[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 43 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2857-S2869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my good friend, the majority whip from Nevada. 
I am sure at some point in time the situation will be reversed, and we 
will be on a Nevada issue of some torturous nature, Yucca Mountain or 
some such issue, and he will be here through the evening time.
  I recognize the hour is late, and I also recognize the issue before 
us is the crux of the energy debate. It is the so-called lightning rod 
known as ANWR.
  It has been interesting to be here today and participate with a 
number of Senators, almost all of whom have never been to my State and 
visited ANWR. They certainly had some strong opinions about it. One has 
to question where those opinions may have come from, but I am sure they 
meant well and their own convictions as they stated them were 
reflective of information they had.
  I am going to spend a little time tonight on information and 
education. Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, you and I both know 
we are speaking to an empty Chamber. On the other hand, I appreciate 
the courtesy of your attention and that of the staff who is still with 
us.
  We have a different audience out there, and we do not know who they 
are, but I think it is fair to say that from the debate here, a lot of 
Members of this body are not too well informed on the factual issues in 
my State of Alaska. Senator Stevens and I have attempted to change that 
by a characterization that we think is representative of the facts 
associated with resource development in our State.
  I hope as we address whatever audience may be out there, that they, 
too, recognize certain realities of those of us who have been elected 
by our constituents to represent their interests. It is in that vein 
that I speak to you tonight, Mr. President.
  I guess this all started in the sense of a slippery slope when 
Republicans lost control of this body. We had a vote on ANWR in 1995. 
It passed in the omnibus bill. President Clinton vetoed it. At that 
time, control of the Senate was in Republican hands, 55 to 45. Now it 
is 50 to 49 in favor of the Democrats. This is a clear reality, and I 
am sure it will be reflected in the cloture votes tomorrow.
  One could say that the salvation of ANWR is pretty much directed by 
the Republican Party. That certainly has been the case in the past, and 
it appears to be the case today. We will see where it is tomorrow.
  The last time we had an ANWR vote, it was a simple majority. We were 
not faced with a cloture vote. We were not faced with having to 
overcome 60 votes. Equity is equity and rules are rules, and I 
understand that. But the manner in which this occurred is particularly 
offensive to me because I happened to be at the beginning of this year 
the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. One of my 
goals, of course, was to present before that committee that I chaired 
the ANWR amendment, debate it, and vote it out.
  Then we had a little change of structure in the Senate in June and, 
as a consequence, the Republicans lost control of the Senate. I still 
had hopes because some of my Democratic friends had actually visited 
ANWR and they were convinced it could be opened up safely. As a 
consequence of the chronology of that, I had assumed we would take up 
the energy bill in the committee of jurisdiction, debate it, come up 
with amendments, and present it on the floor of the Senate.
  Had that been done, we would not have been required to have a 60-vote 
point of order on a cloture vote, and we all know that, but that was 
not the case because I can only assume through a recognition of the 
exposure that the Republicans had lost control of the Senate and the 
recognition of the availability of the rules that the Democratic 
leadership found a way to get around that.
  What they did is they simply took the energy bill away from the 
committee of jurisdiction and proceeded to introduce it on the floor of 
the Senate, as is the prerogative of the majority leader.
  Whether it is crooked or not, whether you feel bad or not, it is 
within the rules of this body and, as a consequence, it was done.
  That presented the dilemma that Senator Stevens and I faced in 
proceeding. It was a little more complex than that because it put a 
burden on other Members, as well, because the other Members clearly, as 
we got into the intricacies of the energy bill, were faced with an 
educational process of electricity, alternative energy sources, some 
relatively complex issues that ordinarily would be addressed in the 
vein of the committee process, and go to the floor with specific 
recommendations and block bases of support.
  In any event, to get to the bottom line, we are faced with the 
reality that we now need 60 votes because it was structured that way. 
There was no other way to avoid it because we simply could not get a 
simple majority vote for the reason we had to add the ANWR amendment 
in, and in so doing, we were under the exposure of cloture.
  Had it been in the bill, we would have been faced with the much more 
favorable alternative of a simple majority. So that is where we are 
today.
  I think it is important to reflect a little bit on where the 
amendments are relative to what is before us. As I think

[[Page S2858]]

everyone is quite familiar with by now, we have a second degree, and 
the second degree is very specific in its recognition of what it does. 
It specifically states that any proceeds from the development of ANWR, 
which would result from the leases and the royalty bids, would go to 
the steel industry.
  I think the rationale for this is quite evident. The steel industry 
is in a difficult position. We have seen a decline of that industry. 
People have indicated from time to time there are a couple of things we 
have to have as a nation. One is steel. One is energy. One is food. We 
have seen our steel industry reduced dramatically in the last couple of 
decades to the point where the viability of the American steel industry 
is clearly in question.
  What we had was an opportunity to meld two projects together. This 
would address jobs, this would address the opportunity to revitalize 
the American steel industry, because, as has been pointed out, with the 
discovery of natural gas in Prudhoe Bay, we came across about 36 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
  I am going to point out the general area of Prudhoe Bay. As a 
consequence of that discovery of gas, the question was: When and how 
can it be developed?
  It was found as a consequence of developing the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. 
As we developed the oilfields, we found more gas. We did not have any 
way to take that gas to market. So we began to develop some proposals.
  The blue line on the chart indicates the proposed route of the 
TransAlaska gasline. That line is estimated to be about 3,000 miles 
long. It would go ultimately to the Chicago city gate. It would move 
about 4 billion cubic feet a day and have a capacity of about 6 billion 
cubic feet a day. I have to be careful with the numbers because the 
design capacity is in the trillions. The movement per day is in the 
billions.
  As a consequence, it would be the largest construction project ever 
undertaken in North America. The cost is estimated to be about $20 
billion.
  We have had some experience because we built an oil pipeline that 
traversed a significant portion of Alaska. That oil pipeline is seen on 
this particular chart. It goes from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. All of that 
pipe came from Japan, Korea, and Italy. Why? Because we did not make 
48-inch oil pipe.

  With this other proposal I have outlined, the obvious opportunity for 
the American steel industry, for rejuvenation, is, who is going to make 
this pipe? This is going to be 52-inch pipe. It is going to be X-80 to 
X-100 steel. That is the tinsel strength of the steel. The significance 
of that is obvious. Somebody is going to build it. If it is not built 
in America, where is it going to be built? I assume Japan, Korea, 
Taiwan perhaps.
  Is there a way we could build that steel in this country, stimulate 
the rejuvenation of the industry and, as a consequence of the 
opportunity, recognize that we were probably going to generate 
somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion over 30 years from the 
royalties and lease sale of ANWR? Why not put it into the steel 
industry?
  The second-degree amendment that is pending and will be voted on 
first tomorrow, which should be of great interest to the steel industry 
and the unions, as well as some 600,000 current retirees who, I 
understand, are in jeopardy of losing their health care benefits, would 
be an opportunity to address that.
  We structured a revenue split for the second-degree amendment. 
Initially, it would contribute to the steel legacy program 
approximately $8 billion. Recognizing that there is a shortfall in the 
United Coal Mine Workers combined benefit funds, there was a proposal 
that a billion dollars would go into that fund.
  Some people are going to criticize this and say this is a way to buy 
votes; this is a way to take money from the Federal Treasury.
  I encourage Members to reflect a little bit on what our obligation is 
to those who depend on Medicare. Many of those people will fall into 
that category, if they are not already there. Obviously, we have an 
obligation to consider how to take care of those that have contributed 
into retirement funds and found those funds not adequately funded for 
the benefits.
  So as we address the merits of how this effort is structured, we 
should consider a more positive contribution, and that is the $232 
million that is proposed for commercial grants for the retooling of the 
industry so they can address competitively a large project like the $5 
billion natural gas pipeline, some 3,000 miles of pipeline.
  Further, there was funding for $155 million of labor training. There 
was also another $160 million for conservation programs, for 
maintenance of park and habitat restoration. That is what the second-
degree amendment is all about. It says the money that is recognized 
from the sale of leases and royalties from ANWR, which is Federal land, 
will go back and rejuvenate the steel industry so it can get back on 
its feet and again address its opportunity to participate in the 
continued development of steel products in this country as opposed to 
having them imported.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, this administration just granted a 
30-percent protective tariff on steel. So clearly they have an 
opportunity, they have kind of a comfort zone, if they are willing to 
recognize the benefits of this.
  I understand some Members said we are going to take this up 
separately anyway, but the fallacy in that argument is where is the 
money going to come from? There is no identification of the funds. If 
we do not open ANWR, we are not going to have that availability of this 
$10 billion to $12 billion. What is going to be done about rejuvenating 
the steel industry? What is going to be done about the prospects of a 
major order for 3,000 miles of pipe? I guess we will just shrug and 
say: Well, there goes another contract overseas that could have been 
done by American labor.
  So that is the second degree we are going to be voting on first 
tomorrow.
  In line with that, I have been handed a letter from Phil English and 
Bob Ney, both Members of Congress:

                                                U.S. Congress,

                                    Washington, DC April 17, 2002.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: 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.
           Sincerely,
         Phil English, Bob Ney, Steven LaTourette, Robert 
           Aderholt, George Gekas, Jack Quinn, John Shimkus, Frank 
           Mascara, Ralph Regula, Alan Mollohan, William Lipinski, 
           and Melissa Hart.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. There is an expression from a dozen or so House 
Members saying this is an opportunity. You might not get it again. We 
have identified significant funding to rejuvenate the steel industry, 
take care of the retirees, and put it back on its feet.
  As we address the amendment, I want to make sure everybody 
understands what is in it. There have been generalizations from the 
other side that this is simply a second-degree amendment which takes 
any funds that would open up ANWR and provides for the rejuvenation of 
the steel industry, while the first degree would be an up-down vote on 
opening ANWR.
  First of all, this amendment does not open ANWR. ANWR would only be 
opened if our President certifies to Congress that the exploration, 
development, and production of oil and gas resources in the ANWR 
Coastal Plain are in the national economic and security interests of 
the United States.
  It is pretty simple. The President of the United States has to 
certify that

