generated by many, many people. 
     What is a community ccomplishment becomes an individual 
     accomplishment--for the purposes of raising money.''
       As a board member, Runte finds something else distasteful 
     about fund raising: its cost.
       ``Oftentimes, we said very cynically that for every dollar 
     you put into fund raising, you only got back a dollar,'' he 
     recalled. ``Unless you hit a big donor, the bureaucracy was 
     spending as much to generate money as it was getting back.
       Some groups are far more efficient than others. The Nature 
     Conservancy, for example, spends just 10 percent of donor 
     contributions on fund raising, while the Sierra Club

[[Page S2811]]

     spends 42 percent, according to the American Institute of 
     Philanthropy.
       Pope, the Sierra Club director, said it's not a fair 
     comparison. The reason? Donations to the Conservancy and most 
     other environmental groups are tax deductible--an important 
     incentive for charitable giving. Contributions to the Sierra 
     Club are not, because it is a political organization, too.
       ``We're not all charities in the same sense,'' Pope said. 
     ``Our average contribution is much, much smalller.''
       Determining how much environmental groups spend on fund 
     raising is only slightly less complex than counting votes in 
     Florida. The difficultly is a bookkeeping quagmire called 
     ``joint cost accounting.''
       At its simplest, joint cost accounting allows nonprofit 
     groups to splinter fund-raising expenditures into categories 
     that sound more pleasant to a donor's ear--public education 
     and environmental action--shaving millions off what they 
     report as fund raising.
       Some groups use joint cost accounting. Others don't. Some 
     groups put it to work liberally, others cautiously. Those who 
     do apply it don't explain it. What one group labels 
     education, another calls fund raising.
       ``You use the term joint allocation and most people's eyes 
     glaze over,'' said Greenpeace's McPeake. The most 
     sophisticated donor in the world ``would not be able to 
     penetrate this,'' she said.
       Joint cost accounting need not be boring, however.
       Look closely and you'll find sweepstakes solicitations, 
     personal return address labels, free tote bag offers and 
     other fund-raising novelties cross-dressing as conservation. 
     You also find that those who monitor such activity are uneasy 
     with it.
       David Ormsteadt, an assistant attorney general in 
     Connecticut, states in Advancing Philanthropy, a journal of 
     the National Society of Fundraising Executives: ``Instead of 
     reporting fees and expenses as fund-raising costs, which 
     could . . . . discourage donations, charities may report 
     these costs as having provided a public benefit. The more 
     mailings made--and the more expense incurred--the more the 
     `benefit' to society.''
       The Wilderness Society, for example, determined in 1999 
     that 87 percent of the $1.5 million it spent mailing 6.2 
     million membership solicitation letters wasn't fund raising 
     but ``public education.'' That shaved $1.3 million off its 
     fund-raising tab.
       One of America's oldest and most venerable environmental 
     groups, the Wilderness Society didn't just grab its 87 
     percent figure out of the air. It literally counted the 
     number of lines in its letter and determined that 87 of every 
     100 were educational.
       When you read in the society's letter that ``Our staff is a 
     tireless watchdog,'' that is education. So is the obvious 
     fact that national forests ``contain some of the most 
     striking natural beauty on Earth.'' Even a legal boast--``If 
     necessary, we will sue to enforce the law''--is education.
       ``We're just living within the rules. We're not trying to 
     pull one over on anybody,'' said Wilderness Society spokesman 
     Ben Beach.
       Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of 
     Philanthropy, the charity watchdog, said it is acceptable to 
     call 30 percent or less of fund-raiding expenses 
     ``education.'' But he deemed that the percentages claimed by 
     the Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife and others were 
     unacceptable.
       ``These groups should not be allowed to get away with 
     this,'' Borochoff said. ``They are trying to make themselves 
     look as good as they can without out-and-out lying. . . . 
     This doesn't help donors. It helps the organization.''
       At Defenders of Wildlife, Orasin flatly disagreed. The 
     American institute of Philanthropy ``is a peripheral group 
     and we don't agree with their standards,'' he said. ``We 
     don't think they understand how a nonprofit can operate, much 
     less grow.''
       Even the more mainstream National Charities Information 
     Bureau, which recently merged with the Better Business 
     Bureau's Philanthropic Advisory Service, rates Defenders' 
     fund raising excessive.
       ``We strongly disagree with (the National Charities 
     Information Bureau),'' said Orasin. ``They take a very 
     subjective view of what fund raising is. We are educating the 
     public. If you look at the letters that go out from us, they 
     are chock-full of factual information.''
       But much of what Defenders labels education in its fund 
     raising is not all that educational. Here are a few 
     examples--provided to The Bee by Defenders from its recent 
     ``Tragedy in Yellowstone'' membership solicitation letter:
       Unless you and I help today, all of the wolf families in 
     Yellowstone and central Idaho will likely be captured and 
     killed.
       It's up to you and me to stand up to the wealthy American 
     Farm Bureau . . .
       For the sake of the wolves . . . please take one minute 
     right now to sign and return the enclosed petition.
       The American Farm Bureau's reckless statements are nothing 
     but pure bunk.
       ``That is basically pure fund raising,'' said Richard 
     Larkin, a certified public accountant with the Lang Group in 
     Bethesda, Md., who helped draft the standards for joint cost 
     accounting. ``That group is playing a little loose with the 
     rules.''
       Defenders also shifts the cost of printing and mailing 
     millions of personalized return address labels into a special 
     ``environmental activation'' budget category.
       Larkin takes a dim view.
       ``I've heard people try to make the case that by putting 
     out these labels you are somehow educating the public about 
     the importance of the environment,'' he said. ``I would 
     consider it virtually abusive.''
       Not all environmental groups use joint cost accounting. At 
     the Nature Conservancy, every dollar spent on direct mail and 
     telemarketing is counted as fund raising.
       The same is true at the Sierra Club. ``We want to be 
     transparent with our members,'' said Pope, the club's 
     director.
       Groups that do use it, though, often do so differently.
       The National Parks Conservation Association, for example, 
     counts this line as fund raising: ``We helped establish 
     Everglades National Park in the 1940s.'' Defenders counts 
     this one as education: ``Since 1947, Defenders of Wildlife 
     has worked to protect wolves, bears . . . and pristine 
     habitat.''
       ``It's a very subjective world,'' said Monique Valentine, 
     vice president for finance and administration at the national 
     parks association. ``It would be much better if we would all 
     work off the same sheet of music.''
       At the Washington, D.C.-based National Park Trust, which 
     focuses on expanding the park system, even a sweepstakes 
     solicitation passes for education, helping shrink fund-
     raising costs to 21 percent of expenses, according to its 
     1999 annual report.
       Actual fund-raising costs range as high as 74 percent, 
     according to the American Institute of Philanthropy, which 
     gave the Trust an ``F'' in its ``Charity Rating Guide & 
     Watchdog Report.'' Borochoff, the Institute's president, 
     called the Trust's reporting ``outrageous.''
       ``Dear Friend,'' says one sweepstakes solicitation, ``The 
     $1,000,000 SUPER PRIZE winning number has already been pre-
     selected by computer and will absolutely be awarded. It would 
     be a very, very BIG MISTAKE to forfeit ONE MILLION DOLLARS to 
     someone else.''
       Paul Pritchard, the Trust's president, said the group's 
     financial reporting meets non-profit standards. He defended 
     sweepstakes fund raising.
       ``I personally find it a way of expressing freedom of 
     speech,'' Pritchard said. ``I can ethically justify it. How 
     else are you going to get your message out?''

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the article goes on to say:

       No allies of industry, they have become industries 
     themselves, dependent upon a style of salesmanship that fills 
     mailboxes across America with a never-ending stream of 
     environmentally unfriendly junk mail, reduces the complex 
     world of nature to simplistic slogans, emotional appeals and 
     counterfeit crises, and employs arcane accounting rules to 
     camouflage fundraising as conservation.

  It goes on to say:

       Six national environmental groups spent so much on fund-
     raising and overhead they don't have enough left to meet the 
     minimum benchmark for environmental spending--60 percent of 
     annual expenses--recommended by charity watchdog 
     organizations. Eleven of the nation's 20 largest include 
     fund-raising bills in their tally of money spent protecting 
     the environment, but don't make that clear to members.

  The direct mail costs that we have seen can go up to 74 percent of 
the total money received and is being reported to members as money 
spent to protect the environment. Are these the people the Senate ought 
to believe? They are the ones the people on the other side have been 
quoting all day. That is why we are raising it. They have been quoting 
them as the sources for the information they present to the Senate--all 
these things are going bad in Alaska, all these tragedies that have 
happened to Alaska. What they do not mention is the human tragedy that 
has happened to Alaska.
  This article was printed on April 23, 2001. I hope Senators will read 
this and all other Sacramento Bee articles in this series. In fact, I 
think the Sacramento Bee ought to receive an award for them. They are 
enormous in terms of their reach.
  The Sierra Club, for instance, one time said:

       By this time tomorrow, nearly 100 species of wildlife will 
     tumble into extinction.

