[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16063-16065]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                 ENERGY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I will try to be brief because I am 
sure there are many who would like to start the recess.
  Madam President, I call your attention and that of my colleagues to 
the activity in the U.S. House of Representatives which occurred the 
day before yesterday, rather late at night. This involved the reporting 
out of an energy bill, a very comprehensive bill. As a consequence, the 
baton now passes to the Senate. There is going to be a great deal of 
debate in the committee, on which I am the ranking member, along with 
other members of that committee, including the Senator from Louisiana 
who just addressed this body. As a consequence of that debate and the 
development of our own energy bill at this time, I will highlight one 
of the topical points in that bill that affects my State of Alaska. 
That is the issue of ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  The action by the House is very responsible. It puts the issue in 
perspective. The issue has been that somehow this huge area called 
ANWR, an area of 19 million acres, an area that is approximately the 
size of the State of South Carolina, is at risk by any action by the 
Congress to initiate authorization for exploration.
  What the House has done is extraordinary, mandating a limitation of 
2,000 acres to be the footprint associated with any development that 
might occur in that area. It takes the whole issue and puts it in 
perspective that, indeed, This is not more than four or five small 
farms, assuming the rest of the area of the State of South Carolina 
were a wilderness. That is the perspective.
  For those who argue ANWR is at risk, the House action has clearly 
identified the footprint will be 2,000 acres. What will that do to 
America's technology, to America's ingenuity? It will challenge it. It 
will say, we must develop this field, if indeed the oil is there, with 
this kind of footprint.
  This technology has been developed in this country. The exploration 
phase is three-dimensional. It suggests that you can drill under the 
U.S. Capitol and come out at gate 8 at Reagan Airport. That is the 
technology. This gives side views of what lies under the ground and the 
prospects for oil and gas. It mandates the best technology. It mandates 
we must develop this technology, and as a consequence puts a challenge 
to the environmental community, the engineering community, and our 
Nation. That challenge will help make this the best oilfield in the 
world, bar none.
  What else does it have? It has a project labor agreement. That means 
there will be a contractual commitment between the unions, the 
Teamsters, and the AFL-CIO, and it will create thousands of jobs in 
this country. These are American jobs.
  I urge Members to consider for a moment that over half of our deficit 
balance of payments is the cost of imported oil. Once the Congress 
speaks on this issue, there will be a reaction from OPEC. That reaction 
will be very interesting. OPEC is going to increase its supply and the 
price of oil is going to be reduced in this country. There is no 
question about it. If OPEC knows we mean business about reducing our 
dependence on imported oil, they will clearly get the signal.
  Furthermore, it is rather interesting what the House did with the 
disposition of royalties. The anticipated revenue from lease sales for 
the Federal land in this area is somewhere in the area of $1.5 to $2 
billion. That money is not just beginning to go in the Federal 
Treasury; it will go into the development of alternative and renewable 
sources of energy. So we have the funds to develop the new 
technologies.
  One of the misconceptions in this country that covers energy is that 
it is all the same. It isn't. We generate electricity from coal. The 
State of West Virginia is a major supplier of coal. Nearly 51 percent 
of the energy produced in this country comes from coal. We also have 
the capability to produce from nuclear. About 22 percent of our energy 
comes from nuclear. We also use a large amount of natural gas, but our 
natural gas reserves are going down faster than we are finding new 
ones.
  We have hydro; we have wind; we have solar. These are all important 
in the mix. The funds from the sale or lease in ANWR are going to go 
back and develop renewable sources of energy.
  The point I make is why these energies are important. America moves 
on oil. The world moves on oil. There is no alternative. We must find 
an alternative, perhaps fuel sales, perhaps hydrogen technology, but it 
is not there. We will be increasingly dependent on sources from 
overseas.
  I know the President pro tempore remembers the issue of the U2 over 
Russia, Gary Powers, an American pilot in an observation plane that was 
shot down. At that time, we were contemplating a major meeting of the 
world leaders to try and relieve tensions. When his plane was shot 
down, tensions were increased dramatically between the Soviet Union and 
the United States. It was a time of great tension.
  The other day we had a U2 flying over Iraq with an American pilot. We 
were enforcing a no-fly zone. We were doing an observation. A missile 
was shot at that aircraft, barely missing it. It blew up behind the 
tail. It hardly made page 5 in the news.