[[Page S2859]]

the ANWR Coastal Plain should be open. Then the Secretary of the 
Interior will implement a leasing program. Then the following will 
apply.
  I don't want to hear any more that this is an up-down vote to open 
ANWR. It is to give our President extraordinary authority, almost a 
declaration of war. Don't we trust him and his Cabinet to make a 
determination that this is in the national security interests of this 
Nation? I certainly trust our President to make that finding. The 
President has to certify to us, the Congress, that exploration, 
development, and production are in the national economic and security 
interests. I can state now it is certainly in the national security 
interests relative to the situation in the Middle East where we are 58-
percent dependent on imported oil. I will get into that later. The 
stimulation of the steel industry alone substantiates that particular 
cover.
  We will look at what is in this. There is a Presidential finding. The 
President has the authority. We are giving it to him. He has to come to 
Congress and certify, again, production is in the national economic and 
security interests.
  We have mandated a 2,000-acre limitation on surface disturbance. It 
is that simple. That is what it means, 2,000 acres. We have an export 
ban. Oil from the refuge cannot be exported.
  I heard a conversation the oil will be exported or has been exported. 
The natural market for Alaskan oil is the west coast of the United 
States. We have a chart that demonstrates where Alaskan oil goes. It 
goes to the nearest refining areas. This chart shows Alaska and Valdez. 
It shows it goes to Puget Sound in the State of Washington, it goes to 
San Francisco, Los Angeles, and some to Hawaii. We do not see a line to 
Japan. We exported some to Japan. It was excess to the west coast 
refineries. That is the economics of it. Why send it further? Can you 
get more for it? That is kind of hard to figure because you bring it 
over from Iraq or from Saudi Arabia when you have it in proximity 
relative to Alaska.
  The other thing unique about this oil, it could only go in U.S. ships 
because of the Jones Act, mandating carriage between two American ports 
be in U.S.-flagged vessels. These are American jobs. Every one of the 
ships was built in a U.S. yard. Every one of those is crewed by U.S. 
crews and carries an American flag. And 85 percent of the total tonnage 
in the American merchant marine is in the Alaskan oil trade. Bring oil 
from Saudi Arabia, you could bring it from Iraq, you can bring it in a 
foreign ship. What happens in Seattle, Puget Sound, San Francisco, Los 
Angeles? Talk about all the conservation you want, but you will still 
bring oil because the world and America moves on oil. That is the only 
transportation method.
  This issue of export is not a factor because it is banned. It says it 
cannot be exported, with one exception, and that is to Israel. We have 
had with Israel an oil supply agreement that expires in the year 2004. 
We are extending that to the year 2014.
  Where is the Israeli lobbying group? I will throw a few in the 
Record: the Zionist Organization of America, Americans For A Safe 
Israel, B'Nai B'rith International.
  I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record.
  Thee being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Zionist Organization of America,

                                  New York, NY, November 26, 2001.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Zionist 
     Organization of America--the oldest, and one of the largest, 
     Zionist movements in the United States--we are writing to 
     express our strong support for your efforts to make our 
     country less dependent on foreign oil sources, by developing 
     the oil resources in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge.
       At time when our nation is at war against international 
     terrorism, it is more important than ever that we work 
     quickly to free ourselves of dependence on oil produced by 
     extremist dictators. Such dependence leaves the United States 
     dangerously vulnerable.
       Your initiative to develop the vast oil resources of Alaska 
     will make it possible to rid America of this dependence and 
     thereby strengthen our nation's security.
           Sincerely,
     Morton A. Klein,
       National President.
     Dr. Alan Mazurek,
       Chairman of the Board.
     Dr. Michael Goldblatt,
       Chairman, National Executive Committee.
     Sarah Stern,
       National Policy Coordinator.
                                  ____



                                  Americans For A Safe Israel,

                                  New York, NY, November 30, 2001.
     Attention: Brian Malnak
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: Americans for a Safe Israel is a 
     national organization with chapters throughout the country 
     and a growing membership including members living in other 
     countries. AFSI was founded in 1971, dedicated to the premise 
     that a strong Israel is essential to Western interests in the 
     Middle East.
       We have many Middle East experts on our committees, who 
     have authored texts on Israel and the Arab states and have 
     appeared in television interviews, forums, and on newspaper 
     op-ed pages. U.S. senators and representatives have been 
     guest speakers at AFSI annual conferences.
       Americans for a Safe Israel is strongly in support of your 
     amendment which would permit drilling for oil in the ANWR 
     area of Alaska. Your eloquence in addressing the Senate 
     yesterday and this morning should have convinced the 
     undecided that the arguments offered by senators in the 
     opposition, or by environmental activists, are not based on 
     the facts or realities in the ANWR and of our need for energy 
     independence.
       We at Americans for a Safe Israel would be pleased if you 
     would include our organization among American Jewish 
     organizations in support of your amendment regarding oil 
     exploration in the ANWR.
           Sincerely,
     Herbert Zweibon,
       Chairman, Americans for a Safe Israel.
                                  ____



                                   B'nai B'rith International,

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 2002.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     The White House,
      Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We write to you as the US Senate 
     debates national energy legislation, a critical national 
     security issue, in support of both modest Corporate Average 
     Fuel Economy increases and the environmentally safe 
     exploration and extraction of petroleum from the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge. Together Washington will lessen the 
     nation's reliance on foreign energy sources, now estimated at 
     close to 60 percent of our consumption.
       We endorse the recent compromise proposal to bring required 
     fuel economy ratings for vehicles--including sport utility 
     vehicles now subject to a lower standard--up to 35 miles per 
     gallon by 2015. As you know, under current federal 
     regulations automakers are required to achieve an average of 
     27.5 mpg for new passenger cars, and only 20.7 mpg for new 
     light-duty trucks. The reinstitution of a meaningful CAFE 
     standard will serve as a hallmark of America's conservation 
     policy; the National Academy of Sciences concluded recently 
     that CAFE requirements have resulted in a savings of 
     ``roughly 2.8 million barrels of gasoline per day from where 
     it would be in the absence of CAFE standards.''
       Similarly, it must be recognized that conservation alone is 
     not a meaningful answer to the new realities our nation 
     faces. Ending our dependency on oil and natural gas from 
     dictorial regimes and authoritarian governments that actively 
     sponsor international terrorist groups--including al-Qaeda 
     and other movements that threaten our nation's most cherished 
     principles--requires increasing domestic production, too. 
     Such a plan includes exploration and extraction in the Arctic 
     refuge. While B'nai B'rith International sympathizes with 
     some of the environmental issues that have been raised 
     regarding that area's future, we believe that, in wartime, 
     our number one priority must be to take all credible steps 
     necessary to protect our national security interests. 
     Replacing up to 30 years worth of oil imports from Saudi 
     Arabia or 50 years of oil imports from Iraq will provide 
     critical leverage for American foreign policy in the years to 
     come.
       To be sure, it will be several years before both of these 
     important proposals will have a discernable impact on US 
     energy policy. At this time there is every reason to believe 
     that we will still be fighting terrorists who seek to destroy 
     our nation. Accordingly, it is imperative that both measures 
     are enacted into law at the earliest opportunity so that by 
     decade's end America will be less reliant on foreign energy 
     and enjoy greater national security.
           Sincerely,
                                              Richard D. Heideman,
                                          International President.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. A few of the national Jewish organizations recognize 
what is happening currently, and that is oil is funding terrorism.
  We all remember September 11 when, for the first time, an aircraft 
was used as a weapon. Now we have statements from people such as Saddam 
Hussein. What is he saying? Oil is a weapon.
  Are we contributing to those weapons? Yes, we are. Here is, 
currently, an

[[Page S2860]]

example. Perhaps it is extreme and perhaps a little inappropriate, but 
where and who funds the suicide bombers in Israel? We know who funds 
them. Oil. Who has the oil? Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein, via 
American oil purchase. When we go to the gas station, we should think 
of our responsibility because our responsibility goes beyond filling 
our gas tank. Where do we get some of our oil? There is 58 percent that 
comes from overseas.
  How much do we get from Saddam Hussein currently? A million barrels. 
How much did we get September 11? It was 1.1 million on September 11, 
the highest of any other time.
  This is off the Bank of Baghdad, $25,000, which is what he is paying 
the suicide bombers. He used to pay $10,000. That is an incentive that 
could reach our shores. That is some of the vulnerability we have as we 
look at the consequences of increasing our dependence on imported oil.
  This Senator from Alaska understands we are not going to eliminate 
our dependence, but if we make a commitment, we will open ANWR; we will 
reduce our dependence; we will send a very strong message not only to 
Saddam Hussein but OPEC and that cartel over there. It is illegal to 
have a cartel in this country. That cartel over there, we are going to 
send them a message that we mean business about reducing our 
dependence.
  Do you know what OPEC did not so long ago? They got together, had 
their cartel meeting, said we want the price to go up, and said we are 
going to put a floor and ceiling, $22 as a floor, $28 as a ceiling. How 
do they do it? By controlling the supply. It is just that simple 
because we are addicted to Mideast oil.
  Here is another photo of our friend, Saddam Hussein. Here is where it 
comes from. It has been increasing all the time--1.1 million, that was 
from Energy Information, September 2001. Here is where we get our oil: 
Iraq, Persian Gulf, OPEC. American families are counting on them, I 
guess.
  That is why we have to protect Israel. That is why we are extending, 
in this legislation, the U.S. oil supply arrangement through the year 
2014.
  Furthermore, we are going to increase wilderness. What we are going 
to do is we are going to take the 1002 area, which everybody has 
concluded is at great risk, although Alaskans believe it can be 
developed responsibly--that is 1.5 million acres--what we are going to 
do is add another 1.5 million from a refuge and put it in in 
perpetuity, so we are going to increase this wilderness area from about 
9 million acres to about 10.5 million acres. We think that is a fair 
trade. Yet not one Member of the other side has acknowledged that is of 
any significance.
  I can only assume the other side has been pretty well--I won't say 
brainwashed, but there have been some convincing arguments from our 
extreme environmental friends. Somehow, more wilderness is not the 
answer. It is simply to kill ANWR. And the rationale is obvious: ANWR 
has been a cash cow and these organizations have milked it for all it 
is worth.

