[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20742-20743]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           ALASKA PRODUCTION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I thought it was appropriate that we revisit 
what the junior Senator from Alaska said today. He has come to the 
floor on many occasions and said, as I have stated earlier, the same 
thing. He does it with great passion, and I appreciate how strongly he 
feels about it. I think the time has come that we don't let his 
statements go without giving the facts from the other side. What are 
some of those facts? Let's talk about production of oil in Alaska.
  In 1999, the Clinton-Gore administration offered tracts on nearly 4 
million acres of land in the national petroleum reserve in Alaska, to 
the west of Prudhoe Bay, for oil and gas leasing.

       Oil companies with winning bids will pay--

  This is a staggering figure, but it is to show that we in this 
administration have had an energy policy, as we all know.

       Oil companies with winning bids will pay $104,635,728 for 
     leases in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. A total 
     of 425 tracts on approximately 3.9 million acres were offered 
     by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in today's lease sale, 
     the first such sale for the reserve since 1984.

  It is important we recognize that there is an energy policy and, as 
indicated, this is the first sale for the reserve since 1984.

       Six oil companies submitted 174 bids on 133 tracts.

  The oil industry should explore and develop the Alaskan Petroleum 
Reserve before there is any suggestion of opening the sensitive lands 
of the wildlife refuge to development. We acknowledge that, and that is 
why they are paying $105 million to do that. They should do that before 
there is even a suggestion of opening the sensitive lands of the ANWR 
to develop. ANWR doesn't need to be developed. To even suggest doing it 
before we fully explore the petroleum reserve in Alaska indicates that 
we are doing it for reasons other than petroleum production.

       In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey released a mean 
     estimate of 2.4 billion barrels of economically recoverable 
     oil in the Arctic Refuge at $18 a barrel market price in 1996 
     dollars. Such a discovery would never meet more than a small 
     part of our oil needs at any given time. The U.S. consumes 
     about 19 million barrels of oil daily or almost 7 billion 
     barrels annually. . . .

  So using these numbers for a couple of years, you could drill and it 
would be gone, and you would damage, to say the least, this beautiful 
part of the world.
  The U.S. Geological Survey indicates that the mean estimate of 
economically recoverable reserves assumes an oil price of $18, as I 
have indicated. We know the price of oil is almost double that today. 
Even at $20 a barrel, the mean estimate increases to 3.2 billion 
barrels. This information comes from Dr. Thomas Casadevall, the Acting 
Director of the U.S. Geological Survey.
  Production of oil in the United States peaked in 1970. You can see 
that on this chart. That was when the United States produced about 9.6 
million barrels of oil every day. Production in Alaska has also been on 
a continual decline since 1988. It is very clear that the production of 
oil in Alaska has been going downhill since 1988, when it peaked at 2 
million barrels of oil a day.
  Domestic gas and oil drilling activity decreased nearly 17 percent 
during 1992, the last year of the Bush administration, and was at the 
lowest level since 1942. So I think we should understand that the 
Senator from Alaska--if he has to complain about energy policy--should 
go back to the Bush administration. That is when we bottomed out, so to 
speak.
  Let's talk about what has gone on since 1992 when this administration 
began a concerted effort to increase the production of oil. Under the 
leadership of the Clinton-Gore administration, natural gas production 
on Federal lands onshore and oil production offshore is increasing. 
Natural gas production on Federal onshore lands has increased nearly 60 
percent during this administration. Let me repeat that. Natural gas 
production on Federal onshore lands has increased nearly 60 percent 
since 1992. Oil production on Federal lands is down. But the gas 
statistics belie the argument that the administration has shut down the 
public lands to oil and gas development. This source comes from 
testimony given before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 
July of this year.
  The Gulf of Mexico has become one of the hottest places in the world 
for exploration, especially since this administration supported 
incentives for deep-water development going into effect in 1995. 
Between 1992 and 1999, oil production offshore has increased 62 
percent.
  So it hardly seems to me that this is an administration without an 
energy policy, when we have determined that natural gas production 
during this administration on Federal onshore lands has increased about 
60 percent and we have also determined that during this administration 
oil production offshore has increased 62 percent. Natural gas 
production in deep waters has increased 80 percent in just the past 2 
years. These increases are in areas of the Gulf of Mexico, where the 
United States actively produces oil and gas.
  So the point I am making is that we have my friend, the Senator from 
Alaska, coming to the floor and continually saying we don't have an 
energy policy. These figures belie that. We have an increase in Federal 
onshore lands by 60 percent; oil production offshore, 62 percent; and 
just in the last 2 years, gas production in deep waters increased 80 
percent. Why? Because of actions taken by the Clinton-Gore 
administration.
  The deep water in the Gulf of Mexico has emerged as a world-class oil 
and gas province in the last 4 years. That is as a result of work done 
by this administration. This historic change, after 53 years of 
production in the Gulf of Mexico, has been driven by several major 
factors, all coalescing during this administration. Truly, the deep 
water will drive the new millennium, no question about that.
  I think it is important to note that we are all concerned about the 
fact that we are importing more oil than we should. Look at this chart. 
Oil importation went up in the mid 1970s, and during the gas crunch, 
because of policies taken by the Federal Government with tax credits 
and other things for developing alternative sources of energy, it went 
down. But with the glut of oil and the price of oil low, the 
consumption of oil, imported oil, went up again. Production has gone 
down. It is certainly indicated on this chart.
  Also, I think we have to recognize that one thing has driven 
everything we do in this country, and that is the consumption of oil. 
We consume far more than we should. I think that is why the Clinton-
Gore administration has stressed the fact that we need to do

