[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19145-19147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                  ANWR

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we have spoken several times today about 
energy policy. I will spend a few more minutes talking about something 
that has created a lot of confusion and controversy and in some 
respects bad feelings; that is, what we should do about ANWR.
  The majority leader has indicated the volume of the business to be 
completed by the Senate is heavy. The subject of national energy policy 
is important. But we also acknowledge the jurisdiction of national 
energy policy cuts across several committees, all of which have a hand 
in charting the future of that policy. Of course, that is one of the 
main reasons Senator Daschle yesterday indicated we need to do an 
energy bill. If we are going to do it sometime in the next few months, 
it has to be done by bringing it to the floor directly. When it comes, 
it will occupy much of the Senate time.
  I hope, however, we will not devote the Senate's precious time to a 
debate on drilling in ANWR. That debate, if we choose to have it, will 
be divisive, as it has been. Many do not believe you can drill in ANWR, 
and if you do so, it fundamentally changes the character of this 
national treasure, this pristine wilderness. We also believe whatever 
the size of the footprint of ANWR, it opens the possibility of a 
larger, more destructive footprint in the form of an oil spill. It is 
tough, very difficult to prevent accidents. It is very difficult and 
tougher still to prevent those who may be out to cause problems in the 
wilderness. It is not a speculative threat.
  At the Trans-Alaskan pipeline last week, as most of my colleagues are 
aware, a lone rifleman shot some holes through the pipeline. This 
appears not to have been an act of terror but an act of one person out 
to do some damage to a critical part of the Nation's infrastructure. 
This action, where holes were shot in the pipeline, rupturing an 800-
mile-long pipeline which spans from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, gushed oil 
from 2:30 in the afternoon to 3 a.m. the following Saturday morning. 
That is 36 hours. They thought something was wrong but couldn't find 
where the leak was.
  It took 36 hours to locate, plug the hole, and stop the rush of oil. 
I referred earlier to 250,000 gallons, but it was actually 285,000 
gallons of crude oil spewed over many acres surrounding this pipeline. 
The cleanup crews have worked hard to capture about 88,000 gallons of 
that crude oil, leaving 200,000 gallons over that pristine area.
  When you go to the gas station--and most of us have to pump our own 
gasoline because they are almost all self-service stations--if you fill 
that tank a little bit too full, the gas runs all over the pavement. 
When I was a younger man, I worked for Standard Oil and later Chevron. 
I pumped gas. One of our jobs was to put as much gas as you could in a 
car, but if it spilled out, just a little, it ran all over, and it was 
embarrassing. People thought you wasted 25 cents' worth of gas when it 
was probably half a penny or a penny's worth. Think what 250,000 
gallons of crude oil would do to any environment.
  It is unclear how we will clean this up. The Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Alaska Department of Environmental Protection estimate 
they may leave the oil-soaked land in place and try to treat the land. 
Others say maybe they have to remove all this oil-soaked brush and 
trees and even treat the soil. So it is not clear how they are going to 
clean it up, but it is clear it is terribly difficult to prevent lone 
acts of ignorance, terrorism, and simply accidents involving our energy 
infrastructure. I think we would all be well advised to not have 
another 800-mile pipeline.
  Madam President, I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a number of editorials. I just picked up a few here. We were on 
the Defense authorization bill when various Senators on the other side 
held up this legislation because they wanted the energy bill on it. 
These editorials from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Los Angeles Times, New 
York Times, Charlotte Observer, Chicago Tribune, and the Charleston 
Gazette --just to pick a few newspapers--the last one is the 
Albuquerque Journal--say this is wrong; you cannot tie energy policy to 
things that have no bearing, no relation to it.
  I hope, as important as energy policy is, that we move forward at the 
right time and the majority leader understands the importance of it. We 
are going to do that. But we recognize the divisive nature of ANWR.
  I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Philadelphia Enquire, Oct. 1, 2001]