  To give some idea, we have a State that is pretty big. It is one-
fifth the size of the United States. We have a map here that gives some 
idea of the comparison. This is a comparative scale. Alaska over the 
United States, the comparative scale, it will run roughly from Florida 
almost to California. It will run almost from the Canadian border to 
almost the Mexican border. It is a big chunk of real estate. I don't 
see anybody from Texas here, but it is 2.5 times the size of Texas.
  It is a big piece of real estate, and it is an important piece of 
real estate, but it has a small population, a very small population. As 
we look at that population and recognize that over 75 percent support 
opening ANWR, we begin to reflect a little bit on what this debate is 
all about. It is all about a theory that there has to be somewhere, 
someplace, in the minds of a lot of Americans, that is untouched, where 
there is no footprint, that only the hand of God has caressed.
  We all respect, obviously, the well-meaning environmental groups. But 
as far as our State is concerned, we believe we have been overexposed 
because a few years ago, we counted up the number of environmental 
groups that had offices in Alaska, primarily Anchorage. There were 
about 62. The last time I looked there were over 90. These are 
organizations that are located outside that have offices in Alaska. 
They have young environmental lawyers who are almost coming up to do a 
missionary commitment. They file an injunction on any project anywhere, 
a log dump, a driveway, wetlands--you name it.
  As a consequence, we think we have done a pretty good job in Alaska. 
We think we have responsible development. We think Prudhoe Bay is the 
best oilfield in the world. I said in this Chamber time and time again: 
You might not like oilfields, but Prudhoe Bay is the best in the world.
  Americans do not seem to care where their oil comes from as long as 
they get it. If it comes from the scorched Earth fields of Iraq or 
Iran, it doesn't make any difference. We can do it right. And we have 
done it right because Prudhoe Bay is the best in the world and it is 
37-year-old technology.
  We can go to newer fields such as Endicott, 53 acres--that is the 
footprint. How many acres do we have in Alaska, 356 million?
  Here is a State far to the north. Most people have never been to it. 
Then in our State we have this Arctic area, the ANWR area way up in the 
top, that ANWR area. If you are going to take a trip up there, you 
better have $5,000 in your pocket or go on one of the environmental 
groups' funded trips because that is what it costs to get up after 
Fairbanks, charter into the area. Have somebody take care of you as you 
enjoy your wilderness experience because you just don't wander around 
in that area. It is very harsh.
  Here we have this area in the northern part of the United States, and 
we have the extraordinary outside influences of these outside groups 
dictating terms and conditions. They made it a business because it is a 
big business. They generate millions of dollars in membership and 
dollars.
  Why do they do it? Because it enhances their organizations. It gives 
them a cause, and they make a contribution. I am not suggesting they do 
not, but it has gotten to be a big business, and as a consequence 
Alaska is a little overexposed because if you look at this other chart, 
you can get an appreciation of what was done in 1980. We are 
recognizing all these areas of Alaska that are scratched in blue are 
Federal withdrawals. They are parks. They are wilderness. We have 56 
million acres of wilderness, more than the entire State of California. 
We appreciate and manage our wilderness areas appropriately. But that 
is a pretty good chunk of Federal land to have withdrawn because you 
happen to be a public land State.

  Maybe we should have cut a better deal when we came into the Union in 
1959. Maybe we were a little naive. Maybe we trusted big government.
  What we got is this, and this was the land claims settlement in 1980. 
What they did is they were very crafty. They said: All right, you have 
356 million acres in your State. We think the State ought to have 104 
million acres in the Statehood Compact. They said: Your Native people 
ought to have 40 million acres, so that leaves you with 250 million 
acres or thereabouts for the Federal Government.
  Instead of letting the new State go ahead and select the land, 
automatically the lands were frozen under Carter. So the Federal 
Government got the first selection instead of the State. But here is 
what I want to point out.
  You see that little red line? You see right in between the two blues? 
That is the only access our State has north and south, the only access, 
and that is where our pipeline has to go and that is where our gasline 
has to go because we cannot get access across Federal parks, wilderness 
areas--refuges. We cannot do it without congressional action and that 
is what we are doing right tonight. We are trying to get congressional 
action to open up that little oilfield up there.
  That did not happen by accident. That did not happen on the free will 
of the people of Alaska. That was gerrymandered by people who did not 
want Alaska developed.
  If you go east and west, you can see they almost crossed over. There 
are a few little areas--we have a mine now. Do you know how many mines 
we have in Alaska? We have one major gold mine, one major zinc and lead 
mine, and Red Dog, and at Greens Creek we

[[Page S2861]]

have a large silver mine. We have three major mines in this huge area. 
We used to have four times those in the State.
  Do you know how many pulp mills we have? Zero. I don't know how many 
you have in New York, but I do know that New York cuts more wood for 
firewood than we cut as commercial timber in the State of Alaska. Yet 
we have the largest of all the national forests: 16 million acres in 
the Tongass--all this area. As a matter of fact, we live in the 
forests. Some people think we live in the dark forests. But Juneau, our 
State capital, is in the State forest. Ketchikan is in the forest; 
Wrangell, Petersburg, Haines, Skagway, Sitka, Yakutat, Cordova--they 
are in the forest.
  (Mr. DAYTON assumed the Chair).
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Why didn't we get a land selection there? We thought 
we could trust the Forest Service. We thought we could work in harmony. 
We rue the day, but here it is, and we have to live with it. We have to 
come to the Congress and plead for understanding. We have to, as one 
State, take on the whole national environmental community that has one 
cause--stop development in Alaska, because of their membership and 
dollars.
  What we have attempted to do in this amendment is add more 
wilderness--1.5 million acres. We are adding to the Coastal Plain, as 
the chart indicates.
  What else do we do? We impose strict environmental protections in 
this legislation.
  I don't hear anyone on the other side of the aisle commenting as to 
the adequacy or inadequacy.
  We impose seasonal limitations to protect the denning migration of 
the animals.
  Some ask: What about the polar bear? Are we going to protect the 
polar bear? The polar bear, for the most part, den on the ice. They do 
not den on land. The greatest protection we have for the polar bear is 
the marine mammal law. Polar bears are marine animals. You can't take 
them as trophies. You can't shoot them. If you want to shoot them, you 
go to Russia or Canada. But you can't do it in Alaska. These bears get 
along pretty well. You have seen this picture time and time again. You 
have been very patient. These are a few of the bears. They do not 
happen to be polar bears. They are grizzly bears and brown bears. They 
are walking on top of the pipeline because it is easier for them to 
walk on the pipeline. They are not threatened. You can't take a snow 
machine in there. You can't hunt in there. We think these are pretty 
responsible conservation efforts.
  A further provision is that the leasers must reclaim the land and put 
it back to its prior condition. That means it has to be put back in its 
natural state.
  What does it look like in Alaska after you drill a well? Let me show 
you what it looks like in the Arctic. The only problem is we only have 
about 2 \1/2\ months where it looks like this. There is the tundra. 
There is the little Christmas tree. Where are they talking about these 
big gravel roads? It isn't done anymore. We use technology. That is it. 
It is a nice road. There is the well. It is pretty bleak country. Some 
people say you couldn't find oil in a better place. That is reality.
  We require use of ice roads, ice pads, and ice airstrips for 
exploration. If the oil isn't there, you are not going to see a track. 
We prohibit public use on all pipeline access and service roads. We 
require no significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife and no 
significant impact. We require consolidation of facility siting. Tell 
me where in the world oil is developed that you have these kinds of 
restrictions.
  Further, we give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to close 
areas of unique character at any time after consultation with the local 
community.
  Here we have structure. There are two amendments. The second-degree 
amendment would fund rejuvenation of America's steel industry and 
address the steel legacy by funding so that our steel industry can 
resurrect itself, be internationally competitive, and participate in 
the largest construction project in the history of North America, the 
building of a 3,000-mile pipeline. The order alone is worth $5 billion.
  The first-degree amendment opens the area up so that the leases can 
be sold and so that the funds can be designated--$8 billion to the 
legacy, $1 billion to the United Mine Workers, and commercial grants 
for $232 million to retool the industry; labor training, $115 million; 
and conservation for National Park Service maintenance and backlog, et 
cetera. We think that is pretty good balance.
  We wish we had a few more days on this issue. We might be able to 
further communicate to the American public really what we are trying to 
do.
  Again, the first-degree is not an authorization to open. We give that 
authority to the President. The President has the determination to open 
it.
  We don't have the level of support we had hoped. It is pretty hard 
for one State to compete with national environmental groups. But we are 
not giving up because sooner or later ANWR will be opened.
  I can only guess, as you can, the consequences of this vote tomorrow 
because we don't know what the future holds. We do know there is an 
inferno in the Mideast. We do know we are importing 58 percent of our 
oil. We know Saddam Hussein is obviously up to no good with the money 
he generates from oil sales to the United States. We know he pays his 
Republican Guards to keep him alive. We also know he is developing 
weapons of mass destruction. We just do not know when we are going to 
have to deal with it or how.
  We are enforcing that aerial no-fly zone over Iraq. We have bombed 
them three times since the first of the year, and several times last 
year he attempted to shoot us down. We have the lives of our men and 
women at risk. We take his oil and go use it to bomb him. He takes our 
money, pays his Republican Guard to keep him alive, and he develops 
these weapons of mass destruction.
  We look back to September 11 and say: Gee, if we had only had the 
intelligence, we would have averted that tragedy at the World Trade 
Center, the Pentagon, and saved the brave people in the aircraft as 
they tried to take it over before it went down in Pennsylvania.
  We know there is a threat from Saddam Hussein. We don't know when or 
how. But do we wait?
  These are grave responsibilities for our President and the Cabinet 
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These are real. But every time we go to 
the gas station, we are buying Iraqi oil--some of it, at least. He gets 
billions. What does he do with it?
  Here is that check again. We know he is doing that. He has a reward 
out.
  Where is the principle of the United States, for heaven's sake? Why 
do we succumb to do business with a tyrant? There is a principle 
involved here. If you or I were in business, we wouldn't do it. We 
would say: Hey, enough is enough. Let us send a message out here.
  We can go down a million rabbit trails for excuses as to why we 
shouldn't or couldn't open this area. These are all things that are 
tied together. Some Members obviously don't want to talk too much about 
it because it is not a pleasant subject. But for the Israelis who are 
on a bus who are innocent bystanders, and suddenly a young woman gets 
on the bus rigged with a bomb, and it blows up, believe me, that is a 
set of facts. That is why so many of the Jewish organizations are 
saying enough is enough; we ought to stop importing from Iraq.
  I have an amendment pending which I am going to bring up. We are 
going to have a vote on it because the leader gave me a commitment to 
have a vote on it--that we ought to sanction oil imports from Iraq. 
Isn't it rather ironic? He has already done it to us, because he said 
last week he was going to terminate production for 30 days. What 
happens? The supply goes down and the price goes up.
  I don't know, but the way I read it, charity begins at home. We 
certainly should not be doing business with this guy just because we 
need more oil.
  I know my critics will say: Well, Senator Murkowski, you are not 
going to get any relief for awhile. I am talking about sending a 
message that we mean business about reducing our dependence on Iraq. 
That is going to be a strong message.