[[Page 20743]]

something to lessen the consumption of oil in this country.
  The Energy Information Agency reports that the total petroleum 
product demand in 1999 grew by over 600,000 barrels a day, or 3.2 
percent. That is the largest year increase since 1988.
  The transportation-related demand accounted for more than 335,000 
barrels per day.
  According to the Energy Information Agency, the annual energy outlook 
for transportation sector energy consumption is projected to increase 
almost 2 percent per year.
  We need to do better.
  Of the projected increase in oil demand between now and 2020, 87 
percent will be in the transportation sector.
  In 1995, the Republican Congress shut down the administration's 
efforts to study higher fuel efficiency standards for light trucks and 
SUVs. Major automobile manufacturers fought ruthlessly convincing labor 
that it would cost jobs in the United States.
  This summer when consumers started screaming about gasoline prices, 
Ford and GM realized they could increase the fuel economy of SUVs by as 
much as 25 percent. This should have happened many, many years ago. 
But, of course, the major automobile manufacturers were unwilling to 
sacrifice anything.
  The good news is that we can have better fuel economy without costing 
jobs or eliminating the features that consumers seek in these vehicles. 
They have already committed to higher fuel emission standards in Europe 
and Japan. Why didn't they do it here? Because we were gullible. We in 
Congress would not allow legislation to go forward to do something 
about this.
  Let me repeat. I appreciate very much the desire of the Senators from 
Alaska to want to drill in pristine wilderness to create jobs in 
Alaska, but I think we have to look at the big picture. Jobs in Alaska 
are not as important as maintaining the last remaining Arctic pristine 
wilderness we have in America.
  I hope we look at what we are already doing in Alaska to increase 
energy production, and also look to the absolute necessity of doing 
something about alternative energy, such as wind, solar, and 
geothermal--and do something with oil shale--doing things such as that 
so we can become more energy efficient in America and less dependent on 
foreign oil.
  I reserve whatever time we have. I know the Senator from Illinois has 
been here patiently waiting to speak.
  Mr. President, I ask that Senator Dorgan be allowed to follow the 
Senator from Illinois with the time we have remaining in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington has 
requested that he be allowed to speak before me beginning at about 
11:10. I would like to go after Senator Gorton because he is only going 
to speak for about 10 minutes. I will speak for an extended period 
following Senator Gorton's remarks.
  Mr. REID. We have no objection to that. We want to make sure that the 
manager of the bill on the Democrat side, Senator Byrd from West 
Virginia, is able to follow the statement of Senator Gorton--the two 
managers of the bill. I think the Senator from Illinois would not 
object to that.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________