[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22105-22106]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            DEVELOPING ANWR

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I listened carefully to my colleague 
from Illinois. I think what we are going to see next week is almost 
class warfare on the issue of the stimulus.
  What is a stimulus? Stimulus is what really stimulates the economy. I 
think as we look at the difference in the positions of both parties, we 
come to the conclusion that for those who happen to have the 
circumstances that allow them to have accumulated capital, it is in our 
interests to encourage them to invest in inventories, expenditures, and 
so forth, so this economy can move. It doesn't move necessarily simply 
by government spending. These should be determined to be true stimulus 
matters.
  I would like to reflect, as a member of the Finance Committee, on how 
we got into this situation relative to putting a bill together, under 
the Finance Committee leadership of the two leaders, Senator Baucus and 
Senator Grassley, who had worked together extraordinarily well on the 
tax package. It was a bipartisan package, so unlike what came out of 
the Finance Committee yesterday. It seemed as if the Republican 
participation in the process had been virtually eliminated by the 
Democratic majority and the Democratic majority leader. In the manner 
in which he dictated the terms and conditions, there would be virtually 
no input from the Republicans in that package.
  As a consequence, I do admire the chairman, Senator Baucus, for 
insisting that the process at least go through the committee because, 
unlike what happened in the Energy Committee where the Democratic 
leader simply pulled the energy bill and there was no committee 
process; there was no input from the authorization committee, so the 
committee basically shut down, and the Democratic leader took it upon 
himself to work up an energy bill that we have yet to see. What we are 
seeing here is an extraordinary dictate of power from the Democratic 
leader who says: We are going to do it my way. We are not going to go 
through the process associated with the authorizing committees.
  As a consequence, what happened yesterday in the Finance Committee 
was a partisan vote. We are going to start in with that package on 
Tuesday. If we are going to get anywhere, we are going to start in 
accommodating each other's points of view, working towards a bipartisan 
solution. Clearly, this country, and the President, wants to have this 
issue resolved. It should be resolved. But it has to be a true 
stimulus.
  What I am doing is drawing a little bit of a parallel to the power 
politics of what is occurring here. We saw initially on the energy 
bill, as I have indicated, where the authorizing committee's 
jurisdiction was basically eliminated and the chairman of the committee 
saw fit to simply leave the obligation up to the Democratic leadership. 
That almost occurred in the Finance Committee but not quite.
  As we look at the stimulus, I want to reflect one more time on what 
true stimulus is. True stimulus is the creation of jobs, the creation 
of jobs by urging the private sector to invest, initiate action. There 
is one issue before this body, and it is either going to be on the 
stimulus bill or perhaps we can make an arrangement with the Democratic 
leadership to take it up, debate it, vote up or down, and address the 
issues as they should be--and that is the issue of an energy bill.
  One of the issues in that bill is the contentious issue of ANWR. 
Should it be opened? Should it not? We have seen the position of our 
President on numerous occasions who says it is an integral part of the 
Nation's energy policy to reduce our dependence on imported oil. The 
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans, 
the Catholic War Veterans, what do they say? I could go on and on. They 
have implored the Democratic leader to put this on the calendar, to 
take it up, vote on it. Their particular view of this issue is they 
don't believe we should send any more men and women to fight a war on 
foreign shores.
  I am reminded of the comments of a former Member, Mark Hatfield, who 
was a pacifist. He said: I would vote for opening ANWR any day rather 
than send another man or woman to fight a war on foreign shores over 
oil.
  I think that says a lot for American veterans. Make no mistake about 
it; we fought a war over oil in the Persian Gulf. Today we are buying 
oil from our enemy, whom we basically conquered in that war, Saddam 
Hussein. We are importing over a million barrels a day. Yet at the same 
time we are enforcing a no-fly zone over that country. We are putting 
at stake the lives of American men and women. As we take the oil from 
Iraq, put it in our planes, and enforce the no-fly zone, we bomb him. 
The consequence of that is he takes our money, develops a missile 
capability, maybe a biological capability, and aims it at our ally, 
Israel. Maybe that is an oversimplification of foreign policy, but it 
is not too far off.
  Organized labor is totally aboard. For the International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters, maritime unions, seafarers unions, operating engineers, 
plumbers, pipefitters, carpenters and joiners, this is a jobs issue. 
Where can you find a stimulus that will generate roughly 250,000 jobs--
these are U.S. jobs, these are union jobs in this country--other