  I have heard my colleagues on the other side saying that there is no 
significant potential in ANWR that would offset our imports. Let me 
show you a chart. We have lots of charts. This is

[[Page S2862]]

going to be a show and tell. We are probably going to go through every 
chart we have because this is probably going to be the only time we 
have that opportunity.
  But this is a chart that shows what happened to imports when we 
opened Prudhoe Bay. This might be a little tricky, but let me just show 
you. The blue line at the bottom is Alaskan oil production from 1973 
through 1999. We started small, and the blue line running across the 
chart shows the production, and then in 1977, more production--and then 
more production, more production. We were producing 2 million barrels a 
day. That was 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in the United 
States. That is how much it was.
  As the blue line shows, in 1988, 1989, production at Prudhoe Bay 
began to decline. And it declined and declined, and now it is a little 
over a million barrels a day.
  So what happened, as depicted by the red line, is interesting, 
though, because that shows our total imports. We started out, per the 
chart, at roughly 3 million barrels a day, and we kept going up and up 
and up; and then, suddenly, at the peak, we opened up Prudhoe Bay. So 
those who say ANWR is not going to make any difference, I defy them to 
counter this reality.
  Look at what happened to our imports. They dropped. Why? Because we 
increased production domestically. We did not relieve our dependence on 
imported oil, no, not by any means, but we clearly reduced our imports.
  Now, what has happened? And we have more conservation. You can go out 
and buy a 50-mile per gallon car. But we are using more. Why are we 
using more? Well, it is just the harsh reality that oil imports are 
taking place because other production in the United States is in 
decline, and we are using more oil. It is just a harsh reality.
  As we look at this chart, we recognize that we can refute the 
generalization that ANWR isn't going to make any difference with the 
reality that it will make a difference. It will make a big difference.
  So let's take that chart down and reflect on how much oil might be 
there.
  We have had some discussion about the Energy Information 
Administration, the EIA, providing an analysis of the effect of ANWR on 
U.S. domestic oil production and the net imports of crude oil. And we 
have had it all over the ballpark.
  From the EIA report of February 11, for purposes of addressing ANWR's 
impact on national security, crude oil imports--which is an accurate 
measure, since ANWR provides only crude oil--this is what they project 
regarding domestic production of ANWR. Assuming the U.S. Geological 
Service mean case for oil in ANWR, there would be an increase of 
domestic production of 13.9 percent.
  I have heard the Senator from Massachusetts communicate some 3 
percent. All I can do is submit for the Record the EIA USGS mean case 
of a 13.9-percent increase of domestic production.
  Assuming the USGS high case for oil in ANWR--the high case is a 16-
billion-barrel reserve--that would be a 25.4-percent increase in 
domestic production. That is a pretty big percentage. That is about 25 
percent.
  You have to put this in perspective. I have a hard time doing this 
with those in opposition because they do not want to sit still long 
enough to reflect on what this means.
  How much oil is it?
  For Washington, it is 66 years; for Minnesota, it is 85 years; for 
Florida, it is 30 years--this is a lot of oil--for New York, it is 35 
years; for Rhode Island, 570 years; for Delaware, it is 46 years; for 
West Virginia, it is 260 years, for Maryland, it is 98 years; for the 
District of Columbia, it is 1,710 years; for Maine, it is 235 years. I 
could go on and on. You can all see your individual States. Where is 
Massachusetts on there? There it is: 87 years. I want to make sure 
Massachusetts gets in there. I do not want to leave Massachusetts out. 
For Alaska, it is 87 years.
  So there is a lot of oil. But how does it compare, say, with my 
generalization that Prudhoe Bay has provided, for the last 27 years, 
somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of the total crude oil? Well, you 
can only do that by applying the projections associated with ANWR, 
which are somewhere between 5.6 billion and 16 billion barrels. If you 
take halfway--10 billion barrels--it is as big as Prudhoe Bay because 
Prudhoe Bay was supposed to be 10 billion barrels, but it produced 13 
billion barrels. So it is significant, make no mistake about it. I want 
to put that argument to rest once and for all. It will make a 
difference in reducing our imports.
  So, as we talk about this, and we find that most of the critics have 
never been there, and we look at some of the things that Alaska's oil 
development does for other States, such as providing them with a secure 
source of oil, that is defended by the U.S. Navy--I am talking about 
oil from Alaska and the west coast of the United States--it clearly is 
a reliable supply.
  I have addressed the reality that Prudhoe Bay is the best oilfield in 
the world.
  Do you remember the pictures in 1991, 1992, of the burning oilfields 
of Kuwait? The fleeing Iraqi troops set more than 600 of Kuwait's 940 
oil wells ablaze with explosives and sabotage. Do we have any of those 
pictures with us? Yes. Do you want to see an oilfield burning, set fire 
to? Do you know who did it? Saddam Hussein. We have heard of him a 
couple times tonight, haven't we? Talking about a burn, that burn is 
all through. It is a tough reality. Was there wildlife there? Camels, 
goats, other wildlife once lived there. The land is dead. Yet this is 
where we choose to get our oil.
  Our President told Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the United 
States will deal with him soon if he continues to produce weapons of 
mass destruction. I am sure, Mr. President, both you and I have had an 
opportunity to be with President George W. Bush. I do not think there 
is any question he means what he says. He says the U.S. ``will deal 
with him soon'' if he continues to produce weapons of mass destruction.
  I guess the question is, When and how?
  In Alaska, in the United States, we have the most stringent 
environmental regulations on Earth. Maybe we are not doing it right, 
and maybe we can do better, but we are doing it better than anybody 
else.
  Those who suggest that somehow Prudhoe Bay is a disaster fail to 
recognize that it is still the best oilfield in the world. I am proud 
to be an Alaskan. I am proud that we can make that commitment as a 
State because we have two levels of environmental oversight. The State 
Department's environmental conservation is very prudent, some think too 
prudent. And we have the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, and 
others. But they are doing their job, and they are doing the best job 
in the world because they are using the best technology in the world.
  We have heard other Members talk about--I think Senator Grassley--
some of the history of Russian oil development. Anything goes. It is to 
get the oil. It doesn't make any difference how much you spill or how 
much you drill. Workers drill too fast, too many holes, don't make 
proper recovery. Do we have any charts on that?
  How about this? You would never see anything like that in the United 
States. You would never see that in Alaska. There is a puddle of oil, a 
busted pipeline, a disaster.
  Does the United States care where America gets its oil? Evidently, 
nobody really cares if it is there. If it is not there, they scream. If 
the price is too high, they scream. If they have to wait too long to 
get it, wait in line around the block, they blame Government.
  Since the House passed their energy bill in August, which had a 
provision for opening ANWR--some say the House of Representatives is 
pretty representative--America has imported 231 million barrels of oil 
from Iraq. That fact disturbs me greatly, and I would hope it disturbs 
my colleagues and addresses their digestion. Some of that money went 
straight into Saddam's pocket. I would prefer 100-percent homegrown 
energy because we can do it safer and better here in the United States.
  As this debate continues, I hope my colleagues will take a long and 
hard look at the alternatives to Alaskan oil because that is what they 
are and what it means to the environment on a global scale. Again, I 
hope they will recognize Alaskan oilfields are the best in the world.
  I will add a little partisan reference here from the Wall Street 
Journal,

[[Page S2863]]

April 16, 2001, just the other day. It is entitled ``Labor Revolt.'' It 
says:

       You might not see picket lines, but a chunk of America's 
     labor movement is staging a notable walkout--against the 
     Democratic Party. The trend is already having consequences in 
     Congress and could echo through November and into 2004.
       Leading the revolt is James Hoffa, head of the AFL-CIO's 
     third largest union, the 1.4 million Teamsters. Mr. Hoffa has 
     become a key and very public supporter of [President Bush's] 
     energy plan, which is also backed by a coalition of 
     carpenters, miners and seafarers. He has lobbied inside Big 
     Labor for a more neutral political bent and his officials 
     were recently overheard giving Democrats on Capitol Hill hell 
     for killing jobs.

  This gasline and ANWR are jobs issues.

       Today, some 500 Teamsters will help present the Senate 
     amendment to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

  We had that press conference the other day. We had hundreds of 
laborers out front on the issue. We had, in addition to the Teamsters, 
my good friend Jerry Hood. We had Ed Sullivan, president of the 
Building and Construction Workers, the AFL-CIO, members of the Building 
Trades Union, the president of Operating Engineers, and the Seafarers 
Union.
  They are concerned about two things: They are concerned about jobs, 
and, obviously, they are concerned about national security interests 
relative to our Nation and our Nation's continued dependence on foreign 
oil. It is very real.
  That article goes on to say:

       Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers, electricians and 
     machinists have rebelled against Democrats on issues from 
     fuel-efficiency standards to nuclear energy.

  That is going to come up at another time as we debate the nuclear 
industry and the future of it and what we are going to do with our 
waste. I know my good friend Senator Reid is going to be very active in 
that debate because that debate affects his State. I respect that set 
of circumstances.

  The problem with nuclear waste is nobody wants it. If you throw it up 
in the air, it won't stay there. It has to come down somewhere. As a 
consequence, we can't agree where to put it.
  In my opinion, there is an answer to it; that is, you reprocess it. 
By so doing, you recover the plutonium, put it back in the reactors, 
and you vitrify the waste, which obviously has very little ability for 
proliferation. That is what the Japanese are doing. That is what the 
French are doing. Do you know why we can't do it? Because we have such 
an active nuclear environmental lobby, we don't allow it. So we walk 
around saying, what in the world are we going to do with our waste? 
Where are we going to put it? Nobody wants it. Nevada says they don't 
want it. We have decided to put it there, and so all hell is going to 
break loose.
  Anyway, United Auto Workers, electricians, and machinists have 
rebelled. Why have they rebelled? They are looking at jobs.
  This article goes on to say that this issue has:

       . . . alienated many of old industrial unions which grow 
     only when the private economy does. Many of these unions 
     don't share the cultural liberalism of the Washington AFL-CIO 
     elites, who are often well-to-do Ivy-Leaguers.

  Well, there is a bit of a change among some of the unions. I suppose 
that happens around here, too.
  But I think it is fair to conclude from this article:

       Mr. Hoffa and fellow unions are now doing the same for oil-
     drilling in Alaska, spending heavily on ads across the 
     country. He's vowed to ``remember'' Democrats who vote 
     against drilling.