[[Page 16064]]

  We are importing a million barrels a day from Iraq. We are enforcing 
a no-fly zone over Iraq. We have flown 231,000 individual sorties, with 
men and women flying our aircraft, enforcing this no-fly zone, ensuring 
his targets are not fully developed. Occasionally we bomb and take out 
targets.
  How ironic; here we are, importing a million barrels a day, enforcing 
a no-fly zone, taking on his targets, but we are taking this oil and 
putting it in our aircraft to do it. I don't know about our foreign 
policy.
  What does he do with the money he receives from us? His Republican 
Guards keep Saddam Hussein alive. He develops a missile delivery 
capability. He puts on a biological warhead, perhaps. Where is it 
aimed? At our ally, Israel. Virtually every speech Saddam Hussein gives 
is concluded with ``death to Israel.''
  Where does this fit in the big picture? Six weeks ago we imported 
750,000 barrels a day from Iraq. I find it frustrating. We had another 
little experience about 3\1/2\ weeks ago. Saddam Hussein was not 
satisfied with the sanctions being levied by the U.N. He said: I will 
cut my oil production 2.5 million for 30 days. That is 60 million 
barrels. We all thought OPEC would stand up and increase production. 
They didn't. They have a cartel. We can't have cartels in this country. 
We have antitrust laws against them.
  My point is quite evident. OPEC, the Mideast nations, are trying to 
stick together, hold up the price, because they are increasing their 
leverage on the United States. What does that do to the national 
security of this country? It is quite obvious to me.
  There is another argument that was used. We heard it on the House 
floor: Ban the export of any Alaskan oil that might come from ANWR. 
Fine, I will support that.
  One of the amusing observations I made the other day is that one of 
the Members of the House got up and said we have to oppose opening this 
because all the oil is going to Japan. That is nonsense. So it is 
prohibited in the authorization. The last oil that was exported outside 
the United States from Alaska occurred a year ago last April, a very 
small amount that was surplus. But it is not surplus anymore because 
California is now importing a great deal of foreign oil because they 
have increased their utilization while Alaska has declined in its 
production.
  If you go through the arguments that will be before this body on the 
ANWR issue, please think about the action of the House, the responsible 
action of the House. No longer is 19 million acres at risk, an area the 
size of the State of South Carolina; 2,000 acres is at risk. Is that a 
reasonable compromise to address our energy security? Certainly. It 
mandates the best use and the highest use of particular knowledge. It 
has a project labor agreement in it. The unions think very highly of 
this because it has become a jobs issue.
  We have an obligation to do what is right for America. We know our 
environmental friends have taken a stand on this, but most of their 
arguments are gone. Can you open it safely? Surely; and the Federal 
royalties are going to go back for conservation and renewables and R&D. 
We are going to put a ban on exports, resolving that issue.
  ANWR has been the focal point of a lot of misinformation by 
environmental extremists. They have tried to hold it hostage for their 
own publicity, membership, and dollars, and they have been quite 
effective. But the House vote proves that when we really look beyond 
the rhetoric, we can safely explore the resources in ANWR.
  I applaud the House leadership for crafting a compromise, a balanced 
bill, one that I think every Member should seriously consider.
  After the recess, I am going to be discussing this issue at some 
length. I hope my colleagues will join me. We have heard from a few who 
say, we are going to filibuster this. You are going to filibuster an 
energy bill? Is that what you really want to do? Are you going to 
filibuster and in effect cause us to increase our dependence on 
imported oil? Filibuster a bill that will provide more American jobs 
for American labor? I welcome that debate.
  It is amusing, and I am going to conclude on this note because I see 
the President pro tempore patiently waiting, how things change in our 
media as they are exposed to the pressures from special interest 
groups. I am going to quote from the Chattanooga Free Press, June 3 of 
this year, an article done by Reed Irvine. He cites the issue of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the issue of arsenic in the drinking 
water, the idea of trying to bring things into balance. He specifically 
takes on two of the major newspapers in this country, the Washington 
Post and the New York Times, by reminding us of their gross 
inconsistency. He states:

       In 1987, a Washington Post editorial describing ANWR as one 
     of the ``bleakest, most remote places on the continent'' 
     said, ``(T)here is hardly any other place where drilling 
     would have less impact on surrounding life . . . Congress 
     would be right to go ahead and, with all the conditions and 
     environmental precautions that apply in Prudhoe Bay, see 
     what's under the refuge's tundra.''
       In 1988, a New York Times editorial said of the area, 
     ``(T)he potential is enormous and the environmental risks are 
     modest . . . the likely value of the oil far exceeds 
     plausible estimates of the environmental cost.'' It 
     concluded, ``(I)t is hard to see why absolutely pristine 
     preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence 
     over the nation's energy needs.''

  That was in 1988. We are importing right now close to 60 percent of 
the oil we consume. The article goes on to say:

       Since then our energy needs have become more pressing, but 
     with new editorial page editors, both these papers are now 
     singing a different tune about the ANWR. At the Times, 
     editorial-page editor Howell Raines has dumbed-down the 
     paper's editorial pages and op-ed pages. A good example is an 
     editorial on drilling for oil in ANWR published last March. 
     It said, ``This page has addressed the folly of trespassing 
     on a wondrous, wildlife preserve for what, by official 
     estimates, is likely to be a modest amount of economically 
     recoverable oil.''

  What the Post had described as ``one of the bleakest, most remote 
places on the continent'' had somehow in the flick of a new editorial 
editor been transformed, in 14 years, to some wonderful wildlife 
preserve.

       Having worked that miracle, Raines has been designated as 
     the next executive editor of the paper.

  Over on the other side:

       Fred Hiatt, who succeeded Meg Greenfield as the editorial 
     page editor of the Washington Post, effected a similar 
     transformation. Now a Post editorial describes that formerly 
     remote, bleak wasteland as, ``a unique ecological resource'' 
     and says that exploiting it ``for more oil to feed more of 
     the same old profligate habits would be to take the wrong 
     first step.'' The Post accused [those of us in this body who 
     support this] of ``demagoguery.''

  How clever.
  I ask unanimous consent 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 Chattanooga Times/Chattanooga Free Press, June 3, 2001]

                         Shady Environmentalism

                            (By Reed Irvine)

       Environmentalists come in many shades of green, but a lot 
     of them are just plain shady, ignoring science and common 
     sense and jumping on the green bandwagon for partisan 
     political purposes. This is evident in the rush of people to 
     bash the Bush environmental initiatives. All of a sudden, 
     thanks to a last minute move by Bill Clinton, countless 
     Americans began quaking in their boots, having learned from 
     the media that something very few of them had ever heard of 
     before, arsenic in drinking water, might give them cancer.
       They were not told that this conclusion was based on 
     studies in countries where the level of arsenic in drinking 
     water is as much as 10 times higher that the 50 parts per 
     billion maximum level permitted in the U.S. We have yet to 
     see a study showing that cancers caused by arsenic are more 
     prevalent in communities in this country where arsenic in 
     drinking water is above average than in those communities 
     where it is below average. We have seen a story in the New 
     York Times reporting that arsenic is used at the Sloan 
     Kettering Institute to cure a particularly vicious type of 
     leukemia.
       Even more than arsenic in drinking water, the proposed 
     drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has 
     been used to bash President bush and Vice President Dick 
     Cheney. Back in the 1980s. two of our most influential 
     newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times, 
     favored exploitation of the oil in this remote, inhospitable 
     region of Alaska.
       In 1987, a Washington Post editorial describing this area 
     as ``one of the bleakest,

[[Page 16065]]