  They sent that to retired people and to working people who believe in 
protecting the environment. This says, as a matter of fact:

       No one knows how rapidly species are going extinct. The 
     Alliance's figure is an extreme estimate that counts tropical 
     beetles and other insects--including ones not yet known to 
     science--in its definition of wildlife.

  And the Defenders of Wildlife are raising money.
  This article says:

       We will fight to stop reckless clear-cutting of the 
     national forests in California and the Pacific Northwest that 
     threatens to destroy the last of America's unprotected 
     ancient forests in as little as 20 years.

  As a matter of fact: Clear-cutting the forests has stopped. It is 
down 89 percent from 1990, and yet they wrote that letter after the 
timber cutting stopped.

[[Page S2812]]

  Again, I urge Members of the Senate to read these articles written by 
the Sacramento Bee. It is high time someone started looking into them, 
and we will do that later.
  Mr. President, I have another series of articles from the Sacramento 
Bee. This time it is called ``Litigation Central.''
  It says the ``flood of costly lawsuits raises questions about 
motive.'' I refer to this article of April 24, 2001.
  It says, in part:

       Suing the government has long been a favorite tactic of the 
     environmental movement--used to score key victories for clean 
     air, water and endangered species. But today, many court 
     cases are yielding an uncertain bounty for the land and 
     sowing doubt even among the faithful.

  ``We've filed our share of lawsuits, and I'm proud of a lot of 
them,'' said Dan Taylor, executive director of the California chapter 
of the National Audubon Society. ``But I do think litigation is 
overused. In many cases, it's hard to identify what the strategic goal 
is, unless it is to significantly reshape society.''
  The suits are having a powerful impact on Federal agencies. They are 
forcing some government biologists to spend more time on legal chores 
than on conservation work. As a result, species in need of critical 
care are being ignored. And frustration and anger are on the rise.
  It goes on:

       During the 1990s, the government paid out $31.6 million in 
     attorney fees for 434 environmental cases brought against 
     Federal agencies. The average award per case was more than 
     $70,000 [for attorneys fees alone]. One long-running lawsuit 
     in Texas involving the endangered salamander netted lawyers 
     for the Sierra Club and other plaintiffs more than $3.5 
     million in taxpayer funds.

  It is a growth industry, suing the Federal Government for an 
environmental cause, mythical or otherwise.

       Lawyers for the industry and natural resource users get 
     paid for winning environmental cases.
  As a matter of fact, the environmental groups are not shy about 
asking for money. This is from this article:

       They earn $150 to $350 an hour . . . In 1993, three judges 
     on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington were so 
     appalled by one Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund lawyer's 
     flagrant overbilling that they reduced her award to zero.

  The lawyer had claimed too much money.
  I see the Senator from Iowa is in the Chamber. Does he have a 
timeframe problem?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to speak on ANWR for about 10 minutes if I 
could, or a little bit less.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do not want to keep the Senator waiting. I have a lot 
more than that to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
yield to the Senator from Iowa for 10 minutes without losing the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. First of all, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his 
kindness.
  I have heard discussed in the Senate this area of Alaska being about 
19 million acres, and I have heard that there was only going to be 
drilling in about 2,000 acres of that 19 million acres. Two thousand 
acres out of 19 million acres is not very many acres.
  My State of Iowa is about 55,000 square miles, and that multiplies 
out to about 35 million acres. So 19 million acres would be a little 
bit more than half of my State of Iowa. I know how big the State of 
Iowa is. I do not want to claim that I know how big the State of Alaska 
is, but I know how big the State of Iowa is because I travel every year 
to all 99 counties to hold at least one meeting in each county.
  I know how much 2,000 acres happens to be because that would be about 
3 square miles in the neighborhood of my farm in Iowa. Take 3 square 
miles out of my State of Iowa and it is practically nothing. So I do 
not know what the big deal is about drilling on 2,000 acres in the 
State of Alaska or even in the State of Iowa. It would be equivalent to 
about a pinprick on a map of the State of Iowa. That is the way I see 
it.
  I say to the Senator from Alaska, to me, this ends up almost as a no-
brainer. From the facts we have heard, that this will supply enough oil 
for my State of Iowa for 126 years--I have also heard it would be 
equivalent to the amount of oil we would bring in from Saudi Arabia for 
30 years. I think I have heard the figure of 55 years is the amount of 
oil that would come from Saddam Hussein. I have also heard my 
colleagues say we send $4.5 billion a year to Iraq for oil.
  If all of this is correct--I do not believe that it has been refuted. 
I have not heard all the debate. But it really comes down to whether or 
not we would like to get our energy from areas that we control in the 
United States, or we want to get oil from unstable governments around 
the world, and whether or not we ought to save that $4 billion for 
America, spend it in America, or spend it with Saddam Hussein.

  I also believe when we do drill in Alaska--and the Senator from 
Alaska does not have to respond to this unless I am wrong, but I 
believe when we drill in Alaska, there are very rigorous environmental 
rules that have to be followed.
  We hear about the pristine areas of Alaska, and I do not dispute 
that, but do we not also have pristine areas in Siberia? I assume that 
whether it is Alaska or whether it is Siberia, there is going to be 
more oil added to the world pool of oil because it is going to be 
needed.
  So would people in the United States rather have us drill under the 
strict environmental rules of the United States as they would apply in 
Alaska or would they rather have us let the Russians drill in Siberia 
where I know there was oil floating out of pipelines for long periods 
of time--and I do not know whether it has ever been cleaned up--and 
where there would be little concern about the environment in Siberia 
where Russia would be drilling?
  I would think people in America would rather have us drill under the 
strict guidelines of the environmental requirements of the United 
States than they would in a country that does not have such guidelines, 
particularly considering these are considered pristine environmental 
areas, whether it is in Alaska or whether it is anywhere in the Arctic 
area of the world. I think you would have to look at them the same way.
  So I have come to the conclusion, I want to tell the Senator from 
Alaska, not just from listening to him but listening to other people 
and studying this, that I happen to think he is right on this issue. I 
think we have an opportunity not only on this issue but on a lot of 
parts of this legislation to pave the way for a balanced, long-term 
national energy strategy that will increase U.S. energy independence 
and limit the stranglehold foreign countries have on American 
consumers. A comprehensive energy strategy must strike a balance among 
development of conventional energy sources and alternative, renewable 
energy and conservation.
  I think the President's approach of incentives for production, 
incentives for conservation, and incentives for alternative and 
renewable fuels is a very balanced energy program. It is a program 
that, No. 1, incentives for renewables take care of the short-term 
needs of the country, and in the case of the second and third points, 
conservation and renewables take care of the long-term energy needs of 
our country.
  During the past few weeks, I have had an opportunity to express my 
strong support for renewable fuel provisions included in this bill 
which require a small percentage of our Nation's fuel supply to be 
provided by renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.
  As a domestic renewable source of energy, ethanol and biodiesel can 
increase fuel supplies, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and 
increase our national economic security. But they can't do it alone, 
and it can't be done overnight. That is why we need short-term 
solutions and we need long-term solutions.
  The Senate has had an opportunity to consider renewable portfolio 
standards, which I believe will go a long way to promote renewable 
energy resources for electrical generation. However, that is only part 
of a solution.
  As ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have had an 
opportunity to work with Chairman Baucus to develop an energy-related 
tax amendment that includes provisions for development of renewable 
sources of energy such as wind and biomass and

[[Page S2813]]