  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 16, 2001]

                              Labor Revolt

       You might not see the picket lines, but a chunk of the 
     American labor movement is staging a notable walkout--against 
     the Democratic Party. The trend is already having 
     consequences in Congress and could echo through November and 
     into 2004.
       Leading the revolt is James P. Hoffa, head of the AFL-CIO's 
     third-largest union, the 1.4 million Teamsters. Mr. Hoffa has 
     become a key and very public supporter of the Bush energy 
     plan, which is also backed by a union coalition of 
     carpenters, miners and seafarers. He ha lobbied inside Big 
     Labor for a more neutral political bent and his officials 
     were recently overheard giving Democrats on Capitol Hill hell 
     for killing jobs. Today, some 500 Teamsters will help present 
     the Senate amendment to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge.
       Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers, electricians and 
     machinists have rebelled against Democrats on issues from 
     fuel-efficiency standards to nuclear energy. They follow last 
     year's resignation from the AFL-CIO by the influential United 
     Brotherhood of Carpenters, along with its half-million 
     members and $4 million in annual dues.
       Some of this is issue specific, but it's also a sign of 
     deeper labor tensions. When John Sweeney took over the AFL-
     CIO in 1995, he turned it in a markedly more partisan and 
     ideological direction. He aligned Big Labor with a coalition 
     of interest groups on the cultural and big government left. 
     This is fine with most public-sector unions (teachers 
     especially), which grow along with government.
       But this leftward tilt has increasingly alienated many of 
     the old industrial unions, which grow only when the private 
     economy does. Many of these unions also don't share the 
     cultural liberalism of the Washington AFL-CIO elites, who are 
     often well-to-do Ivy Leaguers. They resent the money being 
     pushed into political campaigns and would rather spend more 
     on shop-room organizing. In Mr. Sweeney's tenure, the union 
     share of the private-sector work force has actually fallen, 
     to 9.1%
       All of these tensions have come to the surface in the 
     energy debate, where Democrats have had to choose between the 
     greens (enviros) and blues (unions). Senator (and would-be 
     President) John Kerry thought he could win over the greens 
     and suburbanites by pushing new car-mileage standards, but 
     instead he inspired a labor rebellion. Nineteen Senate 
     Democrats, primarily from industrial states, joined 
     Republicans to kill Mr. Kerry's proposals.
       Mr. Hoffa and fellow unions are now doing the same for oil-
     drilling in Alaska, spending heavily on ads across the 
     country. He's vowed to ``remember'' Democrats who vote 
     against drilling. And he specifically singled out New 
     Jersey's Robert Torricelli (up for re-election this fall) and 
     Michigan's Debbie Stabenow (a top recipient of union cash in 
     her 2000 race). In case they don't' believe him, the 
     Teamsters have already endorsed three GOP Congressional 
     candidates in Michigan.
       President Bush has noticed all of this, naturally, and is 
     openly courting union support. Having won only a third of 
     union households in 2000, Mr. Bush knows he has lots of votes 
     to gain. Sometimes his effort runs to schmoozing, as when he 
     made Mr. Hoffa one of his noted guests at the state of the 
     Union. But sometimes he's bowed to political temptation and 
     bent his principles, as with his 30% steel tariff.
       Mr. Bush might keep in mind that Mr. Hoffa has helped him 
     even though last year he ignored Teamster objections and 
     fulfilled his campaign promise to allow Mexican trucks into 
     the U.S. The President is also no doubt aware that Mr. Hoffa 
     wants an end to 13 years of federal oversight into his 
     union--which should only happen on the legal merits.
       Unions are moving to the Republicans less out of love for 
     the GOP than from disillusionment with Democrats. Democrats 
     had better be careful or they'll give Mr. Bush the chance to 
     form a formidable majority.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. What it does is simply say these are job issues and 
our business is jobs and productivity for the American people. This has 
become an issue where, clearly, if you look at the vote the last time 
that we voted on this issue in the Senate, it was 45 to 55, and ANWR 
was passed in the 1995 vote on the omnibus act. That is when 
Republicans controlled the Senate.
  Well, that was then and this is now. Now we have a 50-49-1 ratio in 
favor of the Democrats. Clearly, we are in a situation where we don't 
have control. As a consequence, ANWR is in trouble because it has to 
overcome the 60-vote point of order. Make no mistake about that.
  We have had quite a discussion throughout the day, but there are a 
few points that have been overlooked. One of them that bothers me the 
most is overlooking the people of my State, the people who are 
affected, the people who live in the Arctic and reside in the Coastal 
Plain. These are a few of the kids. There is not very many of them. 
There are about 300 of them in that village. But they are like your 
kids or your grandkids or mine: Looking for a future, looking for an 
opportunity for a better lifestyle, educational opportunities, sewer, 
water--some of the things we take very much for granted.
  This is another picture of their community hall. This is Kaktovik. It 
is of an elder Eskimo, a snow machine, with his grandson, and a bike. 
That is the way it is up there.
  Some Members would have you believe there is nothing there. Let me 
show you a picture of Kaktovik. It has been portrayed time and time 
again--a small community, small village. It has an airport, has some 
radar installations. And it is actually in ANWR. It is

[[Page S2864]]

in the Arctic Coastal Plain. It is in the 1.5 million acres. In fact, 
one oilwell has been drilled in that area.
  We have another chart here that gives you a little better idea of 
that particular geographic area. The thing I want to make sure 
everybody understands is that all of ANWR, all of that 1.5 million 
acres is not Federal land.
  These Native American citizens own 95,000 acres. That is diagrammed 
in the square. The only problem is, while they have title to that land, 
they have no authority for any access--absolutely none. Only Congress 
can give them that authority. We are going to be addressing that, 
because to have an aboriginal group of natives, American citizens, and 
give them land that has been their ancestral land--it has been their 
land to begin with; that is where they have been for generations--and 
not allow them to have access because everything around it is Federal 
land is simply wrong; it is unjust. We would not do it anywhere else in 
the country. You would say you are entitled to access. I know because I 
have been there time and time and time again.
  I had the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, there with me last 
year. So was Senator Bingaman. The temperature today was 95 here. A 
year ago, it was 77 below zero there. That caught your attention. It is 
a harsh environment.
  My point is that only through an act of Congress will those people be 
allowed access to their own land. What would it take? Well, it would 
take some kind of a corridor across Federal land--maybe 300 feet wide. 
Access to what? Access just to State land. Where does State land start? 
Over on the other side of that yellow line. On this side is Federal 
land. They cannot get from there to the State land unless we do 
something about it.
  Let me read you a little letter. This is from the Kaktovik Inupiat 
Corporation. These are the people who live in that village. I want to 
show these other pictures. I want you to get the flavor. Nobody has 
mentioned on that side of the aisle, during the entire debate, the 
dreams and aspirations of these people. You have kids going to school 
in the snow. Nobody shovels the snow away. They dress a little 
differently perhaps. They wear mucklucks. They wear fur. You have some 
kids up there.
  Let them take a peek at that so the kids in the gallery can see it.
  This is how the kids in the Arctic go to school. It is a little 
different. But these kids are American citizens. They are Eskimos. They 
have rights, dreams, and aspirations. Yet what kind of a lifestyle do 
they have?
  Here is a letter:

       Dear Senators Daschle & Lott:
       The people of Kaktovik . . . are the only residents within 
     the entire 19.6 million acres of the federally recognized 
     boundaries of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. . . .

  These people live right up at the top of the world in Kaktovik.
  The letter goes on to say:

       [The Kaktoviks] ask for your help in fulfilling our destiny 
     as Inupiat Eskimos and Americans. We ask that you support 
     reopening the Coastal Plain of ANWR to energy exploration.

  They are asking that we open it.

       Reopening the Coastal Plain will allow us access to our 
     traditional lands. We are asking Congress to fulfill its 
     promise to the Inupiat people and to all Americans: to 
     evaluate the potential of the Coastal Plain.

  These people are talking to us as landowners. They go on to say:

       In return, as land-owners of 92,160 acres of privately 
     owned land within the Coastal Plain of ANWR, the Kaktovik 
     Inupiat Corporation promises to the Senate of the United 
     States:
       1. We will never use our abundant energy resources ``as a 
     weapon'' against the United States, as Iraq, Iran, Libya, and 
     other foreign energy exporting nations have proposed.
       2. We will not engage in supporting terrorism, terrorist 
     States, or any enemies of the United States;
       3. We will neither hold telethons to raise money for, 
     contribute money to, or any other way support the slaughter 
     of innocents at home or abroad;
       4. We will continue to be loyal Alaskans and proud 
     Americans who will be all the more proud of a government 
     whose actions to reopen ANWR and our lands will prove it to 
     be the best remaining hope for mankind on Earth; and
       5. We will continue to pray for the United States, and ask 
     God to bless our nation.

  These are my people, Mr. President. They further state:

       We do not have much, Gentlemen, except for the promises of 
     the U.S. government that the settlement of our land claims 
     against the United States would eventually lead to the 
     control of our destiny by our people.
       In return, we give our promises as listed above. We ask 
     that you accept them from grateful Inupiat Eskimo people of 
     the North Slope of Alaska who are proud to be American.

  Mr. President, I don't think we would get a letter like this from any 
other potential supplier of oil in the Mideast. I think you would agree 
with me. So here we have a situation where my people are deprived of a 
basic right that any other American citizen would not be. It is very 
disappointing because the human element was not brought up once.
  What we have talked about today is whether ANWR can be opened safely. 
There is no evidence that it cannot. Is there a significant amount of 
oil that could make a difference? You bet. There is more oil in ANWR 
than there is in all of Texas. I think the proven reserves in Texas are 
about 5.3 billion barrels. What are we talking about here? Are we 
talking about charades or about some kind of a conveyance, trying to 
portray to the American people that we cannot open it safely. They say 
it will take 10 years. We have a pipeline halfway to ANWR. Another 50 
miles, we would be hooked up. They say 10 years. Come on, let's 
expedite the permit.
  If anybody wanted to talk about history--and this was not brought up 
on the other side today--the arguments we are using on the floor of the 
Senate at 9:35 p.m. are the same arguments we used 30 years ago on the 
issue of whether or not to open the TransAlaska Pipeline system--not to 
open but to build it, because the environmental groups weren't as well 
organized then. But they were making a case. They said: You can't build 
an 800-mile fence across Alaska because if you do, you are going to 
build a fence that will keep the caribou and the moose on one side or 
the other. You are putting that pipeline in permafrost. It is a hot 
line, and permafrost is frozen. It is going to melt. It is going to 
break.
  The doomsayers were wrong. The same argument here: Can't do it 
safety. They said the animals--look at the caribou, Mr. President. 
There are a few of them. That is a new picture. I want to make sure you 
understand that we have more than one picture. These guys are under the 
pipeline. Why? Why not? You see the water behind them. They are 
grazing. That pipeline doesn't offer them any threat.
  Somebody said that is an ugly pipeline. Well, I don't know. I guess 
it depends on your point of view. I could probably take 10 pictures of 
other pipelines and we could have a contest on whose pipeline is the 
ugliest. But, you know, you either bury them or put them on the 
surface. That is all in steel. It is designed to withstand earthquakes. 
It is the best that the 30-year-old technology had, and we can do 
better now.
  This is another picture. This is real. These are not stuffed. These 
are caribou. They are lounging around. The extraordinary thing is this 
is Prudhoe Bay, and we had, I believe, 3,000 animals in the central 
Arctic herd. Today we have somewhere in the area of 26,000. Why? You 
cannot shoot them, and you cannot run them down with a snow machine. 
They are protected. They do very well. The argument is bogus.
  They say it is a different herd, a Porcupine herd. We are not going 
to allow any activity during the 2\1/2\ months that is free of ice and 
snow because you cannot move in that country. We do not build gravel 
roads; we build ice roads. It represents better and safer technology 
and does not leave a scar on the tundra.
  We have made great advances as a consequence of our lessons, but it 
is beyond me to reflect on the opposition here other than its core 
opposition: We are opposed to it. The rationale behind it lacks an 
indepth understanding. Here is the new technology. We do not drill the 
way we used to. They do not go out and punch a hole straight down, and 
if they are lucky enough, they find oil.
  We have directional drilling capability. We can drill under the 
Capitol and come up at gate 4 at Reagan National Airport. That is the 
technology we have.
  We can hit these spots that are under the ground with this 3-D 
seismic, one footprint. That is the change. We have proven it because 
we built Endicott.