     most remote places on this continent'' said, ``(T)here is 
     hardly any other place where drilling would have less impact 
     on the surrounding life . . . 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.''
       In 1988, a New York times editorial said of this area, 
     ``(T)he potential is enormous and the environmental risks are 
     modest . . . the likely value of the oil far exceeds 
     plausible estimates of the environmental cost.'' It concluded 
     ``(I)t is hard to see why absolutely pristine preservation of 
     this remote wilderness should take precedence over the 
     nation's energy needs.''
       Since then our energy needs have become more pressing, but 
     with new editorial-page editors, both of these papers are now 
     singing a different tune about the ANWR. At the Times, 
     editorial-page editor Howell Raines, has dumbed-down the 
     paper's editorial and op-ed pages. A good example is an 
     editorial on drilling for oil in the ANWR published last 
     March. It said, ``This page has addressed the folly of 
     trespassing on a wondrous wildlife preserve for what, by 
     official estimates, is likely to be a modest amount of 
     economically recoverable oil.'' What the Post had described 
     as ``one of the bleakest, most remote places on this 
     continent,'' had been transformed in 14 years to ``a wondrous 
     wildlife preserve.'' Having worked that miracle, Raines has 
     been designated as the next executive editor of the paper.
       Fred Hiatt, who succeeded Meg Greenfield as editorial-page 
     editor of the Washington Post, effected a similar 
     transformation. Now a Post editorial describes that formerly 
     remote, bleak wasteland as ``a unique ecological resource'' 
     and says that exploiting it ``for more oil to feed more of 
     the same old profligate habits would be to take the wrong 
     step first.'' The Post accused the Alaska senators who 
     advocate drilling for oil in the ANWR of ``demagoguery.''
       Sen. Frank Murkowski sent a letter to the Post in which he 
     pointed out that Alaska has 125 million acres of national 
     parks, preserves and wildlife refuges, of which 19 million 
     acres are in the ANWR. Congress set aside 1.5 million ANWR 
     acres for possible oil and gas exploration. The Bush proposal 
     is to permit drilling on about 2,000 acres, about one-
     hundredth of 1 percent of the entire refuge. Sen. Murkowski 
     concluded, ``I suggest the demagoguery comes when you follow 
     the extreme environmentalist line: 19 million acres for 
     wildlife and pristine conditions and not even 2,000 acres for 
     energy security.'' Energy security is not a minor 
     consideration. The U.S. imported 37 percent of its oil in the 
     1970s and 57 percent today. It is said that ANWR could supply 
     only enough oil to meet our needs for six months. That might 
     be true if ANWR were our only source of oil. The U.S. 
     Geological Survey estimates that there is enough oil there to 
     replace our imports from Saudi Arabia for the next 20 to 30 
     years. Only a very shady environmentalist would shun that.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. My next effort after the recess will be to come back 
and discuss the energy situation. It is not a matter of pointing 
fingers. When we come back, I will say why we are focusing in on oil 
exploration as well. I am going to try to answer the question why is it 
safer and better to import our oil rather than drilling right here in 
America by providing the facts. We need to know what we have in America 
first.
  I am going to talk about how the experts estimate ANWR might only 
contain a 6-month supply of oil, which is absolutely ridiculous because 
that would be true only if we produced no oil nor imported any into the 
United States for 6 months. ANWR has the potential of equaling what we 
are currently importing from Saudi Arabia for a 30-year period of time.
  We are going to answer the question of whether we should focus more 
on conservation. I am going to answer that by saying we need a balance.
  I am going to answer the question of why it takes energy so long to 
turn it around once the shortage begins to become noticed.
  I am going to talk about why we must act now because we are going to 
be held responsible if, indeed, we do not act now.
  Madam President, I thank the President pro tempore for his attention. 
I remind my colleague we have some heavy lifting to do because the 
American people are looking for action.
  We started in 1992. I was on the committee. Senator Bennett Johnston 
was chairman of that committee. We put out an energy bill from that 
committee. When it came to this floor, we gave away clean coal; we gave 
away nuclear; we gave away hydro; we gave away natural gas; we gave 
away oil; and we concentrated on alternatives and renewables. We 
expended $6 billion. That was a worthwhile effort. But we didn't 
increase supply.
  This is a different year. The ``perfect storm'' has come together. 
Our natural gas prices have quadrupled. We haven't built a new coal-
fired plant in this Nation since 1995. We haven't done anything with 
nuclear energy in a quarter of a century. We haven't built a new 
refinery in 25 years. Now we suddenly find that we don't have a 
distribution system for our electrical generation or our natural gas 
generation. We are constrained. It is affecting the economy. It is 
affecting jobs. It is going to get worse. The American people expect us 
to come back and do something about it. They will not stand for 
grandstanding. They will not stand for the status quo. They will not 
stand for the threat of filibusters.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what is the time limit for Senators to 
speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak using 
whatever time is necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________