incentives for energy-efficient appliances and homes. The tax package, 
however, unlike the underlying energy bill, recognizes that a balanced 
energy plan can't overlook the production of traditional energy sources 
such as oil and gas.
  Developing domestic oil resources is vital to our national security. 
The United States is dependent upon foreign countries for over 58 
percent of our oil needs. We are currently dependent upon Saddam 
Hussein, which I already referred to but, more specifically, for about 
750,000 barrels of oil a day or 9 percent of our U.S. oil imports.
  Last week, as we have been reminded during this debate, Iraq stopped 
its exports of 2.5 million barrels a day in response to developments in 
the Middle East, further driving up crude oil prices. It is important 
that Americans know that last year alone, we spent $4.5 billion of our 
money to pay for Saddam Hussein's oil, thereby providing funding to 
help Iraq with its war machine.
  The United States has the resources on our land that could reduce or 
eliminate the stranglehold Saddam Hussein has on our economy. By 
developing our resources in Alaska, we could produce 10 billion barrels 
of oil and perhaps as much as 16 billion barrels of oil. This amount 
could replace the oil I have referenced from Saudi Arabia or the oil 
from Iraq for a long period of time. So for the sake of our national 
security, we ought to be developing our own natural resources at home.
  Opponents have made claims that opening ANWR to oil development would 
do tremendous environmental harm. But, again, I repeat for my 
colleagues, 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres is a no-brainer. Only 
the best environmental technology will be used for exploration and 
development, leaving the smallest possible footprint.
  Opponents have also argued that oil development in ANWR will hurt 
wildlife. Remember the warnings from environmental groups about the 
danger to the caribou if we developed Prudhoe Bay? They were wrong. 
Since the development, we have had increases in herd size. I ask my 
colleagues, what is better for the environment: Developing resources in 
the United States, using the toughest environmental standards ever 
imposed, or importing foreign oil produced without much consideration 
for the environment?
  We must do more to develop in an environmentally sensitive way the 
resources God has given us in stewardship. I hope my colleagues will 
join with me to support this approach to opening Alaska and ensuring 
that the bill before the Senate does more to protect our national 
security and to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.
  I thank my colleague from Alaska. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last night at the Library of Congress I 
ran across this ad. I was going to talk about it later, but I wanted 
the Senator to see this. This is an ad on one of the displays in the 
Library of Congress. Millions of acres in Iowa and Nebraska were put up 
for sale by the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company.
  I will develop later that the West was opened, really, because 
President Lincoln offered $1 million and every odd section of the 
right-of-way for the first railroad to link the east and west coasts of 
the United States. We don't think in terms of that now. Once those 
railroad companies got a hold of the land, they put it up for sale. 
They put it up for sale at $2.50 an acre and let people have 10 years' 
credit to pay for it. That is what stimulated the development of the 
West. That is what stimulated the expansion of the United States.
  What have they done in my State, one-fifth of the land mass in the 
United States? They have blocked us at every turn, withdrew lands with 
economic potential, blocked us from using our own lands that had 
economic potential, closed our mines, closed our pulp mills, closed our 
timber mills, canceled the permits of the wildcat well drillers for oil 
and gas. We have lost the American dream of private ownership of lands 
in Alaska.
  I thought the Senator might be interested in that. It is a very 
interesting exhibit at the Library of Congress. It includes some of the 
artifacts of the history of our great country, including the great move 
to make land available to those people who developed the transportation 
system. Talk about blending. Here is the transportation system of the 
United States, the first railroad to go from east to west across the 
United States. Persons who built that obtained every odd section along 
the right-of-way of the railroad, and from that came the expansion to 
the west.
  People complain about my suggestion that we join together oil 
development in the Arctic Plain and the future of the great steel 
industry of the United States.
  I am pleased to have received this letter addressed to me:

       We write as members of the House with a strong interest in 
     the steel industry to convey our strong support of your 
     efforts to resolve the legacy cost burden of the domestic 
     steel industry, and especially your efforts to assist the 
     steel industry's retirees and their dependents.
       As you know, the domestic steel industry has significant 
     unfunded pension liabilities as well as massive retiree 
     health care responsibilities that total $13 billion and cost 
     the steel industry almost $1 billion annually. These pension 
     and health care liabilities pose a significant barrier to 
     steel industry consolidation and rationalization that could 
     improve the financial condition of the industry and reduce 
     the adverse impact of unfairly traded foreign imports.
       It has come to our attention that a unique opportunity has 
     arisen in the Senate to remove this barrier to 
     rationalization while assisting the retirees, surviving 
     spouses, and dependents of the domestic steel industry. It is 
     our understanding that you have offered an amendment to the 
     energy bill this week which will break the impasse on the 
     legacy problem.
       Once again, we would like to extend our wholehearted 
     support to you in this endeavor. We look forward to working 
     with you to find a viable solution to bring a sense of 
     security to the over 600,000 retirees, surviving spouses, and 
     dependents before the end of the 107th Congress.

  I ask that that letter be put on every desk. It is a bipartisan 
letter signed by an equal number of Democratic Members and House 
Members in the House of Representatives.
  I go back to the comments about the Sacramento Bee articles. On 
August 19, the article by Thomas Knudson, titled ``Old Allies Now Foes 
in Alaska's Oil Battle'':
  Environmentalists come under fire for their impassioned efforts to 
bar drilling in a wildlife refuge.
  It details the problems. For instance, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, 
who voted for oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and sided with the Bush 
administration. This article points out that in the House the pro-
drilling side won 223 to 206. The Senate is expected to take up the 
matter this fall.
  The [environmental] rhetoric has been an insult to us, Clyburn told 
an energy trade journal. A lot of us don't feel obliged to be purists 
on this issue.
  How many times can you cry wolf and have your audience still believe 
in you? said Mark Buckley, a commercial fisherman and member of the 
National Audubon Society in Kodiak, Alaska, who opposes Audubon's anti-
drilling stance.
  This article goes on to point out, in terms of environmental groups' 
advocacy against this, advocacy mail-in campaigns on roadless areas, 
national forests, and genetically modified crops. At least eight major 
groups are circulating letters on the single topic of the Arctic Refuge 
drilling.
  It is a very meaningful article about the way these environmental 
groups really single out those who support drilling in the Arctic 
Plain. It is, one of the balanced articles that deals with the question 
of this drilling.
  As the Senator from Iowa said, 2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres 
is not very much. It is 3 square miles.
  Here is a nice one: Yours Free When You Contribute $10 Or More . . . 
our polar bear tote bag.
  It's the perfect way to show you're working to Keep the Arctic Wild 
and Free.
  If you complete the enclosed reply form and return it with your 
membership gift of $10 or more, you get a little tote bag. It says: 
Keep The Arctic Wild & Free.
  It is available only to NRDC members, but it is a concept of what we 
are looking at. For that membership, you can join the club. They do not 
tell you that 75 percent of their money is not spent for conservation.
  The next article I want to talk about was published on November 11 of 
last

[[Page S2814]]

year. It talks about the people who live on the slope, on the North 
Slope. It says:

       Like detectives, the two Inupiat Eskimos gathered all the 
     information they could about the Alaska Wilderness League, a 
     relatively new arrival to the environmental community far 
     away in Washington, D.C.
       From Bloomberg News, the St. Paul Pioneer Press and other 
     sources, Tara Sweeney and Fenton Rexford read about a group 
     that was passionate, self-assured and actively working to 
     halt oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with 
     a blend of environmental activism--such as street theater and 
     letters to the editor--and lobbying politicians.
       But when they examined the league's federal tax return, 
     they discovered a group that portrayed itself in a different 
     manner: as a tax-exempt charity focusing on science and 
     education.
       ``The Alaska Wilderness league sponsored two educational 
     trips to the Arctic refuge . . .'' its tax form says. ``The 
     Alaska Wilderness League supported the `Last Great 
     Wilderness' slide show, seen by thousands of people to 
     educate them'' about the refuge.
       Rexford, a leader of the Eskimo village of Kaktovik--the 
     only permanent human settlement on the refuge--was 
     astonished.
       ``What they do and what they tell the IRS they do are two 
     different things,'' said Rexford, who favors oil drilling. 
     Last month, he made his views known to the IRS itself, filing 
     a complaint in which he and other village leaders allege the 
     League is violating tax law by ``devoting substantially all 
     of its resources'' to lobbying.
       In filing the complaint, Rexford did more than challenge 
     the Alaska Wilderness League. He also struck at a vital 
     support system for environmental groups: their 501(c)(3) tax 
     status. [We are going to go after that too, Mr. President.] 
     That status saves nonprofits millions in corporate and other 
     taxes, makes them eligible for foundation funding and allows 
     contributors to deduct donations from their own income taxes.
       Rexford and Sweeney said they got the idea from IRS audits 
     of the Heritage Foundation and other conservative nonprofits 
     during the Clinton administration. In June, they watched with 
     interest as the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a pro-
     business think tank, filed an IRS complaint against Rain 
     Forest Action Network, a tax-exempt group that scales 
     skyscrapers to protest logging.
       The League's executive director responded angrily to the 
     Inupiat attack.
       ``The Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation either has been 
     misinformed by its friends in the oil industry about the law 
     or it has deliberately distorted the facts in a cynical 
     attempt to intimidate America's conservation groups,'' 
     said director Cindy Shogan.
       ``We have a right to represent the interest of our members 
     . . . so long as our legislative advocacy activities stay 
     within specified IRS limits,'' Shogan said. ``We fully comply 
     with all IRS laws.''
       But Rexford--who hunts whales, seals and caribou for 
     subsistence--said it is Shogan who is misinformed. He said 
     the Inupiat corporation ``has not solicited information from 
     the oil industry, nor will we. It is apparent that the AWL 
     simply cannot fathom that a native-owned organization has 
     enough intelligence and talent to think independently and .. 
     file a complaint of this nature.''
       Most environmental groups are 501(c)(3)'s, which means they 
     can receive tax-deductible contributions but can spend only a 
     small portion on lobbying. The spending limit varies. But in 
     many cases, it ranges from 12.5 percent to 20 percent--and 
     cannot exceed $1 million.
       A handful of others, such as the Sierra Club and 
     Greenpeace, are 501(c)(4)'s, which means their contributions 
     are not tax-deductible but they can spend what they want on 
     lobbying. Based on its federal tax return for 2000, the 
     Alaska Wilderness League does not run afoul of spending 
     limits on lobbying. On that return, the League reported 
     spending $81,283 to influence legislation, well under its 
     legally allowable limit of $130,623.
       The essence of the Inupiats' complaint is that the League 
     spends most of its money on lobbying but disguises it as 
     education and science. As evidence, they cite League letter-
     writing and phone campaigns targeting federal lawmakers in 
     several states, testimony before Congress and League-
     sponsored ``junkets'' for members of congress to the Arctic 
     refuge.