[[Page S2865]]

Nobody wants to talk about Endicott on the other side: 56 acres; 
produced over 100 million barrels.
  I also want to touch on another myth that the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from New Mexico used several times 
relative to why do you want to go to ANWR when there are other areas. 
If you are going to rob somebody, you might as well go to the bank; 
that is where the money is.
  We have the greatest prospect for discoveries, and that area is 
specifically in ANWR. We have what they call National Petroleum 
Reserve, Alaska. We have pictures of that area. This chart is a bit of 
a contrast because this shows the top of the world. I want to reference 
this with this big map. I want to reference where this area is.
  Point Barrow is at the top. That is one of our Eskimo communities, 
and the nice thing about Point Barrow is you cannot go any further 
north. You fall off the top. The Arctic Ocean is right ahead. This is 
the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. It used to be Naval Petroleum 
Reserve, Alaska. I wish the cameras had the intensity to pick up on 
this to see all this gray/blue area. These are lakes within the 
reserve.
  This is ANWR. Mr. President, do you see any lakes on the Coastal 
Plain? This is strategic from an environmental point of view, from the 
standpoint of migratory birds. Where do they go? They do not squat on 
the land. They go to the lakes. This is a huge mass of lakes.
  The opponents are suggesting we go over there. That is fine except 
from an environmental point of view, we are not going to get permits in 
many of these areas. While there have been some discoveries right on 
this line within NPRA, this is where the oil happens to be because that 
is where the geologists tell us it is most likely to be.
  We will put up lease sales in these fringe areas, but we are not 
going to get anything around the lakes. To suggest this area is already 
open is contrary to reality.
  Another thing the Senator from Massachusetts says is instead of 
opening ANWR, we should drill anywhere but Alaska. I find that 
incredible. We have the infrastructure. We have an 800-mile pipeline, 
and we are drilling on land.

  Do my colleagues know what we are doing in the Gulf of Mexico? We are 
in 2,000 feet of water. We have had 8,000 leases in the gulf, many of 
which are not currently producing. There are a lot of endangered and 
threatened species, including marine mammals, sea turtles, and coastal 
birds. I cannot fathom why the Senator from Massachusetts believes it 
is better to drill where there are endangered species than where we 
have a thriving wildlife population that obviously we take care of, as 
they do in the Gulf of Mexico.
  What stuns me is it seems to me common sense we should develop areas 
where people support the development. Many of these leases sit off the 
coast of Florida are objectionable to the people of Florida, and I 
respect their objections. Yet the people of the Alaska Coastal Plain 
overwhelmingly support development in Alaska.
  Even the Teamsters who support development in Alaska disagree with 
the Senator from Massachusetts that we ought to massively increase our 
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico overnight.
  We have a lot of species in the Gulf of Mexico that are threatened or 
endangered: The blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, the northern 
right whale, sei whale, threatened endangered sea turtles, green sea 
turtles, hawksbill, loggerheads, endangered beach mice which I am not 
familiar with, the Florida salt marsh vole, the piping plover, and the 
brown pelican. I am not going to bore you with these, Mr. President.
  The point is, that is tough drilling in 3,000 feet of water. There is 
a lot of risk. On land you can contain the risk. We have done a pretty 
good job of it in Alaska. They have done an excellent job in the Gulf 
of Mexico, make no mistake about it.
  As we look at some of the suggestions that are made in general, such 
as we go someplace else in Alaska, remember, NPRA has 90 percent of the 
birds on the North Slope and over 90 bird species, millions of shore 
birds. There they are, Mr. President. They are not in ANWR. I just do 
not understand why Senators suggest they will not support development 
in an area with more oil and less wildlife diversity. It does not make 
any sense at all other than those Senators have been influenced by some 
of the groups that clearly are using ANWR as a symbol.
  Others suggest that the development of Alaska's gas--for example, I 
think the chairman suggested we face a growing threat from foreign 
dependence on natural gas. Without going into that in too much detail, 
we only import 15 percent of our natural gas needs compared with 58 
percent of dependence on foreign oil.
  Let us take a look at that because I am all for alternatives, but 
don't believe they do not leave a footprint. I have a chart that shows 
the San Jacinto. If you do not know where this is, if you are driving 
from Palm Springs to Los Angeles and you happen to go through Banning, 
the pass, this is it. It is probably the largest wind farm in the 
world. Look at the little windmills in the back at the bottom. There 
are hundreds of them. They call it Cuisinart for the birds because a 
bird that gets through there is lucky--if he is flying low.
  There is an equivalent energy ratio. This wind farm is about 1,500 
acres and produces the equivalent of 1,360 barrels of oil a day. Two 
thousand acres of ANWR will produce a million barrels of oil a day. 
There is the footprint.
  How much wind power does it need to equal that of ANWR's energy? 
About 3.7 million acres, equivalent to all of Rhode Island and 
Connecticut. If one put them all on a wind farm, then they would equal 
about what ANWR's energy input is capable of. We have a couple more of 
these charts so we might as well show them.
  When we talk about the Sun, we naturally think of solar. Solar is 
worthwhile, but it is not very good in Point Barrow, AK, because the 
Sun only rises in the summertime. I should not say that but in the 
winter it is dark for a long time.
  Two thousand acres of solar panel produce the energy equivalent of 
4,400 barrels of oil a day. Two thousand acres of ANWR will produce a 
million barrels of oil a day. So it would take 448,000, or two-thirds 
of Rhode Island all in solar panels to produce as much energy as 2,000 
acres of ANWR.
  Solar panels do have a place in Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, and 
other areas, but do not think America is going to be moved on solar 
panels.
  There has been a lot of discussion taking place on ethanol. Ethanol 
is an alternative made from vegetable products, corn and other products 
that come from our farmers. Two thousand acres of ethanol farmland 
produce the energy equivalent of 25 barrels of oil a day. Two thousand 
acres will produce 25 barrels of oil equivalent a day. Two thousand 
acres of ANWR will produce a million barrels of oil a day, and that 
source is the national renewable energy lab.
  Make no mistake about it, a byproduct is produced with the corn, 
which is the corn husk. I am not sure what one does with them, but we 
could speculate. It would take 80.5 million acres of farmland, or all 
of New Mexico and Connecticut, to produce as much energy as 2,000 acres 
of ANWR. So we could plant New Mexico and Connecticut in corn, I guess. 
The point is, these all have footprints.
  We have often talked about size when we talk about Alaska. We have 
talked about the fact that our State has 33,000 miles of coastline. 
ANWR is 19 million acres, as big as the State of South Carolina. We 
talked about the attitude of Alaskans in supporting exploration. About 
75 percent of our people support it. Why is it that the people who want 
to develop oil and gas are not given the opportunity? I do not know. I 
find it very frustrating.
  I listened to some of the debate by some Members relative to domestic 
oil production vis-a-vis subsidized oil. They talked about the rip-off 
that the oil industry allegedly is guilty of in this country, but we 
still have the best oil industry in the world. It is a relatively high-
risk oil exploration. You do not know if you are going to find it. You 
better find a lot of it.
  Somebody suggested that it is comparable in some manner to making 
sewing machines, that somehow there is a relationship relative to risk. 
Well, if one is making sewing machines, they know what their market is. 
They know what it is going to cost. But when one goes out and drills 
for oil, they do not

[[Page S2866]]

know if they are going to find it. There is a lot of risk there.

  As we import foreign oil, we do not know what the true cost is 
because there is no environmental consideration associated with the 
development.
  I do not think anyone recognizes what we enjoy in this country as a 
standard of living. The standard of living is brought about by people 
who have prospered and have become accustomed to a standard of living 
that is high. The convenience of having an automobile that can 
accommodate a family comfortably on a long trip; modest gasoline and 
energy prices, that is as a consequence of the structure of our society 
and the makeup of the United States.
  The question comes about, Do we want to substantially limit that 
standard of living by taxes or various increased costs of energy? I do 
not think so. I think those kinds of things were evident in the debate 
that we had earlier in the week relative to CAFE standards.
  One of the things that can certainly undermine our recovery is high 
oil prices. Our friend Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed, is taking a 
more guarded outlook on the U.S. economy compared with the comments he 
made last month about the possible consequences of sustained high oil 
prices on the economic recovery.
  This influential gentleman told the Congressional Joint Economic 
Committee on Wednesday that energy prices had not yet risen to a point 
that would seriously sap spending but warned that a lasting surge in 
the cost of oil could have far-reaching consequences.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article from Oil Daily be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Greenspan: High Oil Can Undermine Recovery

                           (By Sharif Ghalib)

       Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan appears to be 
     taking a more guarded outlook on the US economy compared with 
     more sanguine comments he made last month amid the possible 
     consequences of sustained high oil prices on an economic 
     recovery.
       The influential central bank chief told the congressional 
     Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday that energy prices had 
     not yet risen to a point that would seriously sap spending, 
     but warned that a lasting surge in the cost of oil could have 
     ``far-reaching'' consequences. He told the committee he was 
     in no rush to raise US interest rates.
       Greenspan's apparent step back may well have reflected 
     mixed signals from recently released economic indicators and, 
     perhaps more importantly, the recent surge in crude oil 
     prices, which have risen nearly $2 per barrel this week.
       While the preponderance of the latest economic indicators 
     point to a faster than previously expected economic recovery 
     in the US, recent data released on the labor market showing a 
     slight rise in unemployment shed some doubt on the speed of 
     the recovery.
       The reported rise in unemployment was followed this week by 
     a suggested slowdown in the US housing market, which had been 
     expanding strongly, and--arguably more alarming--a slowdown 
     in consumer spending. Manufacturing activity, however, has 
     turned in its strongest expansion in almost two years.
       While the so-called core rate of consumer price inflation, 
     excluding energy and food prices, rose by a mere 0.1% in 
     March, gasoline prices rose by a sharp 8%, the largest 
     monthly change in six months. Fuel oil prices jumped by 2.2%, 
     the strongest since last December.
       These increases are in line with higher crude prices, 
     reflecting mainly tensions in the Middle East, Iraq's 
     unilateral 30-day oil embargo, and export delays in 
     Venezuela.
       Should the current oil rally continue for much longer, Opec 
     will face mounting pressure to ease the reins on production. 
     The group will meet in June to discuss production policy for 
     the second half of 2002. But Iraq's embargo call, which has 
     fallen on deaf ears among producers inside and outside Opec, 
     may make it politically difficult for Saudi Arabia and other 
     Muslim Opec members to increase production while fellow 
     members Iraq withholds exports to pressure Israel.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We have talked about oilfields. We have talked about 
the Arctic. We have talked about the wildlife. We have talked about the 
oil reserves. We have talked about the safety of development. I think 
we have responded to the myth that some suggest we are going to 
industrialize the Arctic.
  I will show a chart of the Arctic in the wintertime. This area cannot 
be industrialized. It is just simply too harsh. Some of this is 
untouched because it has to be. To suggest we can have an industrial 
complex is totally unrealistic.
  I often take this picture because it shows the harsh Arctic on a day 
when it is clear, but it is not clear all the time. Sometimes we have a 
whiteout. We can turn this picture upside down, but it is even better 
to turn it around because that is what it looks like when it is 
snowing. This is a whiteout. A lot of people do not know what kind of a 
condition that is. That is when one cannot tell the sky from the land 
because it is all the same color, and you better not fly into it. If 
you fly into it, you better be proficient as an instrument pilot or you 
will not make a round trip. That is the harsh reality.
  That is what it looks like during a whiteout, which is a good portion 
of the time. When there is snow on the ground, there is snow in the air 
and no visibility. Somebody told me it is one of the best charts we 
have.