                             Back to Normal


             energy issues signal a return to partisanship

       Brief though it was, the hiatus from political hijinks has 
     begun to wane in Washington.
       Under the guise of national security, some elected 
     officials have started to slip pet projects into unrelated 
     legislation, grinding progress to a halt.
       Last week, the worst offender, Sen. James Inhofe (R., 
     Okla.), stalled an urgent $345 billion defense authorization 
     bill by hitching it to the notion of drilling in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
       Talk about poisoning a bipartisan well. Few issues are more 
     divisive.
       One amendment to the defense bill contains the entire House 
     energy bill, which was passed in July. Rather than debate it 
     on its merits, Sen. Inhofe suggested the Senate rubber-stamp 
     it as an after thought to needed defense appropriation.
       This is no way to do business--even in wartime.
       The energy bill has been shelved all summer, waiting behind 
     faith-based initiatives, campaign-finance reform and a 
     patients' bill of rights. As U.S. policy-makers rightly focus 
     on the Sept. 11 attacks, energy probably should move up on 
     the domestic agenda.
       But realize that, since the attacks, gas supply and prices 
     have been stable. The organization of Petroleum Exporting 
     Countries agree Thursday to maintain its current production 
     level, despite a precipitous drop in the price of crude oil. 
     Unlike last fall, the supply of winter heating fuel is 
     stable, with lower prices expected.
       A growing consensus among energy analysts, government 
     officials and economists predicts that the Sept. 11 attacks 
     will have no short-term impact on energy supply. Even if the 
     immediate supply were threatened, drilling in the Arctic 
     refuge isn't the answer. No oil would flow for 10 years--the 
     time needed to construct oil fields and a delivery route.
       And even if the most optimistic estimates were correct. 
     Arctic refuge oil would reduce imports only a few percentage 
     points. Nearly half of U.S. demand would still be met by 
     foreign oil. The country will remain vulnerable to the world 
     market as long as demand for fossil fuels keeps rising.
       The United States needs an energy overhaul, not just more 
     oil. The long-term supply-and-demand problems outlined by 
     Vice President Cheney's energy team last spring haven't 
     changed. Remedies must include new technologies and 
     conservation, as well as improvements in conventional fuels.
       An energy program it too important to be passed as a 
     tangential political maneuver. The Senate should reject these 
     amendments.
                                  ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 28, 2001]

                      Arctic Drilling Is Still Bad

       The United States needs to take decisive steps to improve 
     its security against terrorism but should be wary of attempts 
     to use the crisis to stampede Congress into bad policy 
     decisions. In one such attempt some lawmakers are trying to 
     rush through legislation to open the Alaska National Wildlife 
     Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration and drilling.
       ``We can't wait another day,'' House Republican Whip Tom 
     DeLay of Texas raged at a press conference.'' This country 
     needs energy produced by Americans in America for America,'' 
     declared Rep. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin

[[Page 19146]]

     (R-La.). Hold on. Drilling in the Arctic refuge was a bad 
     idea before Sept. 11 and is just as bad today. Rushing the 
     energy bill through the Senate wouldn't make the ANWR 
     provision better.
       The facts are unchanged. The refuge is estimated to contain 
     3.2 billion barrels of oil that can be pumped without 
     economic loss, enough to supply the nation for about six 
     months. It would take roughly 10 years for these supplies to 
     reach gasoline pumps. We could save five times as much oil by 
     raising the fuel efficiency standard of new autos by three 
     miles per gallon. There may be just as much oil in other 
     parts of Alaska, including the 23-million-acre National 
     Petroleum Reserve, now open to the oil companies. Domestic 
     production can and should expand where it is economically 
     feasible and does not threaten special areas.
       The wildlife refuge, on the north slope of Alaska between 
     the Brooks Range and the Arctic Ocean, is the home of the 
     129,000-head Porcupine caribou herd, which migrates more than 
     400 miles to the coastal plain to calve. The refuge also has 
     polar and grizzly bears, Dall sheep, musk oxen, wolves, foxes 
     and myriad bird species.
       Once the first drill pierces the tundra, the refuge will be 
     changed forever, despite the denials of drilling proponents. 
     Would we harness Old Faithful for its geothermal energy? Put 
     a hydroelectric plant at Yosemite Falls? You could not 
     measure the potential cost to the environment in Yellowstone 
     or Yosemite, nor can you in the Arctic.
                                  ____


             [From the Charlotte Observer, Sept. 28, 2001]