  Another one of these articles on December 9 said:

       Log onto the Web sites of the National Wildlife Federation, 
     the Wilderness Society and other environmental groups and you 
     learn that the struggle to save the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge in Alaska from oil drilling is about more than 
     protecting the environment.
       ``It is also a human rights issue since the indigenous 
     Gwich'in Indians rely on this important area for their 
     subsistence way of life,'' say the Wilderness Society's Web 
     site: www.wilderness.org.
 But this fall, Petroleum News Alaska--a trade journal--
     reported a story that environmental groups have not 
     publicized: Over the border in Canada, the Gwich'in Tribal 
     council joined forces with an oil firm to tap into energy 
     resources on their lands.

  This very same tribe that is paraded around as being the spokesman 
for Alaska Native people, they drilled on their lands in Canada for oil 
and gas. They formed a partnership.
  ``It's time for us to build an economic base,'' said Fred Carmichael, 
president of the tribal council in Inuvik, Canada. That is the Gwich'in 
tribal council.
  Two Senators said they talked to the Alaska Native people who opposed 
it and said they just assumed all Alaska Natives opposed it. It is not 
true at all.
  The Eskimos have an opposite point of view, this article says.
  They say drilling can be carried out in concert with the caribou. But 
their position is discounted by environmental groups because the 
Inupiats have extensive ties with oil companies through their own 
tribal business: the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.
  ``The national debate has placed us as caricatures--us, as the tools 
of the oil industry, and them--the Gwich'in--as caretakers of the 
environment,'' said Richard Glenn, vice president, lands, for the 
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. ``It's unfortunate. And it's not 
accurate.''
  I believe these articles ought to be written by those people who are 
visited by the Gwich'in.
  It says:
  But in Alaska, most Alaska natives actually support drilling. In 
1955, the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 400 of the 
village corporations and is the state's largest native organization, 
passed a resolution in favor of tapping the refuge's energy resources.
  It says simply:
  ``Environmental groups are using the Gwich'in to advance their own 
agenda. That's as simple as I can put it,'' Tetpon said.
  That is John Tetpon, the federation's director of communications.
  I hope Senators will read some of these things that have been written 
about these people who are bringing these stories about what is going 
on in our State. It is a very difficult problem.
  I particularly call the attention of the Senate to the article on 
April 24 of last year because it points out that litigation central, 
these lawsuits, are not only costing the defendants a lot of money, 
they are costing the Federal Government a lot of money and they are 
taking a lot of people who should be working on the environment into 
courtroom after courtroom after courtroom to defend against these 
lawsuits that are brought. For what? In order to get the attorney's 
fees paid by the winning side in the environmental litigation. In some 
instances, they do not have to win.
  These environmental groups are currently raising $9.5 million a day, 
$3.5 billion a year, and you can see where it is going by our charts. 
It is not going to improve the conservation, it is going to pay 
salaries--it is going to pay very large salaries--and it is going to 
make mailings to raise more money.
  I commend the entire series of Sacramento Bee articles to Senators 
for further reading from April 22, 2001 through April 5, 2001. Further 
investigative articles were printed on November 11, 2001, December 9 
and December 18, 2001. They are excellent articles and they expose what 
is really happening in the environmental movement in America today.
  I don't know how to say it other than to say I am appalled that so 
many people in the Senate rely on them as presenting facts. They do not 
present facts. They present positions and look for arguments to support 
them.
  I think it is time that we tried to get back to the concept of 
reliance upon the people from the State. I said that before. If the 
Senate would listen to the two Senators from Alaska concerning what is 
going on in Alaska, the country would be better off, and so would 
Alaska. We live there.
  Most of the people who criticize us have never been there and won't 
go there. Particularly, they won't go there in the wintertime.
  I told the Senate yesterday that when I took my great friend, the 
late Postmaster General, up there one time, we pulled up to the postal 
substation at Prudhoe Bay. The digital thermometer showed minus 99. 
There was a wind chill factor. I didn't have the courage to tell him it 
wouldn't go below 100. That was as far down as it would go. It was 
digital. The wind chill and the temperature had a factor greater than 
minus 100 degrees.
  How many people want to go up there and go around up there? The old 
people

[[Page S2815]]

live there. The Eskimos live there year-round in that climate. We have 
learned how to exist and how to care for ourselves in our environment. 
I have not really been in that too long myself, frankly. I am not that 
acclimated to it.
  I think the real problem is that no one here understands that we 
don't drill in the Arctic in the summertime. It is not a summertime 
operation. You can't get vehicles across the tundra. We wouldn't want 
to do it. It would leave scars. We don't leave scars. They did in times 
gone by, but everybody learned from the mistakes of the past. We wait 
until it is frozen. We take water in, spray water, create an ice road, 
gravel the top of that, and put more water on top of that to make a 
compact ice road. We use it until the springtime when it starts to 
break up, and they don't bring things across that road anymore. As a 
matter of fact, most in the State don't use gravel. They only place 
gravel is used is where they have to have some traction going up the 
hills. There are not many hills, by the way.
  I want to go back again to this problem of steel. I want to first 
take the occasion to thank the great labor leaders of this country who 
took time to join us yesterday in a press conference across from the 
doors of the Senate.
  We had Terry O'Sullivan of the Laborers; Mr. Sullivan of the Building 
Trades Department; Marty Malonie of the Pipefitters; Frank Handly of 
the Operating Engineers; Joe Hunt of the Iron Workers; Terry Turner of 
the Seafarers; Mike Sacco, President of the Seafarers; Mano Frey, 
President of the Alaska AFL-CIO; Jerry Hood, President of the Alaska 
Teamsters and special assistant to President James Hoffa of the 
National Teamsters Union.
  They came to speak to the members of their unions through the press 
to urge them to contact their Senators and ask them to support the 
drilling in the Arctic Plain. They know it means jobs.
  I just heard the Senator from Massachusetts say that at most it is 
only 1 percent of the world's reserves--only 1 percent. These are the 
same people who not 6 months ago were saying ANWR could only produce 
oil that would sustain the United States for 6 months. The projection 
they have on this is the projected estimated reserve. The projected 
reserve in Prudhoe Bay was 1 billion barrels. We have already produced 
13 billion barrels, and we believe there is another 15 years there--
about a third more. We will have produced 20 billion barrels when the 
estimate was reported that the world's reserves were 1 billion barrels. 
So much for reserves.
  The real issue is jobs. That is why these labor leaders were with 
us--jobs. They know we are talking about jobs. When we send our money 
to Saddam Hussein to buy oil from Iraq, we don't involve American jobs. 
We have to find some way to sell something abroad to bring those 
dollars back or we have an imbalance of trade. We have had that for a 
long time. It harms our economy and currency. But we are exporting jobs 
as we import oil.
  That is why they were there. They were there in order to get us to 
understand that they want to help us deal with the creation of jobs 
that would come from pursuing the oil and gas potential of that area.
  They were great friends of Scoop Jackson. They understood, as he 
understood, the Arctic from the point of view of jobs. Jackson did not 
oppose drilling in the Arctic. As a matter of fact, he and Senator 
Tsongas made it possible for us to be here today arguing to proceed as 
was intended in 1980.

