[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 51 (Wednesday, May 3, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3933-S3934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last week I spoke on the floor 
concerning the rising cost of gasoline and diesel fuel--in fact, all 
fuels. We have all been talking about the price of energy in this 
country for the past several weeks. Over the weekend, I was at a soccer 
game, and that was the conversation. Everyone had their horror stories 
about what they were paying to fill up their vehicles and discussion 
about how bad is it going to get.
  My comments this morning are directed in a vein that unless this 
Nation gets serious about its energy and how we move forward with a 
truly balanced approach, it is going to get worse before it gets 
better.
  There have been a lot of proposals and a lot of discussion. There is 
a sense that perhaps there is some easy fix out there that we in the 
Congress have overlooked. It is clear to those of us who have really 
been following this issue that there is no easy fix. We didn't get here 
in a week. We are not going to get out of this in a week. We are not 
going to get out of this through quick congressional action. We have to 
do more when it comes to furthering our conservation of our current 
supply. We have to speed the development of our alternative and 
renewable fuels. We have to produce more energy at home rather than 
buying from unstable and unreliable sources abroad.
  Yesterday, the European nations voiced support for a U.N. Security 
Council resolution that could produce sanctions against Iran to slow 
their nuclear program. We may have a ways to go to convince Russia and 
China that sanctions are appropriate, but the hint that sanctions could 
endanger the roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day that Iran exports, 
it is this type of unrest that can spook or scare off the international 
oil markets, thus driving the price of oil higher.

  Yesterday, following in the footsteps of Venezuelan Hugo Chavez, 
Bolivia nationalized its natural gas industry. Almost certainly this is 
not going to result in lower prices for natural gas in the future.
  I made some comments this weekend that Congress can pass and repeal 
laws, but we don't have the ability to repeal the law of supply and 
demand. With demand for oil edging dangerously close

[[Page S3934]]

to the maximum production levels, with the developing nations 
increasing their demand for energy supplies, with the unrest we see in 
Nigeria, the standoff over Iran's nuclear programs, we simply have to 
conserve more and produce more. It is not an either/or situation.
  I have heard some people suggest that the only way out of this is 
conservation, renewables or alternatives. It has to be everything. It 
has to be a full, comprehensive approach. It is not an either/or 
situation.
  On the conservation side, the Republican leadership last week 
introduced legislation to give the President the authority to raise the 
CAFE standards for passenger vehicles. I am one of those who is willing 
to do more in this area. People want to know: What can we do now, what 
can we do today that is going to help offset the high prices? There are 
some very simple things we can do from the conservation side to 
conserve fuel and save money.
  Individuals can make sure that their tires are properly inflated, 
that their cars are tuned, and reduce speed. All of these improve fuel 
efficiency.
  We all need to do more to conserve all different types of energy, 
including our electricity, since much of it is made from oil. Look at 
your thermostat this summer. Don't crank up that air-conditioning as 
much as you might want.
  In the intermediate run, over the next 5 to 10 years, we have to 
expand the use of our renewable energy, whether it is wind, geothermal, 
biomass, ocean, solar, and hydroelectric. We need to get to the next 
generation of nuclear powerplants, get these off the drawing boards, 
and fund research on everything from hydrogen cars to improved 
technology for clean coal and carbon sequestration to lock up 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  But the other component we must focus on is increasing our domestic 
supplies of oil and natural gas because it truly will take everything, 
a truly balanced energy approach, to stop America from being ``over a 
barrel'' when it comes to high energy prices. And the foremost thing, 
the No. 1 thing we can do to prevent this country from being in the 
same situation 5, 7, 10 years out from now is to stop wasting our time 
and to open up a small portion of the Arctic Coastal Plain in our State 
of Alaska to oil and gas development.
  We have about 10.4 billion barrels or more of oil sitting up in ANWR 
that can be developed in an environmentally friendly, sane, responsible 
manner. We do this utilizing the technology that has been developed 
over the past several decades, whether it is the 3-D seismic that helps 
us pinpoint where the deposits are or the directional drilling that 
allows us to go underneath the surface so there is no surface 
disturbance. We can do this without harm to the wildlife, without 
harming the porcupine caribou herd or without displacing a polar bear 
or moving a muskoxen.
  The legislation we have discussed opening up ANWR would limit the 
surface impact to 2,000 acres--2,000 acres out of 19.5 million acres--
in the ANWR area. This is one-tenth of 1 percent of the area we are 
talking about for development.
  Opening ANWR could produce up to 1 million barrels a day of 
additional oil for 30 years to meet this country's domestic demand and, 
thus, help drive down the prices. When we look at the laws of supply 
and demand, 1 million barrels of oil is nothing to sneeze at. When we 
look at the equivalent, 1 million barrels a day is the equivalent of 
the energy we would obtain from a 3.7-million acre wind farm. To put it 
in context, if we took the whole State of Connecticut and the whole 
State of Rhode Island, combine them and put a wind farm on all of that 
landmass, that is what it would take, generating wind for 1 year--and 
you have to have a steady wind supply--to equal 1 million barrels a 
day.
  Mr. President, 1 million barrels a day would be equivalent to one-
fifth of America's oil production by the year 2025. One million barrels 
a day for 30 years will be one of the largest finds in the world in the 
past 40 years and perhaps the largest field in North American history.
  In this morning's ``Investor's Business Daily,'' a comment is made in 
the editorial section. I will read it:

       A million barrels a day could make a big dent in today's 
     prices. More importantly, it would help defend the U.S. from 
     oil blackmail by terrorist Arab regimes and leftist enemies 
     like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and now Bolivia's Evo Morales.

  A million barrels a day makes a difference.
  The revenue to be gained from ANWR, again, is nothing to sneeze at. 
The Congressional Research Service this week released a report that 
found that the Federal Treasury is likely to gain $90 billion from the 
taxes on oil produced from ANWR when oil is at 60 bucks a barrel. And 
that number does not take into account any Federal money from the 
production of natural gas, which is also likely to be found in the 
area. It does not include any of the bonus bids or the royalties that 
the Government will get upfront before the oil is even found.
  Mr. President, you know about this issue more than anybody in the 
Senate. That $90 billion figure is based on the assumption that ANWR 
contains the medium estimate for oil production of 10.4 billion 
barrels--1 million barrels a day for 30 years.
  At today's prices--and the price this morning is a little over $74--
at today's prices, and assuming the industry's expectation that ANWR 
may hold 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, the Federal tax take 
may hit $173 billion over the life of the field. Now that is not an 
insignificant chunk of change.
  I know there are those who will say that ANWR cannot come online in 
time to help our current price problem, but I suspect that as a 
country, when we finally commit to getting serious about our energy 
policies, we will send a signal to the commodities traders, and that 
will have an immediate impact on our prices. We took a significant step 
forward along those lines last year when we passed the Energy Policy 
Act. I compliment the chairman of the Energy Committee for his hard 
work, but we need to do more. Anyone who thinks that 5 or 10 years from 
now we are not going to see more hurricanes, we are not going to see 
more supply disruptions, or more production impediments is not being 
realistic.

  For the past 19 years, this Nation has been waiting for Congress to 
act to increase our fuel supplies. If we don't do it now, motorists 
will have full justification, as they stand in the summer's heat 
waiting to pay $3.50 or perhaps $4 a gallon for gasoline, wondering: 
What in the world is wrong with us? Where is our common sense?
  We have to look at the facts--not the emotional appeals--involving 
ANWR. We need to look at the improved technology that will protect the 
Arctic's environment while we produce the fuel to help lower the 
prices--maybe not today, maybe not tomorrrow, but in the not too 
distant future. We need to start reducing domestic fuel supplies now.
  Mr. President, I see that my colleague from Idaho is here, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska for her 
dedication and the Chair's dedication to the development of ANWAR. We 
can all look back at the time when this Congress actually passed it and 
it was vetoed by President Clinton. If that had not happened, today 
ANWR would be producing and would be feeding at least a million barrels 
a day of oil into the system, and the refineries at Anacortes, WA, 
would be operating at full capacity. My guess is that gas would not be 
$3 at the pump, and we would be in a much stronger position worldwide 
today if we were allowed to produce.
  It is a supply-and-demand issue. We all know that. We are going to 
create greater transparency in those markets so that the American 
people can rest assured that there is no gouging. We, the same, want to 
understand that. But I think that when that is understood, if that is 
what we find, then the world begins to really look at why $3, why 
$3.10, why $4? Why is demand outstripping supply, and all of those 
types of things? It is so darned important.

                          ____________________