                          Hard Times, Bad Laws

       Congress shouldn't be stampeded by terrorist attacks. Don't 
     get the idea that politics has been suspended while 
     Washington focuses on terrorism. In fact, supporters of some 
     politically controversial proposals are reshaping them to 
     make it appear they're necessary to help win the struggle 
     against terrorism.
       Take the Bush Administration's proposal to drill for oil in 
     the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for instance. Some 
     proponents of drilling say Congress should move quickly to 
     allow to it in order to lessen U.S. dependence on oil from 
     the politically unstable Middle East.
       Baloney. Drilling in Alaska wouldn't make a dime's worth of 
     difference in U.S. dependence on imported oil. At present the 
     United States produces less than half the petroleum it 
     consumes. Economist Paul Krugman, writing in the New York 
     Times, notes that drilling in the wildlife refuge, at its 
     peak, would supply only about 5 percent of our consumption. 
     Even with drilling there going full steam, we'd still depend 
     on imports for 45 percent of our needs.
       The quest for a cut in the capital gains tax is irrelevant 
     to the present crisis. Some Republican backers of a rate cut 
     say it's necessary to pump money into the economy to pull the 
     nation out of a recession.
       More baloney. The way to jumpstart the economy is to put 
     money in the hands of people who are likely to spend it 
     quickly. Simply rebating the federal payroll taxes would do 
     that quicker and better than tinkering with the capital gains 
     tax. And a one-time rebate would be in keeping with Federal 
     Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's caution against making 
     long-term changes to deal with short-term problems. ``It's 
     better to be smart than quick,'' he said. While Mr. Greenspan 
     favors reducing or eliminating the capital gains tax over 
     time, he does not favor doing it now.
       The disaster of Sept. 11 didn't change the arguments for 
     and against drilling in the wildlife refuge or cutting the 
     capital gains tax. Politicians who suggest otherwise are 
     attempting to use the terrorist attack to advance an 
     unrelated political agenda. Congress rightly feels a need to 
     do something, but it shouldn't be stampeded into doing 
     something wrong.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Oct. 2, 2001]

                    Strong-Arm Tactics in the Senate

       Members of Congress have largely resisted the temptation to 
     exploit this moment of national crisis to promote pet causes. 
     One exception is a small group of senators and House members, 
     led by Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, who 
     favor opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil 
     drilling. Last week Mr. Inhofe threatened to take the energy 
     bill passed earlier this year by the House and add it as an 
     amendment to the high-priority Defense Department 
     authorization bill. The energy bill includes a provision 
     opening the refuge to drilling.
       Tom Daschle, the majority leader, has scheduled a cloture 
     vote for this morning. If successful, the vote would make it 
     impossible to attach non-germane amendments like Mr. Inhofe's 
     to the bill. Senators who care about sound legislative 
     procedure--not to mention a rational approach to the 
     country's energy problems--will vote for cloture.
       Drilling in the Arctic is a contentious issue on which the 
     Senate is closely divided. Railroading the idea through 
     without proper hearings defies elementary standards of 
     fairness. There is also no evidence that drilling in the 
     refuge will significantly reduce America's dependence on 
     foreign oil. The House bill that includes the drilling 
     provision is itself an ill-conceived mishmash of tax breaks 
     that would do a lot for the oil, gas and coal industries 
     without putting the country's long-term energy strategy on a 
     sound footing.
       Reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of energy 
     is a complicated business, and there are many experts who 
     believe that the surest road to energy security is to improve 
     the efficiency of our cars, homes, factories and offices, and 
     to invest heavily in non-traditional sources of fuel. Before 
     the terrorist attack, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
     Committee had begun extensive hearings aimed at producing an 
     energy bill that would balance exploration and conservation. 
     This measured process should now be allowed to resume, free 
     of pressure from partisan maneuvering.
                                  ____


                [From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 2, 2001]

                   The Greasy Politics of Alaska Oil

       In a display of unity and statesmanship seldom seen in 
     Washington, most politicians have put aside partisanship and 
     personal squabbles to concentrate on helping a traumatized 
     nation recover from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
       Then there's Sen. Frank Murkowski, a Republican from 
     Alaska.
       Last Wednesday, he threatened to bring all Senate business 
     to a halt unless there was a vote on the Bush 
     administration's energy bill, which contains a provision to 
     open Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling--a pet 
     project of his and a few others in the Senate.
       ``If I have to hold up normal legislative business, I will 
     do that,'' he said.
       Way to go, senator: Your sense of national priorities is 
     about as keen as your timing. What better moment to push your 
     agenda than now, when your colleagues and the nation are 
     still mourning the dead and pondering how to prevent another 
     terrorist attack?
       Though drilling was approved by the House earlier this 
     summer by a comfortable margin, it faces much tougher going 
     in the Senate. Indeed it's a short-sighted proposal that 
     would damage one of the few pristine wilderness areas left in 
     the country. It ought to be defeated; the terrorist attacks 
     don't change that.
       Yet, Murkowski and a few others--Sens. James Inhofe (R-OK) 
     and Larry Craig (R-ID)--are using the national crisis to 
     grease the drilling proposal through the Senate with a 
     minimum of debate.
       Murkowski's office says the oil could start gurgling 
     through the pipelines as soon as a year from now--if only the 
     Senate would pass legislation to dispense with lawsuits, 
     environmental studies and other inconveniences.
       In other words, forget the details and let'er rip.
       Any responsible plan to drill in Alaska will take anywhere 
     between 7 and 10 years of study, planning, engineering and 
     construction. At that, the oil from there would have just a 
     small impact on the amount of oil the nation needs to import. 
     In the short or the long term, drilling in the refuge has 
     little to do with the terrorist challenges the country faces.
       What an astonishingly crass move, to manipulate the Sept. 
     11 tragedy to get the energy bill approved. Threatening to 
     shut down the Senate smacks of gross political opportunism.
                                  ____