  We have added to this the idea of the pending second-degree 
amendment--the amendment I offered which the Senator from Minnesota 
said is a sham amendment. Raising the visibility of the needs of the 
steelworkers and the coal workers is not a sham amendment. You may not 
agree with it, but it is offensive to call it a sham amendment. It is 
only sham because they won't support it. If they supported it, it would 
be very valid, even from their point of view.
  The question is, Can we find a way to reverse the trend that prevents 
the building of the pipeline necessary to bring the already discovered 
and measured gas from Prudhoe Bay to the Midwest? We know it is there--
50 to 70 trillion cubic feet. I don't have the exact figures because it 
was reinjected into the ground. It was estimated to be 50 to 70 
trillion cubic feet of gas produced from the oil since 1968. The gas 
has been reinjected into the ground. We need a 3,000-mile pipeline.
  We are trying to find some way to ask people to address the question 
of how to maintain a steel industry that can support a pipeline of that 
size--1,500 miles of gathering pipelines, thousands of valves, hundreds 
of trucks, hundreds of backhoes, and hundreds of pieces of road-
building equipment to build access to these areas. It is enormous. It 
is the largest gas delivering plan in the world. It is projected to be 
the largest private enterprise project in the history of man--totally 
financed by private enterprise. But if private enterprise doesn't 
survive in the steel industry, we are not going to have that pipeline 
in the timeframe that we need it. If we started it in 2003, the first 
gas would be coming through in about 2010 or 2011. Knowing that the 
environmental opposition will sue, that will add 6 years to that. We 
are talking about between 2015 and 2020 making that gas available to 
the U.S.
  That is why I brought that poster here, to ask people to think ahead. 
Lincoln, one of our greatest Presidents, thought about how to connect 
the east coast and the west coast of the United States. He conceived 
the idea himself to offer a bounty incentive to the railroad industry 
to build the railroad from the east coast to the west coast. He got 
Congress to approve it, and they paid for it. One million dollars was 
to be paid to the first railroad that completed a coast-to-coast 
railroad. Every section along the right-of-way was loaned by the 
Federal Government.
  The problem of the country today is the people living in these States 
don't know the policies that led to their private enterprise as 
compared to the policies that led to our serfdom under the Federal 
Government.
  We thought when we became a State that we had a right--and we did 
have a right--to 103.5 million acres to be selected from vacant, 
unappropriated and unreserved Federal land. To us, that meant as of the 
day we became a State in January of 1959.
  To the people in the Congress, in 1980, it meant those lands that 
were left after they had reserved 104 million acres for special 
purposes for these elite areas. You can't get to them. As I said 
before, only three of them can be reached by road. Most of them don't 
have an airport. You fly in by float plane, or you hike in. They are 
recreational areas for the elite few of the world.
  But, in any event, they withdrew them, preventing the State from 
getting lands it was going to select, preventing the Natives from 
getting the lands they were going to select from the Alaska Native 
Lands settlement.
  People ask: Why were people disturbed? That 1980 act took away from 
the 365-million-acre pool of lands that were available to be selected 
for the State and Native settlements, and reserved them--directly 
contrary to the historical policy of the United States to make Federal 
lands available for sustaining the private enterprise economy.
  By what these people are doing now, we are going to be a dependent 
colony of the United States. We are going to be dependent upon having 
someone, in a position such as mine, who can add to the budget the 
moneys that are necessary for survival in Alaska.
  The real problem about this is that, when you look at the basic law, 
it is July 1, 1862, that led to that. It led to that. Following that, 
in 1984, the Federal Government issued a table of grants to States. I 
want to put this in the Record because it shows what every single State 
has received. There is no question that, as the Nation moved West, the 
policies of the United States were to enhance the development of the 
private sector, as I have said before.
  We end up with a situation, where as of 1983, 3 years after that act 
was passed, the Federal Government still owned 87.9 percent of Alaska. 
The part that we own is subject to control through acts such as the 
1980 act. So it really does not matter. I think that the development of 
these lands, and the use of Federal lands, is a question we ought to 
explore sometime in the future.
  But for now I would like to put in the Record the table that shows 
the grants to the States, from 1803 to 1984, showing what happened in 
the other 49

[[Page S2816]]

States--48 States. Hawaii had the same problem. Hawaii really was not 
treated properly in terms of their lands. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the table be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                                        TABLE 4.--GRANTS TO STATES, 1803-FISCAL YEAR 1984
                                                                                       [Amounts in acres]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Purpose
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   Miscellaneous
              State                                                    Other                                        Canals and     improvements        Swamp
                                  Common schools   Other schools   institutions      Railroads      Wagon roads       rivers           (not         reclamation   Other purposes       Total
                                                                                                                                    specified)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................         911,627         383,785             181       2,747,479  ..............         400,016          97,469         441,666          24,660       5,006,883
Alaska..........................         106,000         112,064       1,000,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............     103,351,187     104,569,251
Arizona.........................       8,093,156         849,197         500,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,101,400      10,543,753
Arkansas........................         933,778         196,080  ..............       2,563,721  ..............  ..............         500,000       7,686,575          56,680      11,936,834
California......................       5,534,293         196,080  ..............             320  ..............  ..............         500,000       2,194,196         400,768       8,825,657
Colorado........................       3,685,618         138,040          32,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............         115,946       4,471,604
Connecticut.....................  ..............         180,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         180,000
Delaware........................  ..............          90,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          90,000
Florida.........................         975,307         182,160  ..............       2,218,705  ..............  ..............         500,000      20,333,430           5,120      24,214,722
Georgia.........................  ..............         270,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         270,000
Idaho...........................       2,963,698         386,686         250,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         654,064       4,254,448
Illinois........................         996,320         526,080  ..............       2,595,133  ..............         324,283         209,086       1,460,164         123,589       6,234,655
Indiana.........................         668,578         436,080  ..............  ..............         170,580       1,480,409  ..............       1,259,271          25,600       4,040,518
Iowa............................       1,000,679         286,080  ..............       4,706,945  ..............         321,342         500,000       1,196,392          49,824       8,061,262
Kansas..........................       2,907,520         151,270             127       4,176,329  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............          59,423       7,794,669
Kentucky........................  ..............         330,000          24,607  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         354,607
Louisiana.......................         807,271         256,292  ..............         373,057  ..............  ..............         500,000       9,505,335  ..............      11,441,955
Maine...........................  ..............         210,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         210,000
Maryland........................  ..............         210,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         210,000
Massachusetts...................  ..............         360,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         360,000
Michigan........................       1,021,867         286,080  ..............       3,134,058         221,013       1,250,236         500,000       5,680,312          49,280      12,142,846
Minnesota.......................       2,874,951         212,160  ..............       8,047,469  ..............  ..............         500,000       4,706,591          80,880      16,422,051
Mississippi.....................         824,213         348,240  ..............       1,075,345  ..............  ..............         500,000       3,348,946           1,253       6,097,997
Missouri........................       1,221,813         376,080  ..............       1,837,968  ..............  ..............         500,000       3,432,561          48,640       7,417,062
Montana.........................       5,198,258         388,721         100,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         276,359       5,963,338
Nebraska........................       2,730,951         136,080          32,000  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............          59,680       3,458,711
Nevada..........................       2,061,967         136,080          12,800  ..............  ..............  ..............         500,000  ..............          14,379       2,725,226
New Hampshire...................  ..............         150,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         150,000
New Jersey......................  ..............         210,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         210,000
New Mexico......................       8,711,324       1,346,546         750,000  ..............  ..............         100,000  ..............  ..............       1,886,848      12,794,718
New York........................  ..............         990,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         990,000
North Carolina..................  ..............         270,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         270,000
North Dakota....................       2,495,396         336,080         250,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          82,076       3,163,552
Ohio............................         724,266         699,120  ..............  ..............          80,774       1,204,114  ..............          26,372          24,216       2,758,862
Oklahoma........................       1,375,000       1,050,000         670,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,095,760
Oregon..........................       3,399,360         136,165  ..............  ..............       2,583,890  ..............         500,000         286,108         127,324       7,032,847
Pennsylvania....................  ..............         780,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         780,000
Rhode Island....................  ..............         120,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         120,000
South Carolina..................  ..............         180,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         180,000
South Dakota....................       2,733,084         366,080         250,640  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          85,569       3,435,373
Tennessee.......................  ..............         300,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000
Texas...........................  ..............         180,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         180,000
Utah............................       5,844,196         556,141         500,160  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         601,240       7,501,737
Vermont.........................  ..............         150,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         150,000
Virginia........................  ..............         300,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         300,000
Washington......................       2,376,391         336,080         200,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         132,000       3,044,471
West Virginia...................  ..............         150,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         150,000
Wisconsin.......................         982,329         332,160  ..............       3,652,322         302,931       1,022,349         500,000       3,361,283          26,430      10,179,804
Wyoming.........................       3,470,009         136,800         420,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         316,431       4,342,520
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................      77,629,220      16,707,787       4,993,275      37,128,851       3,359,188       6,102,749       7,806,555      64,919,202     109,780,866     328,427,693
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are in a situation where one provision 
of our bill--it is in our amendment and in Senator Murkowski's 
underlying amendment--grants the Kaktovik village the right to drill on 
their land. They have land that is owned by their Native village. It 
was part of the 1971 settlement. Their people settled their claims 
against the United States by accepting conveyance of lands that were 
due to them. Each village was given the township in which it was 
located and further lands depending on population.
  But for this village only, in the State of Alaska, there is a Federal 
law in another provision of basic law that says they cannot drill on 
their land, I believe it says, until the 1002 area is authorized to be 
drilled by the Federal Government. In the old days we would have said 
that shows the forked tongue of the Federal Government.
  It told them they had a settlement. It told them they got the right 
to their lands. It gave them fee title to the surface. It gave the 
subsurface to their regional organization. But they cannot use it. Why? 
Because of the policy with regard to the 1002 area. But even there, it 
was, again, an imposition on the private structure of our State.
  I think the great problem I have here is what is going to happen now 
to the steel industry. I have raised the issue, and, apparently, I may 
have done more harm than good, according to some people, at least if 
you listen to the Democratic Senators; that is what they are saying. I 
don't know what good they are doing for them.
  I challenge the Democratic Senators to come up with a proposal to 
find a funding stream to save the rights of the steelworkers and the 
coal workers and be within the budget and not subject to points of 
order and the possibility of being passed. With their help, this would 
pass. With their opposition, it is not going to pass. I know that.
  But what happens to the steelworkers? What happens to the future of 
our gas pipeline if there is no steel industry in the United States? 
You can't even plan ahead. You can't order ahead. I said yesterday, you 
have to order ahead a piece of that big 52-inch diameter, one-inch-
thick pipe, and test it to see if this new concept of a chemically 
treated pipe will withstand the pressures it has to withstand in order 
to have gas pumped 3,000 miles to the market.
  That is not going to exist. The assets of the steel industry are 
going to be burdened by the claims of the working people who have 
retired and who will be put out of work between now and 2004. And it 
makes no sense. It makes no sense that there are over 600,000 who are 
out of their health care. And the Democratic leadership is promising a 
vote on steel legacy costs with no source of money. Where is the money? 
Where are the bucks? Where are the dollars? They have a solution, but 
no one has mentioned from where the money is going to come. Where can 
they find a cash stream that will come in from a new source, replacing 
the money we send out to Saddam Hussein? We would take that money and 
use a portion of the moneys that come to the Federal Government from 
that activity in the Alaska Coastal Plain and solve the problem of the 
steel industry and the steelworkers and let them proceed to reorganize 
the steel industry of the United States.
  Two weeks ago, I am told, 82,000 retirees of LTV Steel lost their 
health care benefits. Another 100,000 are coming. Bethlehem Steel and 
U.S. Steel--