  We talked about the footprint, talked about the accountability and 
how the vote will be scored. We know how the union will score the 
vote--as a jobs issue. We know how the environmentalists will score 
it--as an environmental issue. I hope Members will score it as to what 
is best for America. That is the issue. That is why we are here.
  I have talked about jobs. If we open ANWR, we will build new ships, 
19 new tankers. We will build them in California, the National Steel 
yard. We will build them in the South; hopefully, in Maine. This is big 
business, several thousand jobs in the shipyards, $4 or $5 billion into 
the economy alone, construction jobs, good-paying jobs, union jobs. It 
is not just what is in the national security interests of our Nation.
  We can argue about how many jobs will be created, whether it is 
50,000 or 700,000. What difference does it make? These are good jobs. 
We should regard each for what it is worth, providing each family with 
an opportunity to educate their children and provide a better life.
  Speaking of a better life, those kids I talked about in Kaktovik have 
dreams and aspirations. Their dreams are more simple than ours. Maybe 
it is Halloween night. Do you know what their dreams and aspirations 
are? How about a little running water instead of the water well. How 
about a sewer system instead of a honeybucket? Do you know what a 
honeybucket is? We will show an arctic honeybucket. It costs about $17.
  I didn't have any conversation over there as to why my people aren't 
entitled to running water, sewer, disposal. It is not a pleasant 
reality, but it is a reality. My people are tired. They want to be 
treated like everybody else. That is why this issue of opening ANWR has 
more to do than just the environmental innuendoes. It affects real 
people in my State. It is time they were heard.
  I listened to the Senator from Massachusetts. He made a statement 
that he attested was made in a quote by our current Governor, which I 
don't believe. The quote was:

       Evidence overwhelmingly rejects the notion of any 
     relationship between Alaska North Slope crude and west coast 
     gasoline prices.

  I know the Governor doesn't believe that, and I want to make sure the 
record was corrected. Think for a minute what would happen to prices on 
the west coast in California if we cut off North Slope oil; if we do 
not continue to supply California, Washington, Oregon with refined 
product and crude oil. It would impact the west coast. It would impact 
the entire country.
  The Senator from Massachusetts made this reference. I heard it and I 
thought it was a mischaracterization, so I looked in the Record. He 
made the statement and attributed it to the Governor of Alaska:

       Evidence overwhelmingly rejects the notion of any 
     relationship between Alaska North Slope crude and west coast 
     gasoline prices.

  I encourage the Senator from Massachusetts to correct that statement.
  We have heard time and time again the statement that the United 
States has only 3 percent of the world's oil and we use 25 percent of 
the energy. Yet we produce 35 percent of the world's gross national 
product. We can argue that. We are getting a return, certainly, nearly 
a third of the world's domestic product is produced by the

[[Page S2867]]

United States which has 3 percent of the world's oil and uses 25 
percent of the world's energy. That is part of our standard of living.
  I talked about ANWR doubling our reserves. I talked about the fact we 
have to address conservation. We are doing it and continue to do it and 
we can continue to do a better job. Nevertheless, we live from day to 
day. Our farmers are dependent on low-cost energy.
  We have a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation in support 
of ANWR. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2002.
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: America's farmers and ranchers are 
     users, and increasingly producers, of energy. We believe that 
     passage of a comprehensive energy bill is of vital importance 
     to agriculture and to our nation. We urge the Senate to pass 
     an energy bill with the hope that the President will soon 
     sign into law legislation that will address our country's 
     energy security.
       Our organization along with other ag groups, the petroleum 
     industry, and environmental groups have reached a bipartisan 
     agreement on renewable fuels. This agreement, contained in 
     Majority Leader Daschle's bill, provides that our nation's 
     motor fuel supply will include at least five billion gallons 
     of renewable fuels by 2012. The Renewable Fuels Standard adds 
     value to our commodities, creates jobs in rural America and 
     provides a clean-burning, domestically produced fuel supply 
     for our nation. We urge you to oppose any amendment that 
     undoes this agreement.
       Production of food and fiber takes energy--diesel in the 
     tractor and combine, propane to heat the greenhouse, natural 
     gas as a feedstock for fertilizer and electricity for home 
     and farm use. Our members believe that we must have 
     affordable and reliable energy sources. American Farm Bureau 
     policy has long supported environmentally sound energy 
     development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). We 
     ask that you support a cloture vote to allow the Senate to 
     vote on this issue and to support expanding our domestically 
     produced energy sources.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. As we look at other aspects of the debate in the 
limited time we are going to have tomorrow, I hope we would not rest 
our laurels on simply increasing CAFE standards. We had a very healthy 
debate on that. We sacrificed CAFE standards, to a degree. We did it 
for safety. We heard from people, from mothers driving children to 
school or soccer games; they want a safe automobile.
  The statistics we heard suggested there was a compromise between CAFE 
standards and safety. We chose to err on the side of not reducing CAFE 
standards to the levels we could have. That is a responsible decision.
  That does not mean new technology will not help, but to suggest we 
can make up the difference of what we import from Saddam Hussein, 
nearly 1.1 million barrels a day on CAFE, is not realistic. We 
gradually improve our CAFE standards as we have over a period of time. 
To suggest we can make up the difference is poppycock. It can't be 
done. We can begin to do better and we will do better. But America 
moves on oil. You don't run an aircraft on hot air. You don't fly an 
auto in Washington, DC, on hot air. You do it on oil. We are moving on 
oil. We will continue to do that. I am all for conservation, for 
renewables, but I am all for reality.
  This chart is ironic. It shows the New York Times editorial positions 
from time to time. This was the 1987, 1988, and 1989 position, the New 
York Times editorial board. They said in 1989:

       Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the most promising 
     refuge . . . of untapped resource of oil in the north.

  In June of 1988:

       . . . The potential is enormous and the environmental risks 
     are modest . . .

  Further,

       . . . the likely value of the oil far exceeds plausible 
     estimates of the environmental cost.
       . . . the total acreage affected by development represents 
     only a fraction of 1 percent of the North Slope wilderness.
       . . . But it is hard to see why absolute pristine 
     preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence 
     over the Nation's energy needs.

  March 30, 1989:

       . . . Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground.
       . . . The single most promising source of oil in America 
     lies on the north coast of Alaska.
       . . . Washington can't afford to treat the [Exxon Valdez] 
     accident as a reason for fencing off what may be the last 
     great oil field in the nation.

  Now they say:

       Mr. Murkowski's stated purpose is to reduce the Nation's 
     use of foreign oil from 56 percent to 50 percent partly 
     through tax breaks.
       The centerpiece of that strategy, in turn is to open the 
     coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
       This page has addressed the folly of trespassing on a 
     wondrous wilderness preserve for what, by official estimates, 
     is likely to be a modest amount of economically recoverable 
     oil.

  What a contrast. January 2001, the country needs a rational energy 
strategy, but the first step in that strategy should not be to start 
punching holes in the Arctic Refuge.
  They have gone from 1987, 1988, 1989 to 2001, in March and January--a 
complete change of position. I asked the editorial board of the New 
York Times: Why? They said: Well, Senator, the former head of the 
editorial board moved to California so we have changed our position.
  We have another one here from the Washington Post that is even more 
ironic. In 1987 and 1989 they said:

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

  Then on April 4, 1989, it says:

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

  Here we are in February 2001:

       Is there an energy crisis, and if so, what kind? What part 
     of the problem can the market take care of, and what must 
     government do? What's the right goal when it comes to 
     dependence on overseas sources?
       America cannot drill its way out of ties to the world oil 
     market. There may be an emotional appeal to the notion of 
     American energy for the American consumer and a national 
     security argument for reducing the share that imports hold. 
     But the most generous estimates of potential production from 
     the Alaska refuge amount to only a fraction of current 
     imports.

  Did we say it might be as much as 25 percent?
  December 2001, the 25th, Christmas Day:

       Gov. Bush has promised to make energy policy an early 
     priority of his administration. If he wants to push ahead 
     with opening the plain as part of that, he'll have to show 
     that he values conservation as well as finding new sources of 
     supply. He'll also have to make the case that in the long 
     run, the oil to be gained is worth the potential damage to 
     this unique wild and biologically vital ecosystem. That 
     strikes us as a hard case to make.

  Isn't it ironic that these editorial boards of two of the Nation's 
leading papers could change their minds so dramatically? I did meet 
with the Washington Post editorial board and I asked them why they had 
changed their position. They were relatively surprised I would ask them 
that kind of question, and their response was equally interesting. They 
said they thought George W. Bush was a little too forceful in promoting 
energy activities associated with his particular background. In other 
words, I was politely brushed off.
  This happens to be a Washington Post story. It is interesting because 
this is the newest deal that we developed. It is the Philips field, the 
Alpine project in Alaska's North Slope, and right on the edge of the 
National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.

  You can see that is a whole oilfield. That is it. That is producing 
somewhere around 85,000 to 100,000 barrels a day.
  You know there is one thing you see and you see a little airstrip and 
that is all. There is no road out of there. There is a ice road in the 
wintertime, but in the summertime you have to fly to get

[[Page S2868]]

in and out of there. The interesting thing about the Washington Post 
is--we used to have laws around here when I was in the banking business 
called truth in lending. You had to tell the truth to a borrower if you 
were going to lend him money. Those particular polar bears are warm and 
cuddly, but they are not in ANWR. We know where the picture was taken. 
It was taken about 500 miles away near Point Barrow. Nevertheless, it 
was a Park Service photo. It looked good. They just used it and wrote 
us a nice letter and said thank you.

       ANWR--100 percent homegrown American energy.

  That is like homegrown corn.

       The exploration and development of energy resources in the 
     United States is governed by the world's most stringent 
     environmental constraints, and to force development elsewhere 
     is to accept the inevitability of less rigorous oversight.