[[Page 22106]]

than this particular issue of opening up that sliver of ANWR?
  The interesting thing is we are creating jobs. We are also generating 
revenue to the Federal Government because those lease sales are 
estimated to generate about $3.6 billion from the private sector.
  What we have here is an opportunity, an extraordinary opportunity to 
recognize the realities associated with what this stimulus would do to 
the economy. There is not one other thing any Member can identify that 
will not cost the taxpayer one red cent and that will employ more 
people in this country, generate more jobs.
  From where do these jobs come? We will have to build another 19 or 20 
U.S.- flagged vessels, tankers, to move the oil because we have to move 
it in a U.S.-flagged vessel. They are going to be built in U.S. yards 
with U.S. workers. We don't make steel or pipes or valves in Alaska. 
They are built all over the United States. This is real stimulus.
  The Hispanic community, the Latin-American Management Association and 
Latino coalition, the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, all 
support this. We even have the seniors organizations and of course the 
American businesses, manufacturers, and so forth.
  What is this all about? This is an issue that America's extreme 
environmental community has latched onto over a period of time, 
generated a lot of revenues and a lot of membership, and they are going 
to hang onto this issue because they recognize the value of it.
  Some Members, obviously, are looking to the political support from 
these issues. I think we have to stand up for what is right for 
America.
  We see a remark made by a spokesman for the Democratic leader:

       Everyone knows we will not get a drop of oil out of Alaska 
     for a decade, and it won't last more than a few days.

  That is a statement made by a person who obviously has no knowledge 
of reality. The reality is, if it ranges between the estimates of 5.6 
billion and 16 billion barrels, it would be as much as we import 
currently from Saudi Arabia over 30 years and as much as we are now 
importing from Iraq for 50 years. That is reality.
  How can we frame this in any sense?
  Let's look at Prudhoe Bay. Everybody is somewhat familiar with that. 
That came on line 27 years ago. The arguments today against opening up 
ANWR are basically the same that existed 30 years ago when we were 
talking about opening Prudhoe Bay. We built an 800-mile pipeline along 
the length of Alaska. Is it going to be a fence? Are the animals going 
to be able to cross it? Is it a hot pipeline over permafrost. Will it 
melt? Will it withstand earthquakes? It is one of the construction 
wonders of the world.
  Prudhoe Bay was supposed to provide 10 billion barrels. It has now 
produced 13 billion barrels. It is still producing 17 percent of the 
total crude oil produced in this country today. Those are the 
realities.
  I am very disappointed that some people who have never been up there 
speak with such eloquence and knowledge. They do not know what our 
Native people want. Our Native people want a lifestyle that provides 
better job opportunities and better health care. The people in my State 
of Alaska within that 1,002 area of ANWR own 59,000 acres. It is their 
own private land. They can't even get access to drill for gas on their 
own land. This is an injustice.
  There is a rather interesting dichotomy here because we are all 
concerned about public opinion. The New York Times, in 1987, 1988, and 
1989, supported opening this area. I will read a little bit from the 
New York Times, April 23. It says:

       The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has the most promising 
     untapped source of oil.

  It further states:

       This area could be opened up safely, and we could avoid any 
     disaster associated with the dangers.

  Further, in 1988, they say:

       The potential is enormous. The environmental risks are 
     modest.

  In March of 1989, they say:

       Alaska's oil is too valuable to leave in the ground.

  That is where they were then. Of course, they are in a different 
position now. They say now that we shouldn't open it.
  The Washington Post, April 23, 1987:

       Preservation of wilderness in Alaska is important. Much of 
     Alaska is already protected under the strictest of 
     preservation. That part of the Arctic coast is one of the 
     bleakest, most remote places on this continent. There is 
     hardly any other place where drilling would have less impact 
     on the surrounding wildlife.
  In April 1989, they said:

       If less is produced here at home, more will have to come 
     from other countries. The effect will be to move oil spills 
     to other shores. As a policy to protect the global 
     environment, that is not very helpful. The lessons of 
     conventional wisdom seem to be drawn . . . that this country 
     should produce less and turn to greater imports is exactly 
     wrong.

  How quickly we change with no explanation. It is just the influence 
of America's environmental community on these newspapers. But that is a 
turnaround.
  My colleague this morning entered an excerpt from the Washington Post 
by Charles Krauthammer entitled ``War and the Polar Bear.'' It is very 
interesting. I advise all people to read it.
  But I will again reflect on reality. Thirty years ago in this Chamber 
we were arguing the issue of opening Prudhoe Bay. It passed by one 
vote. The Vice President broke the tie.
  The same issues prevail today. Now, in a time of war, when do we face 
up to reality and address the opportunities to open this area and 
reduce our dependence on imported oil and stimulate our economy? It is 
not a few days' supply. It is the largest potential oil field that we 
could possibly find in North America. It can flow within 18 months of 
opening as a consequence of the process simply of moving the 
permitting. We all know this.
  Let's get on with the stimulus at hand and recognize the greatest 
single stimulus that we can identify. That is simply opening up ANWR.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I have come to the 
floor to speak this morning about the various ideas proposed to help 
our economy recover from the recession that we are in currently.
  I say to my friend and colleague from Alaska that he will not be 
surprised that I respectfully disagree with most of what he just said 
about drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But I 
have the feeling that either next week or sometime soon we will have 
the opportunity to debate these matters at length. I look forward to a 
good, constructive debate.

                          ____________________