[[Page S2817]]

chapter 11--could go in chapter 7 bankruptcy. No other steel company, 
other than Bethlehem Steel, could have rolled the steel to repair 
the U.S.S. Cole after it was attacked by terrorists. It is in 
bankruptcy facing extinction. And I am criticized for trying to find 
some way to solve the problem that might lead them further down that 
road to extinction.

  I am happy to tell the Senator from those States that I will vote for 
any plan they can come up with which is funded and within the budget 
and does not raise taxes that will solve the problems of their 
retirees. I challenge them to come up with that program. They have 
criticized my suggestion, a legitimate, bona fide attempt to meld two 
basic issues that should be before this Senate. We used to call that 
win-win. It is lose-lose now. We lose; the steelworkers, the coal 
workers lose, too.
  They are not voting one way or the other in my State. I have coal 
workers, but there is no steel in my State. I am not involved in that. 
It is not a political issue, as far as I am concerned.
  I have not told very many people, but I worked in a steel mill once. 
I spent 8, 9 hours a day lifting pieces of rolled steel off the belt. 
Others were lifting the other side. I had one side I was lifting--8\1/
2\ hours a day. That was just before I entered the military to become 
an Army Air Corps cadet. But I have had a lot of jobs. I have had union 
cards, and I am proud of it.
  It offends me greatly that some of these people, some of these people 
who never did a day's work in their life--they never dug a ditch; they 
never lifted steel; they never lifted concrete bags; they really never 
did any real manual work--don't know laborers. They appeal to them 
politically, but they don't know them.
  The laboring people want a check. They want a job. They do not want a 
bunch of BS from the people who represent them. They want their 
benefits to be secured. They depend upon their Government to see it is 
done.
  I do not think they are offended at me for suggesting this. I have 
not had one call from any steelworker or coal worker saying: Hey, guy, 
what are you doing messing up our future? No way. The people are 
accusing me of being crass. And opportunists are afraid of their own 
future, these Senators who won't face up to representing their people. 
I am tired of being accused of doing something wrong by trying to help 
them.
  This is the testimony of a Leo Gerard of the U.S. Steelworkers. He 
opposes this amendment because of his commitments in the past, but he 
gives the story of what happened to the health care and pension 
benefits of the great steel industry. It is quite a story. He points 
out that there are subsidies in other countries for these. We subsidize 
agriculture. We subsidize so many things through entitlements.
  We don't face up to the problem of what we do about retirees who lose 
their benefits because of the failure of the economic system. I don't 
think it is wrong to think about how to use new revenues that come to 
the Federal Government by virtue of legitimate Federal action and 
seeking development on Federal lands, how we can use those revenues to 
meet this crisis as outlined by Mr. Gerard.
  I will not include this testimony because he agrees with me. He 
doesn't agree with me, but he does point out the plight of these people 
he represents. Many of them are retirees who--how can I say this 
gracefully--are approaching my age. They are at the point where they 
are going to need help by the Federal Government one way or the other.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the testimony of Mr. 
Gerard in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. I say to you in closing--I won't be talking on this 
amendment again, I don't think--the Senators who represent coal and 
steelworkers have made their own choice. The environmental movement is 
more important to them than the unemployed workers and retirees who 
lose their benefits in their States. That is the fact. They don't like 
it, but that is the fact.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

 Testimony of Leo W. Gerard, President United Steel Workers of America 
  Before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, 
                             March 14, 2002

       Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee, 
     thank you for your invitation to appear before you today to 
     discuss the health care and pension crisis facing several 
     hundred thousand steelworkers across the nation.
       By every measure, the American steel industry is in crisis. 
     As of today, 32 U.S. steel companies representing nearly 30 
     percent of U.S. steelmaking capacity have filed for 
     bankruptcy. Twenty-one steelmaking plants are idled or 
     shutdown representing the loss of 25 million tons or 19 
     percent of this nation's steelmaking capacity.
       Some analysts mistakenly believe that minimills (which 
     produce steel by melting scrap in electric are furnaces) 
     haven't been hurt by unfair trade and record low prices, it 
     is noteworthy that fifteen of these 21 shutdowns are 
     minimills. In fact, shut down steel capacity is almost evenly 
     divided between integrated steelmakers and minimills.
       Steel prices have fallen to the lowest levels in twenty 
     years. The December, 2001 composite average of steel prices 
     published by Purchasing Magazine had declined by $140 per ton 
     or 33 percent from the average between 1994 and 1997. The 
     industry posted a combined operating loss of $1.3 billion 
     during the first nine months of 2001.
       How did this happen?
       The USWA warned our policymakers as early as 1997 that the 
     Asian economic crisis and the collapse of the Russian economy 
     would, if not dealt with correctly, lead to a flood of 
     imported steel. The delay by our own government in responding 
     to the crisis made matters considerably worse. The events of 
     1997 and 1998 were only the latest in what the U.S. 
     Department of Commerce has identified as thirty years of 
     predatory unfair trading practices and government subsidies 
     by many of our trading partners.
       Some today suggest that the American steel industry must be 
     restructured, as if this had not already happened before. 
     Between 1980 and 1987, the American steel industry underwent 
     a painful restructuring, eliminating 42 million tons of 
     steelmaking capacity. Over 270,000 jobs were eliminated. Many 
     workers were forced to take early retirement based on the 
     promise of a pension and continued health care benefits. The 
     tax base in steel communities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, 
     West Virginia, Minnesota, and elsewhere shrank as workers 
     went from earning paychecks to collecting unemployment 
     benefits. Some local communities have never recovered from 
     the last steel crisis.
       Yes at the same time that our American steel industry has 
     been contracting and downsizing our foreign competitors have 
     been adding additional steelmaking capacity. OECD data 
     indicates that foreign steel producers had excess raw steel 
     production capacity amounting to over 270 million metric 
     tons. That is more than twice the total annual steel 
     consumption in the United States. Recent multilateral talks 
     in Paris on reducing global overcapacity have revealed that 
     despite the reductions in U.S. capacity, our trading partners 
     fully expect the U.S. steel industry to continue to downsize 
     even further. The Paris talks are instructive for they 
     illustrate yet again that multilateral negotiations are no 
     substitute for strong enforcement of our own trade laws, 
     including Section 201 and our anti-dumping laws.
       The testimony which you have heard today from steelworkers 
     and retirees from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota 
     illustrates the depth of concern across the nation by our 
     active members and retirees. They have worked hard and given 
     the best years of their lives to this industry. Now, they are 
     simply asking that promises made become promises kept.
       At the end of 1999, American steel's retiree health care 
     benefit obligation totaled an estimated $13 billion. Health 
     care benefits for 600,000 retired steelworkers, surviving 
     spouses, and dependents annually cost domestic steel 
     producers an estimated $965 million or $9 per ton of steel 
     shipped. Another 700,000 active steelworkers and their 
     dependents rely upon the domestic steel industry for health 
     care benefits. The average steel company has approximately 3 
     retirees for every active employee--nearly triple the ratio 
     for most other major basic manufacturing companies. Several 
     steel companies have retiree health care costs that are 
     substantially higher than the industry average. Our active 
     members and retirees are concentrated most heavily in 
     Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Illinois, West 
     Virginia, Minnesota, and Michigan, but they live all across 
     the nation.
       In the U.S. up to now, we have made a public policy choice 
     in favor of employment-based health insurance coverage rather 
     than guaranteed national health insurance. This means that 
     when an employer goes bankrupt or liquidates its operations, 
     absent a social safety net, workers are at risk of losing 
     their health insurance and access to health care services. 
     Regrettably, thousands of steelworkers from Acme, Laclede, 
     Gulf States, CSC, Northwestern Steel and Wire, and 
     various other steel companies are now facing this terrible 
     prospect.
       The USWA is very proud of its record in negotiating decent 
     health care coverage for both its active workers and its 
     retirees. In 1993, our union made history when we negotiated 
     pre-funding of retiree health care in

