[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14923-14926]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY CRISIS

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I very much appreciate the senior Member of this body, 
the President pro tempore, who is presiding at this time, for giving me 
the opportunity to advise my colleagues of the seriousness of the 
energy crisis in this county. I think we would all agree that the 
matter of energy is something we take a good deal for granted. We take 
for granted that America has been blessed with an affordable, 
plentiful, reliable supply of energy which pretty much provides us with 
a standard of living second to none. But it is something, again, that 
is there. We take it for granted. And we look forward to it continuing.
  We have had some attention given to the crisis out in California, but 
for the most part it has not hit the majority of Americans. I think it 
is fair to say from the following information we have seen there is a 
growing concern that perhaps what happened in California could spread 
to other parts of the country.
  As far as our national security is concerned, we have had a lot of 
discussion; we have seen communiques; we have seen articles concerning 
the national security of our country tied into energy simply because we 
have increased our imports of crude oil into this country from about 37 
percent in 1973 to over 56 percent at this time.
  As a consequence, we have become more beholden to OPEC and, the OPEC 
cartel, and the OPEC cartel has set a price structure of $22 to $28 and 
reduced supply. It is pretty much assumed now we are going to be in a 
period of increased dependence on imported oil from OPEC in the Middle 

[[Page 14924]]

East for the increasing timeframe in the future until we find another 
alternative to crude oil, which is not likely to occur.
  In addition, we have economic security which, of course, is fostered 
by growth and our continued expansion of jobs and the personal aspects 
associated with energy. The security of our lives is somewhat dependent 
on energy, the future of our dreams. We have factors to consider such 
as commitment, safety, and freedom from harm. Energy is directly 
related to that in the sense of what happens when our kids are home; 
the lights go out, the security alarm does not work--things to be 
concerned about in a very rapid period of time. We have the issue of 
job security to keep Americans at work and create more jobs. Energy 
powers the workplace, and that moves this economy forward, bringing 
each of us along with it.
  As we look at our standard of living, our plentiful supply of energy, 
the affordability, and the recognition that some of this is in 
question, I think we have to look at the reality associated with the 
actions being contemplated in this body and the House of 
Representatives. It is our understanding that the House of 
Representatives will be addressing an energy bill this week.
  The reason things are different this time is we have brought together 
a set of circumstances which I have highlighted on previous occasions, 
but previously it was different. We have had a series of situations 
highlighted by what is happening in California. We have seen an 
increased dependence on foreign oil, as I have indicated, of 56 
percent. The Department of Energy indicates that will increase to 64, 
65, 66 percent by the year 2010.
  What is different about oil compared with our other sources of 
energy? America and the world move on oil. We have other sources of 
energy for electricity, including coal, natural gas, wind, hydro. But 
we use oil. As we look at our increased dependence on foreign oil, we 
recognize it affects our national security. Yet we are becoming more 
and more subject to control by the Middle East. We have not had any 
nuclear plants licensed in over 10 years in this country; nuclear is 
about 20 percent of our energy. We have seen gas prices soar from $2.16 
to over $10 and then come down again, but nevertheless we have seen a 
dramatic increase at a time when we are using natural gas at a faster 
rate than we are finding new gas reserves. We have not seen a new oil 
refinery in this country in almost 20 years. We have not seen a coal-
fired plant built in the last 10 years. We find suddenly we do not have 
adequate transmission; the transmission lines are overloaded, both 
natural gas and electricity. So things are different now.
  I fear as we pursue an energy bill in the Senate, we are going to end 
up where we were the last time we attempted to make some subjective 
corrections. I think it is important to recognize this in the Energy 
Committee where most of this legislation resides. In 1992, we passed a 
number of very positive, meaningful bills out of committee to increase 
domestic production, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to 
expedite infrastructure, develop alternative fuels, encourage renewable 
fuel development, promote conservation, and increase funding for the 
LIHEAP program which provides assistance for those with low income.
  My point is we passed a meaningful bill but what we enacted was 
virtually nothing: Double flush toilets and a left turn on a red light. 
That is what we passed.
  If we pursue an energy bill this time, it appears to me we are 
pursuing much of the same that we passed in committee but are not 
passing into law simply because of a concern by well-meaning 
environmental groups that there is something wrong with increasing 
supply. We will have to increase supply.
  I also point out job security. This is a jobs issue in the United 
States. It was interesting to hear the debate the other day in the 
House of Representatives. The Teamsters and the Democratic caucus had 
an opportunity to express the merits of increased supply.
  As a consequence of the points I made relative to the fact that 
things are different, yet we are pursuing the same old alternatives, we 
are putting emphasis on renewal, putting emphasis on alternatives, 
placing emphasis on wind power and solar power, but we are not really 
increasing supply as the demand has increased.
  This chart demonstrates what is happening. The burden of increasing 
energy bills hurts most those families who can afford it the least. 
Almost 14 percent of the family budget is spent on energy for families 
earning less than $15,000. The point is obvious and most convincing: 
Runaway energy rates are costing Americans a great deal of money in 
their households, as well as costing jobs.
  We have reviews from coast to coast. American working families have 
seen more than 400,000 jobs basically disappear since the first of the 
year. A large reason for that, a significant reason, is the cost of 
energy. In June alone, 114,000 jobs were lost. Most of those were good-
paying jobs, manufacturing jobs, for so many families. We saw Northwest 
Airlines lose 2,000 jobs; International Paper, 3,000 jobs; aluminum 
plants in the Northwest find it more profitable to sell electricity 
than make aluminum; Miller Brewing Company found high energy costs made 
it more economic to brew beer in Dallas and ship it to California 
instead of brewing it there in the first place. In Delaware last week, 
Du Pont indicated it was relieving its workforce by some 1,500, and 
possibly up to 5,000, jobs and another 1,500 contract jobs. The reason? 
Increased energy costs.
  The problem is widespread: 54 companies had mass layoffs in Wisconsin 
in May, a significant portion due to high energy costs; Oregon alone 
has had 7,000 employees laid off since last summer. State officials 
blame rising energy and fuel costs. California blackouts have cost 
135,000 jobs in California. Unless we turn this around, the economic 
doom of a few short years ago will turn into a prolonged bust. The 
reason for this is the demand has increased but we have not increased 
the supply.
  As I indicated, the emphasis has been on renewables and alternatives. 
We spent some $6 billion, but they still account for less than 4 
percent of the total energy mix. That includes hydro as well. As we 
look at potential solutions, there are some at hand. That is the 
President's comprehensive, balanced natural energy plan. The plan 
includes more than 100 specific recommendations to increase 
conservation, improve energy, and domestic supplies of energy as well. 
This plan will directly create more than 1.5 million new jobs. We need 
these jobs in the United States today.
  The direct benefits speak for themselves, but the indirect benefits 
will be immeasurable. By easing energy costs, returning stability and 
reliability to our energy grid, businesses can again look forward to 
growth, and that means jobs. Through incentives to promote new energy 
production, the energy plan will help to ensure meeting our growing 
demand. New energy supplies mean new jobs. They mean the stability of 
existing jobs. The plan places an emphasis on American ingenuity and 
American technology. We are using our best and brightest to craft 
solutions to these energy problems. It will take hard work. It will 
take new thinking and new jobs as well.
  The plan also encourages development of resources that exist here at 
home, and that includes the safe exploration for energy under a small 
portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  It is interesting to see some of the propaganda on this issue. I have 
here a page from Rollcall. It is sponsored by a number of the 
environmental groups--American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife. It is 
rather interesting because what it says is what, in effect, we did in 
1992. It says:

       Let's Promote Clean Energy
       A responsible bill would encourage the use of clean energy 
     and set significantly higher efficiency standards for motor 
     vehicles to reduce global warming pollution. Clean and 
     renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal. 
     . . .

  That is where we were in 1992. Surely we want this technology. But it 
simply 

[[Page 14925]]

is not here yet. It now constitutes less than 4 percent of our 
energy supply.
  This is part of the problem when we listen to our well-meaning 
friends who simply propose a clean energy bill. They do not say how we 
are really going to increase the supply. We have to dramatically 
increase the supply.
  Rollcall says:

       Let's Reduce Pollution
       We could significantly cut emissions of global warming 
     pollutants by setting stronger fuel economy standards for 
     cars, SUVs and light trucks.

  They talk about 40 miles per gallon. But they do not talk about the 
preference of Americans to buy automobiles. One of the interesting 
things in this country is that the 10 most fuel-efficient automobiles 
on the market today constitute exactly 1.5 percent of the automobile 
sales.
  They also say:

       Let's Improve Energy Efficiency
       The cleanest, cheapest, quickest way to meet our energy 
     needs is to improve energy efficiency. To help consumers, 
     let's have an energy bill that dramatically increases the 
     fuel economy of our vehicles. . . .

  That is fine, but what does it do to increase supply? We have hydro; 
we have nuclear, but it does not say anything about increasing nuclear 
energy in this country, which is clean.
  We are going to fall into the same trap we did in 1992. We are going 
to go through a lengthy process here, but we are not going to produce 
any more energy. One of the things that bothers me a little bit is the 
misleading statement in this particular ad. It says:

       The bill would open up pristine and ecologically fragile 
     lands like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Rocky 
     Mountain Front to oil drilling. There's no excuse for 
     sacrificing these and other national treasures and the 
     wildlife that depends on them. . . .