              [From the Charleston Gazette, Oct. 1, 2001]

                                 Energy


                           DON'T USE TRAGEDY

       Some energy industry executives would use Sept. 11 to 
     further their own greedy agendas. Sadly, some in Congress are 
     willing to help them use this national tragedy to add 
     billions of dollars to their bottom lines.
       Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., is attempting to amend the 
     controversial House energy bill into the unrelated defense 
     appropriations bill. That energy bill includes billions of 
     dollars in subsidies to oil, gas and coal interests, and it 
     would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration 
     and drilling.
       Coincidentally, Inhofe is Congress' top recipient of 
     campaign money from the oil and gas industry. He's already 
     received $56,200 this year from drillers, according to the 
     Center for Responsive Politics--nearly $20,000 more than he 
     received in the entire 1999-2000 election cycle.
       Inhofe says this is a natural time to talk about the 
     security implications of the nation's dependence on foreign 
     oil. Fine. What does that have to do with giving billions of 
     dollars to polluting industries? What does that have to do 
     with despoiling the nation's last pristine ecosystem?
       If the United States wants to lessen its dependence on 
     foreign oil, there are better ways. Congress could finally 
     raise the gas mileage standards for cars, and apply passenger 
     car standards to minivans and SUVs.
       Congress could encourage alternative energy sources that 
     cause less environmental damage.
       This debate was poised to happen before the Sept. 11 
     attack. But energy industry lackeys like Inhofe want to use 
     that tragedy to sidestep Senate debate and get what they 
     want.
       This shameful attempt to use the deaths of thousands of 
     Americans is grotesque. West

[[Page 19147]]

     Virginia senators Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller should 
     show their respect for the dead, and for what the United 
     States has been put through, by voting against this callous 
     amendment.
                                  ____


              [From the Albuquerque Journal, Oct. 1, 2001]

                 Political Maneuver Blocks Defense Bill

       So, is this a time of national unity, in which divisive 
     policy issues are to be set aside while we deal with the 
     emergency at hand? Or, is the rush to pass the enabling 
     legislation to clear our military for action just another 
     golden opportunity to steamroll unrelated partisan issues 
     over the opposition?
       For some Republicans, it is the latter.
       Sen. James Inhofe R-Okla, has refused to withdraw his 
     amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would tack 
     on energy legislation passed by the House and a Senate energy 
     bill sponsored by Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska. Both would 
     open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.
       Fast-track solving of legislative problems by tacking 
     amendments onto unrelated bills is a congressional practice 
     in normal times, if a bit short on legislative honesty.
       But, these are not normal times. The maneuver makes a 
     mockery of the touted bipartisanship to deal with the 
     situation left in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
       There have been bipartisan calls for quick action on the 
     $345 billion defense bill.
       ``Our troops are counting on it; the Pentagon needs it,'' 
     said Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D. ``I can't 
     think of a more urgent piece of legislation than this right 
     now under these circumstances.''
       Sen. Inhofe, however, sees the urgency only as a rare 
     opportunity for a a bit of political war profiteering--if he 
     can get a majority in the Senate to go along.
       The question of drilling in ANWR is a contentious issue 
     Congress will have to deal with at some point. But, blocking 
     an essential defense bill in an effort to slip it past 
     without debate on its merits is a reprehensible tactic in 
     these troubled times.
       To his disgrace, Inhofe has already blocked action on the 
     defense bill until next week. Senate colleagues should reject 
     his maneuver and get back to unity of purpose in addressing 
     the urgent task at hand.
       Time enough to pick up on the contentious and important 
     ANWR debate on its own merits after Congress has done all it 
     can to provide for the anti-terrorism effort ahead.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________