[[Page S2818]]

     the iron ore industry. Benefits provided to steel industry 
     retirees are equivalent and, in some cases, more modest, than 
     benefits provided to retirees from other basic manufacturing 
     companies, such as Alcoa, Boeing, and General Motors.
       These plans typically include cost containment provisions, 
     such as deductibles, co-payments, pre-certification 
     requirements, coordination with Medicare, and incentives to 
     utilize managed care. Most of our retirees pay monthly 
     premiums from 25 to 40 percent of their retiree health care 
     benefit, plus several hundred dollars a year in deductibles 
     and co-payments. Retiree premiums from major medical coverage 
     vary by employer due to differences in demographics, regional 
     health care costs, utilization, and design of the plan. The 
     USWA estimates that the average major medical premium during 
     2001 was approximately $200 per month for a non-Medicare 
     eligible couple and $150 a month for a Medicare-eligible 
     couple.
       American steel's international competitors do not bear a 
     similar burden. In one form or another, foreign producers' 
     retiree health care costs are offset by government subsidies.
       In Japan, the government provides government-backed 
     insurance programs. Government subsidies cover some 
     administrative costs and contributions to Japan's health care 
     programs for the elderly.
       In the United Kingdom, the UK's National Health Service is 
     85 to 95 percent funded from general taxation with the 
     remainder coming from employer and employee contributions.
       In Germany, health care is financed through a combination 
     of payroll taxes, local, state, and federal taxes, co-
     payments, and out-of-pocket expenses, along with private 
     insurance. Insurance funds with heavy loads of retired 
     members received governmental subsidies.
       In Russia, de facto government subsidies exist. While 
     Russian steel companies theoretically pay for workers' health 
     care, the national and local governments allow companies not 
     to pay their bills--including taxes and even wages. At the 
     end of 1998, Russian steel companies owed an estimated $836 
     million in taxes. According to the Commerce Department 
     report, the Russian government's ``systematic failure to 
     force large enterprises to pay amounts to a massive 
     subsidy.''
       The U.S. is the only country in the industrial world in 
     which the health care benefits of retirees are not assumed by 
     government to facilitate consolidation in one form or 
     another. It is now very clear that American steelworker 
     retirees stand to be hit twice by the collapse of the steel 
     industry since a majority of them were forced into retirement 
     (350,000)--many prematurely--during the massive restructuring 
     of the steel industry during the late 1970s and the 1980s. 
     First, they lost their jobs before they were ready to retire, 
     and now they may lose their health care and a significant 
     portion of their pension now that they are ready to retire. 
     Our own government's inadequate enforcement of our trade laws 
     is the principal reason that steelworkers and steelworker 
     retirees' health care benefits are now at risk.
       Because our government has allowed this unlevel and unfair 
     trade environment to develop and consume our industry, 
     government now has a responsibility to our steelworkers and 
     retirees and to the steel industry to help craft a solution 
     to this problem.
       Why is action needed?
       Retirees under age 65 and older active employees who have 
     been displaced by plant shutdowns are not yet covered by 
     Medicare.
       They cannot purchase COBRA continuation coverage because 
     companies are not obligated to provide COBRA coverage when 
     they no longer maintain a health care plan for employees 
     actively at work. Steel companies which have filed for 
     Chapter 7 bankruptcy (i.e., liquidation) have already moved 
     to terminate health care plans for their workers and 
     retirees.
       They cannot afford COBRA premiums even when such coverage 
     is available.
       They cannot afford commercially-available health insurance 
     coverage.
       Many cannot meet insurability requirements (and may not 
     have continuous coverage under HIPAA).
       Many have difficulty in finding new jobs that pay similar 
     wages or benefits.
       Why is action needed for retirees age 65 and over?
       Because Medicare has significant gaps in its coverage. 
     Medicare also has significant deductibles and co-payments. 
     There is no coverage for expensive outpatient prescription 
     drugs. Also, health care providers often do not accept 
     Medicare reimbursement rates as full payment, at which point 
     they go after the retiree for full payment.
       Medicare Supplemental Insurance (``Medigap'') is available, 
     but it is costly and has limited prescription drug coverage. 
     The most comprehensive of the Medigap supplements (Plan J) 
     covers only 50 percent of prescription drug costs and limits 
     drug benefits to $3,000 per year.
       The average retiree receives a monthly pension benefit of 
     less than $600 to $700 per month. Most surviving spouses 
     receive monthly benefits under $200 per month.
       Finally, Medicare HMOs (or as they are sometimes referred 
     to ``Medicare+Choice'') are available only in limited areas 
     of the nation.
       Some who have looked at this problem, particularly with 
     respect to access to prescription drugs, have said the Bush 
     Administration's proposed ``Medicare Prescription Drug Card'' 
     might be a possible solution. The proposed card would provide 
     discounts of 10 to 25 percent from retail drug prices.
       But low income drug assistance is limited to people below 
     150 percent of the Federal poverty level. That's an 
     individual with an annual income of $12,000 or a couple with 
     a combined annual income of $15,000. In fact, more than half 
     of Medicare beneficiaries would not qualify for Low-Income 
     Drug Assistance. The Low-Income Drug Assistance proposal does 
     not describe how premiums would be set nor does it describe 
     the level of out-of-pocket expenses (i.e., deductibles or co-
     payments) to be paid by Medicare recipients. Also, states 
     would be required to assume 10 percent of the cost of the 
     Low-Income Drug Assistance proposal at a time when nearly 
     every state is facing budget deficits because of the 
     recession and sharply-rising costs for their Medicaid 
     programs.
       The Bush Administration is also considering tax credits as 
     a device for helping the uninsured. Under this proposal, a 
     refundable tax credit of $1,000 to $3,000 (depending on 
     family size) would be made available to individuals without 
     employer-provided health insurance. The problem here is that 
     the tax credits are too small to make health insurance. The 
     problem here is that the tax credits are too small to make 
     health insurance affordable. A ``Family USA'' study found 
     that a healthy 25-year-old woman pays an average of $4,734 
     per year for coverage under a standard health plan, compared 
     to the $1,000 tax credit offered.
       Until the steep increases in health care costs can be 
     contained, the real value of any refundable tax credit will 
     diminish year by year. A recent report from the Centers for 
     Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is an arm of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, says that health 
     care costs are expected to grow at a rate of 7.3 percent 
     annually between now and 2011. That means that by 2011, 
     Americans will be spending $9,216 per person on health care, 
     or about double what they spent in 2000. The nation's health 
     care bill could reach $2.8 trillion, or 17 percent of the 
     nation's gross domestic product, by 2011.
       Clearly, this problem is not going to go away.
       While the United Steelworkers was pleased that the 
     President took a step toward reigning in steel imports by 
     imposing variable tariffs on steel products in the recent 
     Section 201 case, the President pointedly chose not to 
     address the matter of the retirement and health security of 
     steelworkers and our retirees. He is apparently leaving this 
     unfinished business in Congress' hands.
       Let me state this very clearly. It is the view of the 
     United Steelworkers of America that the pension and health 
     care commitments made to our active workers and retirees must 
     be honored. These issues are every bit as important to us as 
     the recent Section 201 determination on restraining foreign 
     steel imports.
       Our active members as well as our retirees look to you for 
     action. We will work with you and your colleagues in both the 
     House and Senate continuously until this problem is solved 
     and we will not relent in our efforts.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am not going to be debating the specific 
amendment on the floor now but, rather, a context in which I believe 
this amendment and most other aspects of this energy legislation should 
be considered.
  There are three principles I would like to discuss at this hour of 
the evening. First is, when should we, the Congress of the United 
States, adopt an energy policy? When can we legislate dispassionately, 
not in response to an immediate emergency?
  Second, an energy policy for when? It makes a considerable difference 
if we are developing a policy for the next 10 years as opposed to what 
I think should be the more appropriate timeframe, at least the next 50 
years, that we are legislating not for ourselves but for our 
grandchildren.
  And third, an energy policy should include a recognition of other 
affected issues--economic, environment, and more.
  A persistent problem in crafting energy policy is the fact that our 
willingness to act is greatest in the midst of a crisis, a disruption, 
or spikes in prices. History has repeatedly shown us that energy crises 
are the worst time to try to solve our problems. Short-term policy 
initiatives that deal with things such as market upheavals are often 
counterproductive. They respond to temporary circumstances. They might 
be political; they might be economic. They could even be climactic.
  California blackouts were the initial impetus for the energy 
legislation we have today. Those blackouts are now hopefully a thing of 
the past. Yet we now are casting this issue as how to respond to the 
threat from Saddam Hussein, that he will cut off supplies from Iraq.