  They further say:

       The economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge would 
     meet only six months of our nation's needs, and wouldn't 
     start reaching us for ten years.

  Both those statements are absolutely false. To suggest it would be a 
6-month supply would be to assume that there would be no other energy 
produced in the United States or imported into the United States for a 
6-month period.
  If you want to turn it around, you say: Therefore we are not going to 
allow any development to occur in Alaska. Therefore the United States 
will be short a 6-month supply.
  It is used over and over again. It is a standard environmental pitch. 
It says it would take 10 years. It would not take 10 years. The 
Department of Energy and Department of Interior have indicated they 
would have oil on line in 3.5 years, if indeed the oil is there in the 
abundance it has to be.
  In conclusion, I think we should note a couple of facts that are very 
real. We are looking at jobs in this country. Opening ANWR would create 
about 700,000 new jobs nationwide, associated with the development of 
ANWR if, indeed, it carries the reserves that we anticipate.
  We anticipate somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels of oil. 
That would equal what we would import from Saudi Arabia over a 30-year 
period of time.
  Here at home we have this opportunity. We are not going to drill our 
way out of this crisis, but we can substantially relieve our 
dependence.
  The other point I want to make is about national security. We are 
becoming more and more dependent on countries such as Iraq where we 
enforce the no-fly zones. Sadam attempted to shoot down our U-2 just 
last week. We buy a million barrels of oil from Iraq, and what do we do 
with the oil? We put it in our planes and go bomb him, take out his 
targets. He develops a missile capability and aims it at our ally, 
Israel. I don't think that is the best foreign policy.
  If you look at the ANWR chart, you get a different view of the 
realities. And the reality is there is a huge area called ANWR. It is a 
relatively significant portion of dedicated wilderness: 8.5 million 
acres are in wilderness, 9 million already in refuge, and 1.5 million 
acres are the 1002 area that we are considering opening. There is no 
scientific evidence that says we cannot do it safely.
  What about refuges? We do all kinds of development in refuges. We 
have 30 refuges all over the country where we drill for oil and gas. 
These are the States that have them. We have the specific refuges here 
in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Montana, Mississippi, 
Alaska, California. What is so different about ANWR?
  Is there a reason we cannot use this technology in ANWR? Refuges are 
open to exploration for minerals and oil and gas as well. It is easy to 
confuse a refuge with a wilderness or with a park, but we do not allow 
any motorized access in wildernesses and parks. Each is unique to its 
own specific purpose. The balanced use of Federal land is commonplace 
in a refuge. It is the norm. So many people misunderstand that.
  In more than 30 Federal refuges from coast to coast we safely explore 
for mineral resources. There are over 400 wells in Louisiana alone, so 
what is different about ANWR?
  By definition, refuges are balanced places where the environment is 
always protected and resources are explored only where the resource 
exists. ANWR is a refuge and it is no different. To suggest we cannot 
do it safely is not proven by any scientific evidence. This is an 
emotional argument brought about by the environmental community to 
generate revenue and dollars.
  Let me conclude with a couple of references because my time is almost 
up. We have new technology in ANWR. The new technology is the 
directional drilling which lends itself very much to 3D seismic. The 
old way you used to drill was to go straight down. If you hit it, you 
were lucky. This is the new systematic 3D seismic which allows you to 
get into the pockets of oil. It is estimated by the technologists, 
today if we were going to drill under this cap, we could come out at 
gate 8 at Reagan Airport. This technology has advanced that much.
  We have the toughest environmental standards here in the world. 
Prudhoe Bay is the finest oilfield in the world even though it is 30-
year-old technology.
  What is Prudhoe Bay? Prudhoe Bay has produced its thirteen-millionth 
barrel of oil. It was supposed to only have 10 million barrels. My 
point is, as we look at the prospects for ANWR, the prospects for a 
major discovery according to the geologists is quite good, with an 
estimate of 5.6 to 16 billion. If it is 10 billion, it would be as big 
as Prudhoe Bay which has supplied this Nation with 20 percent of its 
crude oil for the last 20 years. Exploration would be limited to a 
sliver of land, roughly 2,000 acres.
  We have ice roads, which is new technology, as the chart will show. 
This is the directional drilling. There are the ice roads. We build 
these out of water. Some people say there is no water in the North 
Slope. That is ridiculous. You build snow fences, generate snow, you 
can drill down below permafrost and there is plenty of water, or you 
can take the salt water and use it through a desalination process, 
which is quite common.
  This advanced technology makes the footprint manageable. A 2,000 
acre-foot would average five average family farms. Caribou do not calve 
in the 1002 area. They did not this year or the last 2 years. Here is a 
picture of the calving area. The environmental arguments just do not 
support any of these generalizations.
  There is an abundance of drilling on the Canadian side. There is a 
caribou herd. Here is the information on the charts. It shows where 
Anderson Exploration conducted seismic studies. There are lease sales 
and echo plan areas all over the Canadian side. Here is the range of 
the Porcupine caribou herd, and here is the drilling that is going on. 
Of course, here is Alaska and here is Canada.
  My point is to suggest that while the Canadians object to our 
initiating activity, they have a very aggressive ongoing program. 
Obviously, they look at themselves as competitors with Alaska supplying 
the United States with oil and gas.
  Exploration and development of ANWR is supported by Alaskans. 
Alaskans are proud and protective of the environment. Alaska has the 
best oversight in the world in the development 