  This is a gentleman, former executive director of the Sierra Club, 
Doug Wheeler.

       We can do it right. Give us a chance.

  Washington Post, February 12, 2002:

       Our greatest single failure over the last 25 years was our 
     failure to reduce our dependence on foreign oil . . . which 
     would have reduced the leverage of Saudi Arabia.
       Richard Holbrooke, Ambassador to the United Nations in the 
     second Clinton administration.

  February 13, 2002:

       The Bush administration's defense of the leases shows 
     ``disregard for both our precious California coastline and 
     the right of states to make decisions about their 
     environment.''

  This was our good friend, the junior Senator from California, Barbara 
Boxer, commenting on the issue of States having a determination as to 
what should prevail in their State. She further said:

       We're going to swap [oil leases] so that the oil companies 
     can drill where people want them to drill.

  That was February 15. Of course we would like to have them drill in 
our State. I think it is important to reflect the inconsistency 
associated with some of the statements.
  This happens to be back in Eisenhower's time. This was a Petroleum 
Industry War Council poster:

       Your work is vital to victory. Our ships, our planes, our 
     tanks must have oil.

  You do not sail a Navy ship by wind. You do not fly the planes on hot 
air.
  This is by Reuters:

       Iraq urges use of oil weapon against Israel, U.S.
       ``Use oil as a weapon in the battle with the enemy 
     (Israel),'' Iraq's ruling Baath party said in a statement 
     published by Baghdad media Monday.
       ``If the oil weapon is not used in the battle to defend our 
     nations and safeguard our lives and dignity against American 
     and Zionist [namely Israeli] aggression, it is meaningless,'' 
     the Iraqi statement said.
       ``If Arabs want to put an end to Zionism, they are able to 
     do so in 24 hours,'' Saddam told a group of Iraqi religious 
     dignitaries Sunday night.
       ``The world understands the language of economy, so why do 
     not Arabs use this language?'' he asked.
       ``Saddam said if only two Arab States threatened to use 
     economic measures against Western countries if Israel did not 
     withdraw from Palestinian-ruled territory, ``you will see 
     they (Israelis) will pull out the next day.''

  That is the kind of threat being used today.
  Let's take a look at where the Iraqi oil is currently going. It is 
going to California. This is 287 million barrels that we shipped out: 
Minnesota, Midwest, all the States in the red on this chart. Do not 
think we are not getting some Iraqi oil.
  This is what occurred in the world when the United States said it was 
out for the Easter recess. This is a little note to the American people 
and the Senators. What happened April 9, while we were out? We had 
Saddam Hussein impose a 30-day oil embargo; oil jumped $3 a barrel; 
Saddam was paying the Palestinian suicide bombers an increase from 
$10,000 to $25,000; Iraq and Iran called on countries to use ``oil as a 
weapon'' against the United States and Israel, and Libya happened to 
agree with that; the Iraqis--there was a plot, I think it was reported 
in the Christian Science Monitor, to blow up a U.S. warship; the price 
of gasoline moved up.
  So it is happening. Here is our friend Saddam Hussein, very blatantly 
stating ``Oil Is A Weapon.''
  Again, we have seen this check that he is offering suicide bombers--
$25,000.
  This is reality. That is what is occurring in the world today. I do 
not know how the American public feels, but I am fed up.
  The last one I will show again. It is the frustration associated with 
the people. You have seen this before. We all appreciate the sanctity 
of wilderness, parks, and recreation areas. But all those areas in 
Alaska are federally established withdrawals. They are wilderness 
areas, wildlife areas, and national parks. We are proud of them. But we 
are entitled to develop and prosper as a State, to provide educational 
opportunities for our children, sewer and water, and jobs.
  When we look at an area one-fifth the size of the lower 48 and 
recognize we don't have one year-round manufacturing plant in the 
entire State, with the exception of an ammonia plant, that really can 
be considered a manufacturing plant--all of their products are exported 
outside of Alaska. We have oil and we have gas. As you know, once oil 
and gas are developed, they are not very labor intensive. There is a 
lot of maintenance. There is new exploration. The oil industry has done 
a responsible job. But it is not a resident oil industry. We don't have 
small resident companies in our State. We wish we did. We have Exxon, 
we have British Petroleum, we have Phillips, and a couple of others. It 
is all outside capital. The people who contribute to the industry are 
the best, but for the most part they are transient.
  The wealth of an area is in its land. If the land is not controlled 
by the people, then the wealth belongs to government. In our State, for 
the most part it is the Federal Government, and to a lesser degree the 
State government. The only exception we have to that is the land that 
is owned in fee simple by our Native residents and their efforts to try 
to develop the resources on this land.
  But I could go very easily right down the list. We have the potential 
for oil and gas. We are blessed with that. It is in the Arctic. It is 
in the Cook Inlet area. It is down around Anchorage, and it is higher 
up.
  We have some other companies. Unocol is down in the Cook Inlet area. 
But for the most part, it has just been the major oil companies. We 
really don't have a significant locally owned, Alaskan-domiciled oil 
company of any competitive magnitude. I wish we did. But people come up 
and exploit the resources. Most of the profits are taken down below to 
Texas, simply where the oil industry is located. We have even seen 
Phillips move down to Texas as well. That is a corporate decision; that 
is their own business.
  Oil and gas have tremendous potential. The only way the citizens of 
Alaska and the Government can participate in that is through employment 
and through revenues from the taxes of those resources.
  We go to the timber resources. As I have indicated time and time 
again, there is more timber harvested in the State of New York for 
firewood than is produced commercially in the State of Alaska in the 
largest of all our national forests because we don't have State forests 
of any consequence, it is all Federal. Try to get a timber sale on the 
Federal forest today, and you will find yourself sitting on the 
courthouse steps--one injunction after another. As a consequence, I 
think we have one sawmill perhaps still operating in Ketchikan, one 
perhaps still operating in Klawock, and one perhaps still operating in 
Wrangell. That is virtually it.
  We have 33,000 miles of coastline. There is a lot of fishing. We have 
a tough time marketing our salmon, which are wild Alaska salmon, 
because our salmon are seasonal. They start running in May and run 
through August and September. Our competition is now fish farming in 
Chile and Canada. We can't quite comprehend that in Alaska because, 
first of all, we don't know what we would do with our fishermen and 
coastal communities which are the backbone of our State. We think we 
have a superior product. But they can provide the fresh product year 
round in the market.
  We have a problems with our fisheries. We are going through a 
transition. We don't necessarily know what the answer is. We have a lot 
of halibut, a lot of cod, and a lot of crab.
  We are tremendously blessed with minerals. We have no transportation. 
We haven't built a new highway in our State since we opened up that 
highway to Prudhoe Bay to build the pipeline.

[[Page S2869]]

We have no way to reach across our State from east to west. We have no 
highways throughout southeastern Alaska. We have a ferry system.
  As you look at minerals, if you look at that map and try to figure 
out how you are going to get through some of the Federal withdrawals 
located nearby, indicated on the colored charts, you get a different 
picture of that wide open space up there and all those resources. How 
are you going to develop them? Anything we develop we don't market in 
our State because we don't have a population concentration. We have 
660,000 people, or thereabouts, with half of them in Anchorage. 
Everything we produce has to be competitive with the other countries 
that develop resources and sell on the markets of the world. For all 
practical purposes, our world markets, with the exception of oil and 
gas, are in the Orient--Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China to some extent.
  That is a little bit of a rundown of Alaska today. That is why we 
believe, for the benefit of our State, our State government, and for 
our people, that it is imperative we be allowed to develop this area 
for the national security interests of this Nation.
  There is a technical paper I came across which was sent to me on the 
physics of oil and natural gas production. It addresses the 
relationship between Prudhoe Bay and ANWR. It is two paragraphs. I 
think it is important. It is written by the professor of geological 
engineering and chairman of the Department of Mining and Geological 
Engineering, School of Minerals and Engineering, University of Alaska, 
Fairbanks. I am sure he would agree to have that go into the Record.
  It states:

       Due to the physics of oil and natural gas production, the 
     natural gas resources in Prudhoe Bay can now be produced 
     since there has been a significant reduction in the oil 
     reserves--

  In other words, the oil has been pulled down.
  He goes on to say:

       Due to the physics of production, the concurrent production 
     of oil from ANWR with the production of natural gas from 
     Prudhoe Bay can result in the optimum utilization of these 
     energy resources. Without concurrent production there will be 
     a significant time interval after the depletion of the 
     natural gas in Prudhoe Bay before any gas is produced from 
     ANWR. The interval could be as much as 30 years. Assuming 
     only 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR, and an 
     excess capacity of 800,000 barrels per day in the Trans-
     Alaska pipeline, it would take 55 years to utilize this 
     petroleum resource. Thus, natural gas from ANWR could not 
     be optimally utilized for 34 years after the natural gas 
     in Prudhoe Bay is depleted. There is more than adequate 
     time for both Alaskans and those outsiders in the ``lower-
     48'' to freeze in the dark. ANWR petroleum must be 
     utilized now in order to have ANWR gas available when 
     Prudhoe Bay gas is depleted.

  So he is making the case that as we developed Prudhoe Bay, we found 
the gas. We used the gas for recovery of the oil. Now that the oil is 
in decline, we can use the gas. But the same is true in ANWR. If we 
develop ANWR, and begin to produce oil, as the oil declines, we will 
use the gas for reinjection, and then we will have the gas available.
  So there is a logical sequence in the manner in which you develop 
these fields and provide the continuity of oil, followed by the 
continuity of gas.
  I must also indicate that as a professional engineer, Paul Metz is 
providing his opinion and not the opinion, necessarily, or endorsement 
of the University of Alaska, or the engineering department. But I think 
it puts a different light on the logic of the sequence of development 
of a huge hydrocarbon field such as we have in the Alaska Arctic today.
  Mr. President, you have been very gracious with your time. It is 
10:30 at night. I think we started this debate very early. Somebody 
said 8:30. It has been a long day. But I felt it necessary to give Joe 
an opportunity to show his charts, and he has done a good job of that.
  I say to you, Mr. President, you have been gracious with your time. 
And the clerks, and the whole Senate professional staff have been very 
generous.
  Again, I would appeal to those of you who are about ready to go to 
bed, to those staff people who are watching, to consider, one more 
time, the human element. Put aside, for just a moment, the 
environmental considerations that have gone into this debate. Consider 
the people of Alaska. Consider those kids--their hopes, their dreams, 
their aspirations for a better life, an opportunity for sewer and 
water. It looks like the middle child shown in the picture missed the 
dentist. But, in any event, they are American citizens. They are Eskimo 
kids who live in our land, and I think they have a right to look to us, 
look to those of us in this body for some disposition of their future 
so they can enjoy the opportunities that we take for granted.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________