[[Page S2819]]

  Even if there were silver bullets that the Congress could use to deal 
with these short-term energy disruptions, Congress often moves too 
slowly to shoot those bullets in the right direction to hit the right 
target.
  Long-term measures, such as promoting energy efficiency and launching 
new forms of energy production, don't have time to affect the market if 
these conditions are temporary.
  It would seem to me that the solution to this problem is both logical 
and obvious. The solution, however, goes against our natural 
inclinations. The time to address energy issues is between crises, when 
there is a better chance to do something that will actually work.
  If I could refer on this special day, the 54th anniversary of the 
establishment of the State of Israel, to an event which occurred in 
that region of the world and is recorded in the Book of Genesis. It is 
Joseph's interpretation of the Pharaoh's dream about 7 good years 
followed by 7 lean years.
  What Joseph's interpretation teaches us is that if we are going to 
deal with famine, the time to do so is not when the famine has 
commenced but, rather, the time to do so is during those years of 
plenty, to set aside for the lean years that will surely be ahead.
  The core of a wise energy policy is to avoid a focus on the here and 
now and look over the 50-year horizon. The focus should not be on us, 
the current generation but, rather, should be on the well-being of our 
grandchildren.
  An astute public official once said:

       If we ever go into another world war, it is quite possible 
     that we would not have access to the petroleum reserves held 
     in the Middle East. But in the meantime, the use of those 
     middle eastern reserves would prevent the depletion of our 
     own domestic petroleum reserves.

  That wise public official was Navy Secretary James Forrestal. And the 
date of his wise statement was 1946.
  Forrestal's statement was remarkable in several respects. First, he 
was looking beyond the next year to what would be happening over the 
next half century, setting a good example for the kind of thinking to 
which we should repair as we ask the question: What kind of an energy 
policy for America, for when?
  Second, James Forrestal suggests that we can't change the inevitable. 
We are not going to be able to produce our way out of the challenges 
created by our appetite for oil. If we were to take a 50-year view as 
Mr. Forrestal suggested, what are the challenges we must overcome?
  First, there is no likely scenario that will alter the reality that 
most of the oil consumed in the United States from today into the 
future will come from foreign sources. Shares of imported oil have been 
rising steadily for years. Proposals such as those before us in the 
past few days might slow this trend, but they will not reverse it.
  Second, we will likely see the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse 
gases that are the by-product of fossil energy use.
  There is definitive evidence that greenhouse gases impact our climate 
and our environment. Because greenhouse gases accumulate in the 
atmosphere and remain there for decades, or longer, we must commence 
action now in order to avoid unrestrainable consequences in the future.
  We must prepare by taking steps to ensure that strong, early action 
will avoid the need for drastic, expensive, and maybe unavailable steps 
when it is too late.
  Third, we must develop and utilize alternative fuels, both as a means 
of reducing our total fossil fuel consumption and the greenhouse gases 
which are an outgrowth of the use of fossil fuel. Alternatives are an 
important component of a diverse national environmental portfolio. They 
represent a solution to our dependence on fossil fuels and 
environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. Alternatives are 
critical in a policy that does not believe we should focus our energy 
goals on draining America first.
  I suggest that there are some opportunities in an enlightened energy 
policy for our Nation. There are three points contained in the energy 
bill upon which I believe we can all agree. I will point to these as 
the core of an intelligent energy policy.
  Point No. 1: We know we need to increase storage in the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve in order to provide a greater cushion against 
disruption in oil supplies. Since the price of oil fell in the mid-
1980s, we have missed many opportunities to build petroleum reserves at 
a time when we can do so relatively inexpensively. One reason may have 
been the false sense of security that the end of the Persian Gulf war 
brought in the early 1990s.
  During that period, we were able to replace the lost production from 
Iraq and Kuwait with only a minor release from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. Why did this seem to happen so effortlessly? Primarily because 
we were fortunate to have allies, such as the Saudis, increase their 
production. The Saudis have been good allies on numerous occasions, but 
do we really want to have an energy policy for the next 50 years that 
depends upon the good will of our allies and their own uninterrupted 
excess capacity?
  One of the positive aspects of the President's strategy for energy is 
his announced support for filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 
its current capacity. This act alone will not solve our problems, but 
it is a good first step and should be implemented. A larger reserve 
will not eliminate our vulnerabilities, but it will reduce the economic 
impacts of disruptions and threats from abroad.
  Point No. 2: We must use the energy we have available as efficiently 
as possible. Energy efficiency cannot be accomplished in one giant 
step. It takes time for manufacturers to modernize their means of 
production. It takes even longer for equipment stock to turn over so 
that customers are buying the more efficient product.
  What we need is steady progress. This is a marathon, not a 100-yard 
sprint. We cannot rely solely on research and development. Low average 
energy prices in the United States limit the economic incentives to 
research and develop fuel-saving technologies. More broadly, the entire 
marketplace does not fully reflect environmental and long-term 
strategic concerns.
  In order to mitigate these realities, we have used efficiency 
standards for automobiles and appliances to achieve national goals. 
These standards have allowed us to make significant strides in reducing 
energy use. During the 1990s, while we made significant progress in 
some areas, such as the efficiency of refrigerators, we have moved 
backward in the area that is the largest consumer of fossil fuels, 
which is transportation. During this period, numerous technological 
advances for automobiles were introduced and widely implemented, such 
as airbags, crumple zones, and all-wheel drive. But none of these 
advances was aimed at increasing the efficiency, increasing the gas 
mileage of the vehicle.

  Now we are on the verge of additional technologies coming to the 
market, such as the electric hybrid vehicle which is making its debut 
to very promising reviews. Let's assure the American people that some 
of these technological advances will go to reducing the amount of money 
we spend on petroleum. In the appliances market, we can reduce the 
summer peak loads of electricity by insisting on greater efficiency for 
air-conditioners. It will take years for new, more efficient models to 
completely absorb the market. The sooner we start, the sooner we will 
begin to see the results.
  Point No. 3: We must increase the share of alternative sources of 
energy. If we try to do this all at once, the economic cost will be 
high. But if we opt for a steady progress toward greater use of 
alternative energy sources, we can expand our energy options and do so 
at a reasonable cost. We also must do this with flexibility. We are a 
diverse nation of States. Each State, each locale, has conditions that 
make it different from others. Those differences often impact on the 
ways in which States can participate in national initiatives, including 
the efforts to increase the use of alternative energy and thus reduce 
the reliance on fossil fuel.
  Point No. 4: We should strive for diversity in our energy sources. 
Renewables will contribute to that diversity. Another area that I 
believe has and, in the future, will contribute to that diversity is 
commercial nuclear power. It wasn't long ago that commercial nuclear 
power was providing 25 percent of our Nation's electric generation. 
Today, it is down to 20 percent and

[[Page S2820]]

sliding lower. At the same time, that proportion of energy that used to 
be provided by nuclear is being provided by natural gas. While there 
are some compelling environmental reasons that natural gas is an 
attractive energy source for electric production, it contributes to the 
depletion of an important American natural resource, to use an energy 
source which is a direct provider of energy, to become an indirect 
provider of energy by converting natural gas into electric generation. 
I applaud the provisions of this legislation that will, hopefully, 
begin to re-energize a safe and secure contribution to the diversity of 
our electric generation capacity through nuclear.
  In the coming years, we will see ups and downs in energy prices. We 
have been on a roller coaster for the past several months, seeing some 
of the highest and some of the lowest gasoline prices in recent memory. 
We will likely see times of turmoil. We are likely to see oil 
increasingly being used as a weapon in geopolitical disputes. We are 
likely to see times of calm. During those times, energy seems to be the 
least of our worries.
  But we have before us now an opportunity, an opportunity to create an 
energy policy for the next generations of Americans, the next 
generations of citizens of this planet. We are given the opportunity to 
develop an energy policy that can help us leave a cleaner, safer, more 
prosperous world, and a world in which energy is used to serve human 
purposes, not as a source of intimidation.
  Our grandchildren will thank us.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the Senator from Alaska. 
The Senator from Alaska indicated he wishes to speak for some time 
tonight, and I have indicated to him we have a few matters we need to 
do to close the business of the Senate for today.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:45 a.m. on 
Thursday, April 18, following the opening proceedings, the Senate 
resume consideration of S. 517 and that there be debate until 11:45 
a.m. with respect to the cloture motions filed, with the time equally 
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; 
further, that the time from 11:25 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. be controlled as 
follows: 11:25 a.m. to 11:35 a.m. under the control of the Republican 
leader, or his designee; and from 11:35 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. under the 
control of the majority leader, or his designee; that at 11:45 a.m., 
without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to 
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Stevens second-degree 
amendment No. 3133, that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII 
be waived; provided further that Members have until 10:45 a.m. to file 
any second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________