[[Page 14926]]

of oil and gas. Prudhoe 
Bay is required to adhere to State law as well as Federal law. We care 
about where we get our oil. If we look at the area of Saudi Arabia and 
OPEC nations, we don't seem to give any consideration on how it is 
produced and whether it is done environmentally and in a compatible 
manner.
  Alaskans are proud and protective of the environment, and we are 
willing to do our part to end the energy crisis. There is no NIMBY in 
my State; that is, ``Not in my backyard.'' Seventy-five percent of all 
Alaskans favor exploration. The Alaskans who live there--the people who 
must breathe the air, drink the water, and make the decisions about 
their communities--support exploration. It is absolutely unfair to deny 
them the same kind of opportunity everyone else enjoys in this country.
  Kaktovik is a small village in ANWR in the 1002 area. 
Environmentalists say there is nothing there, that it is the Serengeti 
of the north. It is a village of about 250 people. There is a physician 
there, a small school, and a general store. They are real people.
  Do not be misled by the suggestion that somehow we don't have the 
capability and we cannot do it safely. We can. Why not do it for 
American jobs?
  This issue reaches a critical mass this week as Congress finally--and 
I emphasize ``finally''--begins to work on a comprehensive energy bill. 
I urge my colleagues both here and in the other body to recognize that 
this is a fork in the road, and our efforts can have great impact for 
the American worker. Do we continue down the path of instability and 
rising energy costs--a path that finds more American families with pink 
slips and uncertain futures--or do we head down a path for job creation 
based on solid science and growth?
  With a comprehensive, balanced national energy strategy in place, we 
can look forward to reliable, affordable, and plentiful energy that has 
fueled this economy in the past and that will power a bright future. I 
hope that is the choice because we cannot afford to make the mistakes 
we made in 1992.
  I will not stand by in this body and allow us to pass an energy bill 
that does not increase the supply of energy in this country. It simply 
is unconscionable. That is apparently where we are headed, to some 
degree.
  I think it is important that we recognize what is going on in the 
House of Representatives and those in opposition who are suggesting 
alternative renewables with no increased supply, and recognize that we 
have a serious concern over the loss of jobs in this country.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from 
the Chattanooga Times by Lee Anderson who has been to ANWR and has some 
interesting things to say about it.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       President George W. Bush wants to help head off our future 
     energy problems by drilling for oil in the far, far north of 
     Alaska, in an area called the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge.
       Environmentalists and liberals are yelling, ``Over our dead 
     bodies.'' And now that the Democrats control the United 
     States Senate, they think they will win. But would you rather 
     continue to rely on Iraq's Saddam Hussein and a host of other 
     foreign nations for American oil?
       There are some facts about Alaska and the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge that sensible people should look at 
     rationally--though many people won't do that.
       In the first place, the proposed drilling site is so far 
     away and in such a desolate, cold and forbidding area that 
     almost no one will ever see it.
       Second, it's not far from Prudhoe Bay, where current oil 
     production is proceeding without serious problems.
       But perhaps most important is the fact that the proposed 
     oil production would affect very little land. Consider:
       Alaska spreads over 615,230 square miles; already has 125 
     million acres in national parks, preserves and wildlife 
     refuges.
       The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consists of 19 million 
     acres. But the area proposed for drilling is only 1.5 million 
     acres. And of that, only about 2,000 acres--about twice the 
     size of Chattanooga's Lovell Field--would be used.
       Will reason prevail and bring oil production? Probably not 
     soon.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield any remaining time to the 
Senator from Wyoming. I thank the Chair for his attention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I appreciate the comments of my friend from Alaska. Certainly that 
issue is important to all of us. We will be dealing with it soon.

                          ____________________